Teacher of 12years fired after announcing gay wedding plans.

[Crossroads Inc.]

From ABC News

A gay teacher at a Pennsylvania Catholic school said he was fired after he applied for a marriage license to wed his long-time partner.

Michael Griffin worked at the Holy Ghost Preparatory School for 12 years teaching French and Italian. He said that although administrators, including the principal, knew he was gay, he never had any major conflict with the Catholic administrators until Friday.

Griffin said he was fired on Friday after he had emailed administrators to tell them he was going to file for a marriage license and would be slightly late to work.

Griffin said the school administrators told him that the email sent on the school email server made his relationship public and therefore they had to fire him if he decided to go through with the marriage.

"He said… 'if you go through with that I have no other choice but to fire you,'" Griffin said of the ultimatum issued by Holy Ghost Preparatory School President Father James McCloskey. "I was in shock, I had no forewarning."

Griffin said McCloskey and other school administrators knew he was gay, but had never brought it up prior. Griffin and his partner had a civil union five years prior and he wears a wedding ring in school.

In a statement sent to ABC News from McCloskey and Holy Ghost Preparatory School, the school president said Griffin was fired for violating the terms of his contract by deciding to marry a partner of the same sex.

"Unfortunately, this decision contradicts the terms of his teaching contract at our school, which requires all faculty and staff to follow the teachings of the Church as a condition of their employment," McCloskey said in the statement. "In discussion with Mr. Griffin, he acknowledged that he was aware of this provision, yet he said that he intended to go ahead with the ceremony. Regretfully, we informed Mr. Griffin that we have no choice but to terminate his contract effective immediately."

Griffin said he has not decided whether he will discuss his termination with a lawyer, but was incredibly saddened by the administrators' actions.

Griffin, who also attended Holy Ghost Preparatory School and was raised Catholic, said he loved teaching at the school. Griffin said he has only heard positive messages from faculty and students.

"There's so much in it that I agree with," Griffin said. "We talk about brotherhood with all of these people. ... I feel like my parents disowned me but my brothers still stand by me."

So we have a teacher, raised Catholic, WANTS to teach here. He is basically "Out" everyone knows he is gay. He comes to work with a WEDDING RING, and has had a civil union with his partner for the past five years.
But announcing a Gay 'Marriage' ? WELL That is evidently one step to far!

Now I know a gay person working at a Religious school is tempting fate.
And if he had been in the closet about everything, I could understand such a drastic reaction to his wedding announcement.
But the faculty KNEW he was gay, his students KNEW he was gay, the whole school KNEW he was gay.

As always the comments on the article are both sad and hysterical

[Mr. Coffee]

And just as soon as Pope Francis does something to raise my opinion of the Catholic church another priest comes along and immediately lowers it. Starting to notice a cycle here.

[Broomstick]

Hmm... it would be nice if Pope Francis told some people to stop being such judgmental pricks. Clearly, we're talking about a secular marriage here and not a church-sanctified one.

Won't hold my breath, though.

[Scrib]

So we have a teacher, raised Catholic, WANTS to teach here. He is basically "Out" everyone knows he is gay. He comes to work with a WEDDING RING, and has had a civil union with his partner for the past five years.
But announcing a Gay 'Marriage' ? WELL That is evidently one step to far!

Now I know a gay person working at a Religious school is tempting fate.
And if he had been in the closet about everything, I could understand such a drastic reaction to his wedding announcement.
But the faculty KNEW he was gay, his students KNEW he was gay, the whole school KNEW he was gay.

As always the comments on the article are both sad and hysterical

Probably should have been fired the minute they found out that he was unrepentantly gay, if the law allows of course. The only justification I can see for waiting is that marriage legitimises something that they are against, unlike just "sinning" which many people do in many ways.Of course,it's also a legitimization of the attack on "traditional marriage' and well, we can't have that. Before that I guess they were on some DADT shit.

And to be clear, I don't want him to lose his job, I would just like some consistency.

Hmm... it would be nice if Pope Francis told some people to stop being such judgmental pricks. Clearly, we're talking about a secular marriage here and not a church-sanctified one.

Won't hold my breath, though.

Pretty sure that one of the points of religion is to be a judgemental prick? Pope Francis may be executing an organized retreat from a battle he feels he cannot win but I can see why some people don't just take his word here. Until religion ends up at the same level as Santa Claus, meaningless bullshit that has no consequences or judgements and whose sole purpose is to make people laugh, you're always going to run into the fact that you can't just talk about some all loving god to justify your liberal stance and convince people who are worried about the other guy, the-burn-you-for-buttsex guy. Quite frankly, judgemental prickishness and fundamentalism seem much easier to justify under this paradigm.

[Themightytom]

Hmm... it would be nice if Pope Francis told some people to stop being such judgmental pricks. Clearly, we're talking about a secular marriage here and not a church-sanctified one.

Won't hold my breath, though.

He kind of DOES tell them that but he's got a lot of inertia to reverse. He is approaching the whole gay marriage angle from a very interesting direction, the role of the woman in the church. I think he's pretty savvy to recognize that much of the resistance to homosexuality is tied to gender equality.
http://world.time.com/2013/09/19/pope-f ... for-women/

[Scrib]

Hmm... it would be nice if Pope Francis told some people to stop being such judgmental pricks. Clearly, we're talking about a secular marriage here and not a church-sanctified one.

Won't hold my breath, though.

He kind of DOES tell them that but he's got a lot of inertia to reverse. He is approaching the whole gay marriage angle from a very interesting direction, the role of the woman in the church. I think he's pretty savvy to recognize that much of the resistance to homosexuality is tied to gender equality.
http://world.time.com/2013/09/19/pope-f ... for-women/

Doesn't really help that his position seems to be "the church is clear on this but...it's not so good (politically) to talk about it all the time mmkay?" I mean, that was a whole lot of equivocation right there, right down to the classic act/person dichotomy. Is it any wonder that someone who feels that homosexuality is a sin punishable by eternal torture is not that moved by such statements? There's nothing strong there at all to refute the reasons that make people bigots. When he declares homosexual acts to be wholly acceptable (hah) he'll have a strong position, as it stands it's just feel-good bullshit for people who are already liberals.

[Themightytom]

Doesn't really help that his position seems to be "the church is clear on this but...it's not so good (politically) to talk about it all the time mmkay?" I mean, that was a whole lot of equivocation right there, right down to the classic act/person dichotomy. Is it any wonder that someone who feels that homosexuality is a sin punishable by eternal torture is not that moved by such statements? There's nothing strong there at all to refute the reasons that make people bigots. When he declares homosexual acts to be wholly acceptable (hah) he'll have a strong position, as it stands it's just feel-good bullshit for people who are already liberals.

Well it DOES help him to re-characterize what has been treated as a core belief as a secondary one, in a way that doesn't overtly alarm the fundamentalists in the flock. If he's trying to win a debate, sure take on a stronger position, but if you're trying to persuade the religious... you have to tread carefully. he can't exactly block them from his facebook feed, he's The Pope. he has to redirect a truly massive system of beliefs. I'm still amazed that he seems to be trying to at all the last pope all but burned me away from the Church.

[Scrib]

Doesn't really help that his position seems to be "the church is clear on this but...it's not so good (politically) to talk about it all the time mmkay?" I mean, that was a whole lot of equivocation right there, right down to the classic act/person dichotomy. Is it any wonder that someone who feels that homosexuality is a sin punishable by eternal torture is not that moved by such statements? There's nothing strong there at all to refute the reasons that make people bigots. When he declares homosexual acts to be wholly acceptable (hah) he'll have a strong position, as it stands it's just feel-good bullshit for people who are already liberals.

Well it DOES help him to re-characterize what has been treated as a core belief as a secondary one, in a way that doesn't overtly alarm the fundamentalists in the flock. If he's trying to win a debate, sure take on a stronger position, but if you're trying to persuade the religious... you have to tread carefully. he can't exactly block them from his facebook feed, he's The Pope. he has to redirect a truly massive system of beliefs. I'm still amazed that he seems to be trying to at all the last pope all but burned me away from the Church.

Yes, the Pope may be trying to be subtle.The issue is with someone upthread citing the Pope as if he's definitively ended the argument about being judgemental. He hasn't and he cannot -and to many people perhaps should not-and I'm just pointing out that that fact about his words. They're nice, and may allow liberal religious people to act as they want and more fundamentalist ones to relax, but he hasn't created a strong argument against what these people are doing. Like I said, for all his talk of forgiveness, there's the other guy. Unless I'm mistaken and Catholic doctrine doesn't acknowledge eternal punishment or homosexuality as a sin?

[Broomstick]

Pretty sure that one of the points of religion is to be a judgemental prick?

That is a feature of Abrahamic religions, and not even all of those (Judaism is supposed to regulate only Jews and not care what gentiles do). Plenty of other religions are more tolerant of other viewpoints/customs/religions than Christianity or Islam - not that that is really saying that much, it's a really low bar.

[Broomstick]

Doesn't really help that his position seems to be "the church is clear on this but...it's not so good (politically) to talk about it all the time mmkay?" I mean, that was a whole lot of equivocation right there, right down to the classic act/person dichotomy. Is it any wonder that someone who feels that homosexuality is a sin punishable by eternal torture is not that moved by such statements? There's nothing strong there at all to refute the reasons that make people bigots. When he declares homosexual acts to be wholly acceptable (hah) he'll have a strong position, as it stands it's just feel-good bullshit for people who are already liberals.

According many varieties of Christianity not being Christian is to be punished by eternal torture. ANY unrepented sin is to be punished by eternal torture, including but not limited to lying, cheating, swearing, any form of sex outside marriage, most birth control, divorce, and being disrespectful to your parents.

It is mankind - more specifically, men in the church - who somehow elevated homosexuality to something more sinister than the others when dogma says all sinners burn unless they repent.

[Scrib]

Pretty sure that one of the points of religion is to be a judgemental prick?

That is a feature of Abrahamic religions, and not even all of those (Judaism is supposed to regulate only Jews and not care what gentiles do). Plenty of other religions are more tolerant of other viewpoints/customs/religions than Christianity or Islam - not that that is really saying that much, it's a really low bar.

Convenient then that we're talking about an Abrahamic religion no?

According many varieties of Christianity not being Christian is to be punished by eternal torture. ANY unrepresented sin is to be punished by eternal torture, including but not limited to lying, cheating, swearing, any form of sex outside marriage, most birth control, divorce, and being disrespectful to your parents.

It is mankind - more specifically, men in the church - who somehow elevated homosexuality to something more sinister than the others when dogma says all sinners burn unless they repent.

Yeah, but I see no problem (if you assume that the bigots' starting principles are true) at all with fighting against a sin that is now being legitimised in the public eye. Sure, heterosexual sex has gone far, it might be out of the church's hands, but individual churches would condemn it. Same here,even if it's bloated into a huge political issue (which I'm not sure is the wrong move, if it's wrong then it should be fought no matter what).And perhaps not without good reason.

I suppose the problem is that one can claim that heterosexual sex is basically misused by sinners, it can be redeemed. The only way to make homosexual activities legitimate is to just abandon the claims of their basic sinful nature. You are going to be at odds with people who want to express such nature, and quite reasonably so, so you can't pull any of the traditional "sex within marriage is so much better" shit or any other trickes you mght have. Mind your own business is just not a feasible response.

It wouldn't do for any fundamentalist to give up on this point.

[Simon_Jester]

Pope Francis isn't saying that gay people don't need to confess their sin (of homosexuality) to a priest. I don't think there's any possibility that he'll say homosexuality isn't a sin. I honestly doubt he believes homosexuality to be non-sinful.

But what he is trying to do, or seems to be, is refocus the Church on the struggle to create a society that is recognizably ethical, which means putting less energy into social mores, and more energy into social outreach.

He may also be recognizing that the Church is in danger of losing further credibility in the next few generations in parts of the developed world, if it doesn't start working to regain the respect of people who are sick of its bedroom agenda.

[Scrib]

Pope Francis isn't saying that gay people don't need to confess their sin (of homosexuality) to a priest. I don't think there's any possibility that he'll say homosexuality isn't a sin. I honestly doubt he believes homosexuality to be non-sinful.

But what he is trying to do, or seems to be, is refocus the Church on the struggle to create a society that is recognizably ethical, which means putting less energy into social mores, and more energy into social outreach.

He may also be recognizing that the Church is in danger of losing further credibility in the next few generations in parts of the developed world, if it doesn't start working to regain the respect of people who are sick of its bedroom agenda.

I think the last paragraph is more important tbh, because social mores are, in a religious universe, as important as outreach (I assume you mean medical, psychological help here). Of course, it could just be a case of triage.

So he retreats, like all religious people faced with societies that are less inclined to put up with their bullshit, to the land of tolerance (equivocation) and understanding (surrender) and then it becomes their idea. And before you know it, all that homophobic shit (in this case,let's say preaching against it or other actions),that was being done by people who were No True Christians. Jesus wants us to love one another! (And conveniently stay out of each other's business even though secular/liberal notions of moral/sexual pluralism are incompatible with our vision of the afterlife!)

IDK, even as an atheist there is something extremely distasteful about this. From a rational point of view it is what I should want and it's not as if the religious laws were immutable before today but I can't help feeling what I feel. And I greatly resent that I am forced to sympathize with the fundamentalists here.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the last paragraph is more important tbh, because social mores are, in a religious universe, as important as outreach (I assume you mean medical, psychological help here). Of course, it could just be a case of triage.

Er, by outreach I mean things like working with poverty. Providing educational opportunities. Convincing the hosts of single mothers and so on in places like modern America that the Catholic Church actually has something useful to say to them, in hopes of converting people and maintaining a real presence.

IDK, even as an atheist there is something extremely distasteful about this. From a rational point of view it is what I should want and it's not as if the religious laws were immutable before today but I can't help feeling what I feel. And I greatly resent that I am forced to sympathize with the fundamentalists here.

I think that what we're seeing is the process of progress as seen by people who genuinely believe in a higher power. They can't just say "yes, we changed our mind about a divine revelation." They don't think that way. But they can say "I cannot understand why the churches of X years ago enabled racism and the oppression of women, that's so obviously unjust." Because it is obvious to them that this is an injustice, so they discard out of hand any interpretation of their own religion commanding them to do it.

Now, disowning the old oppressive ways is dishonest, but I still prefer the mindset I describe above to... well, a lot of things, really.

[Wicked Pilot]

Am I wrong for thinking it good when these things happen? I say let the bigotry go on display, show the kids what Catholicism is really about! And as far as Mr Griffen goes, did he not know he was gay when he applied for the job? He had to have known this would eventually become an issue.

[Scrib]

I think the last paragraph is more important tbh, because social mores are, in a religious universe, as important as outreach (I assume you mean medical, psychological help here). Of course, it could just be a case of triage.

Er, by outreach I mean things like working with poverty. Providing educational opportunities. Convincing the hosts of single mothers and so on in places like modern America that the Catholic Church actually has something useful to say to them, in hopes of converting people and maintaining a real presence.

Ah, my mistake.

IDK, even as an atheist there is something extremely distasteful about this. From a rational point of view it is what I should want and it's not as if the religious laws were immutable before today but I can't help feeling what I feel. And I greatly resent that I am forced to sympathize with the fundamentalists here.

I think that what we're seeing is the process of progress as seen by people who genuinely believe in a higher power. They can't just say "yes, we changed our mind about a divine revelation." They don't think that way. But they can say "I cannot understand why the churches of X years ago enabled racism and the oppression of women, that's so obviously unjust." Because it is obvious to them that this is an injustice, so they discard out of hand any interpretation of their own religion commanding them to do it.

Now, disowning the old oppressive ways is dishonest, but I still prefer the mindset I describe above to... well, a lot of things, really.

Hm, the self-serving nature of it is probably what gets to me.Having the cake and eating it. God made X immoral until X clashes with society's views and then God obviously wanted X to be moral! Funny how you can resolve cognitive dissonance by choosing your own ending/backstory/game mechanics, only to let the implications of this slip by you (this is the same problem that I have with people who convert to some other religion because they have a problem with one religion's moral stance on some issue) The smugness of these proclamations certainly do not help.

But yes, as much as I resent it,and as much as I resent atheists for exploiting this weakness, a group of secularized religious people is better than the alternative.
EDIT:

Am I wrong for thinking it good when these things happen? I say let the bigotry go on display, show the kids what Catholicism is really about! And as far as Mr Griffen goes, did he not know he was gay when he applied for the job? He had to have known this would eventually become an issue.

Now I'm wondering why this didn't come up sooner. Question: a morals clause would apply anyway if he was just gay right? People have been fired for premarital sex iirc. Maybe the school didn't want to go through a ton of litigation without concrete proof? There isn't an legal provision that would make firing him for being gay problematic in the US now is there?

[Broomstick]

Religious organizations are exempt from some of the anti-discrimination laws that apply to secular organizations. In other words, certain moral codes that would otherwise not be allowed can be incorporated into employment contracts for religious organizations, and I believe this applies to Catholic church owned and run schools. Also, it is not universal in the US that homosexuals are a "protected class", meaning that it is still legal to fire someone for being homosexual in much of the US.

[Irbis]

And just as soon as Pope Francis does something to raise my opinion of the Catholic church another priest comes along and immediately lowers it. Starting to notice a cycle here.

So, when a policeman hands you a speeding ticket do you start hating on PotUS too?

The only way for Pope to instantly change everything would be for him to be God Emperor of the Universe which last time I checked he is not.

Anyway, yet another example why religion-appeasing laws are nonsense, and another sad example of Stockholm syndrome at work, unless the article really isn't telling us whole story.

[Broomstick]

The article never tells the whole story.

I do think it is extremely hypocritical for the school to employ an openly gay man for 12 years then fire him for being gay, but my opinion doesn't count since I'm not Catholic.

[Edi]

Religious organizations are exempt from some of the anti-discrimination laws that apply to secular organizations. In other words, certain moral codes that would otherwise not be allowed can be incorporated into employment contracts for religious organizations, and I believe this applies to Catholic church owned and run schools. Also, it is not universal in the US that homosexuals are a "protected class", meaning that it is still legal to fire someone for being homosexual in much of the US.

Precisely correct.

A religious organization cannot be forced to hold in its employ a person who actively goes against the teachings of the religion or acts against it. This would violate both freedom of religion AND freedom of association, so the freedom of expression of the person being fired weighs less in that analysis than the combined weight of the other two, even if all are constitutional principles. A religious organization differes from a company in that it is primarily an ideological/religious organization, instead of being formed for the pursuit of profit like say, a public limited company.

None of that changes the fact that Catholic teachings about homosexuality are morally reprehensible to a lot of people, such as many denizens of this forum. So while they are correct within the law and the fired teacher has no recourse (and shouldn't have unless you want to open much bigger cans of worms), it is still a lot of negative PR for them. And anyone who disagrees with their teachings can hope and wish it will bite them in the ass as much as possible.

[Irbis]

A religious organization cannot be forced to hold in its employ a person who actively goes against the teachings of the religion or acts against it. This would violate both freedom of religion AND freedom of association, so the freedom of expression of the person being fired weighs less in that analysis than the combined weight of the other two, even if all are constitutional principles.

Nonsense. If they didn't want to be forced, perhaps they shouldn't employ him in the first place. It's not like he made this a secret - if they fired him on the basis of being black, or woman, would you agree with this too?

And anyway, even if impossible to reconcile difference that didn't exist at first arose between a company and a worker, religious organization should take the same option normal company has - mutual agreement to terminate employment. With compensation, if necessary. Law exists to make everyone equal, not to grant holy cow status based on your free time activities.

A religious organization differes from a company in that it is primarily an ideological/religious organization, instead of being formed for the pursuit of profit like say, a public limited company.

Too bad they didn't adhere to their ideology for 12 years, then. Would spare them a lot of trouble.

[Edi]

What they did was tolerate his deviation from doctrine for 12 years, probably out of a desire to try to coexist amicably and because it was officially deniable. They were not required to do that, but they chose to, which is in fact to their credit. However, when he decided to go and get a marriage license, it stepped directly on the toes of central church doctrine in a manner that they cannot ignore. Catholic church doctrine is very clear: They consider marriage to be a term applicable only to opposite sex pairings. Civil unions are not the purview of the church, doctrinally or otherwise, so they can be ignored, because it equals unmarried status.

However, since marriage as a social institution is not the sole purview of the Catholic church and that staus can be obtained by other means, someone acquiring that status from another source (secular government) for a same-sex pairing encroaches on the religious aspect of marriage as it relates to the church. That's why they fired him. Even if the people he worked with didn't really want to, as an organization there really was no other choice or they'd have been in different kind of trouble.

You may not accept that reasoning and that's your privilege. It's still legally valid reasoning and also the reason why there is no recourse even if there is widespread moral outrage.

Personally I consider most religious doctrines bullshit, including this, but trying to spin this case into something to get the guy his job back is just plain fucking not going to happen because the facts of law are what they are. Without changing the the relation to each other of the principles of freedom of religion, association and expression, they're not going to change either.

[Gaidin]

Wasn't it also in the employment contract as well? I mean, I heard on the news commentary shows that he basically told his boss what was going to happen, his boss said 'OK'(almost literally, from what I hear), and literally at some point the contract had to take over combined with what Edi just said. Though I imagine some argument might be made about the contract, not much could be made about the nature of the organization. The part that's strange to even the teacher is the behavior, where the boss acts so normal about it, and awkwardly blindsides him with the firing if its to be believed.

(aside: MSNBC makes it a pain in the ass to link videos, but its the fifth one, a commentary show, so add whatever grain of salt you like as its one side of the story)

[Mr. Coffee]

And just as soon as Pope Francis does something to raise my opinion of the Catholic church another priest comes along and immediately lowers it. Starting to notice a cycle here.

So, when a policeman hands you a speeding ticket do you start hating on PotUS too?

When a cop writes me a speeding ticket it's not because my sexuality is offensive to his religious preference, it's because I broke the fucking law, you goddamn retard. The President also has nothing to do with what my local law enforcement does, so congratulations at failing analogies.

The only way for Pope to instantly change everything would be for him to be God Emperor of the Universe which last time I checked he is not.

No, but he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and as such he can order the priest in charge of a catholic school to not be an asshole or order the reinstatement of a teacher fired because of their sexual preference. Just like I can hold the CEO of a company responsible for the wrong doings of their company that happen on their watch, I can hold the Pope responsible for the wrong doings of the church that happens on that pope's watch.

[Broomstick]

Nonsense. If they didn't want to be forced, perhaps they shouldn't employ him in the first place. It's not like he made this a secret - if they fired him on the basis of being black, or woman, would you agree with this too?

Being black or being a woman is a fuck of a lot harder to change than one's religion so it's an invalid analogy.

Blacks and women are also protected classes under US law and can not be fired merely for being black or female... unlike homosexuality, which is not a protected class across the US although a few localities have made an exception to that. Again, that makes the analogy invalid under the law. Personal viewpoints and morality/ethics are a different matter.

No, I don't think they should have employed him in the first place if there is religious doctrine in opposition to his sexual orientation. However, they did employ him and overlook it for 12 years for whatever reason. It is still entirely legal for the Catholic church to fire an employee for being homosexual.

Religious organizations enjoy partial immunity to certain regulations under the US first amendment regarding freedom of religion which allows them to hire and fire within church doctrines. The Catholic church is no more obligated to employ homosexuals as teachers than they are obligated to ordain women as priests. This is done not out of love of religion or love of Catholicism, it's done to prevent government interference in one's beliefs. If you wish to be an atheist, if you wish your non-belief in a god to be respect, if you wish your personal beliefs to be respected under the law then you must also respect the beliefs of the religious in the same manner, that is, preventing government interference in such things.

Now, this isn't absolute - I can't see the US tolerating human sacrifice in the name of religion, for example - but it does not protect the job of a teacher whose actions are in contradiction to church doctorine.