Jump to content
Hephaestus

Legit or Not? Pro-Choice Feminist Working at Catholic Girls' High School

Recommended Posts

A lady I know, about 41 years old, has a PHD from U of I, and has a post as a psychogical counselor at a prominent Catholic Girls High School in the Chicagoland area. She mentioned to me that she is active in pro choice rallies. She has waxed and waned regarding how much she mentions her activities, her stances, to the students she counsels. She is an avowed feminist, and has little respect for any pro-life, or should I say 'anti-choice,' positions.

 

I told her one day, that it seemed a little inconsistent that she would have such a stance and at the same time work for Regina, the school in the Chicagoland area. I said that if she felt that way, she should teach at another school - a secular and/or public high school.

 

Her position on the matter was that the school's emphasis was on having a 'single gender environment.' She said that the school's population is very liberal and that the parent's expect to have their children taught accordingly. Then came the statement that I found most unsettling:

 

"The religious 'piece' comes second."

 

I told her that I couldn't imagine being the mother or father of daughters trying to raise them in a religious home. First, you have to pay taxes to a public school, and then, to get a religious education, you have to send your kids to a private Catholic High School - double tuition. Then, to find out that there is a Psychology PHD on staff that is likely asserting the ethical green light on abortions - that would be tough to swallow.

 

I am not religious, and I can see the ugliness both of allowing and disallowing the freedom to choose an abortion. But the Constitution does provide freedom to practice a religion. Parent do have the right to raise their children in a religious home. The Catholic Church is unquestionably pro-life.

 

I question her accuracy in assessing what the parents at this high school really want for their children. The school probably gets money from the Church as well.

 

I would be interested to hear other opinions.

Edited by Hephaestus
Per BenR's Catch: 'guidance' counselor switched to 'psychological' counselor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a catholic high school that had a bunch of hindu/indian kids there as well. Religion was certainly secondary for them; a good edu was primary....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to a catholic high school that had a bunch of hindu/indian kids there as well. Religion was certainly secondary for them; a good edu was primary....

 

I think the argument makes a lot of sense when there aren't any other comparable schools in the area. Was this the case when you went to high school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you expect religious institutions (schools, churches, camps, charities, etc.) to only hire staff that agree with church doctrine 100%, then they are going to have a very difficult time finding quality workers. There are many, many people who consider themselves aligned with a certain faith, but disagree with one or more major elements of the faith.

 

There are pro-choice Catholics, pro-female-priest Catholics, pro-condom Catholics, pro-same-sex-marriage Catholics, and there are probably some Catholics that think we should bring back stoning and other Biblical punishments. But they all agree on the fundamental tenets of the religion (divinity of Jesus, holiness and supremacy of the Pope, etc.). Even members of the Catholic clergy disagree with each other on some of the big ancillary issues, should they be fired? Catholic dogma has changed substantially over the past two-thousand years (and continues to change even now), but that change can only come about if the Catholic population can include people who don't agree all the time.

 

Further, why shouldn't the school be allowed to decide that its primary mission is education? As you note, this woman you know has a Ph.D from a respected institution and presumably has other experiences that make her highly qualified to be a guidance counselor. If this school makes the decision that it would rather prioritize access to high quality counselors, like her, over its religious mission to preach the evils of abortion, why can't it decide to do that? When in conflict, why can't the educational mission trump the ancillary religious issues when it comes to hiring staff?

 

Or, put it this way, if the choice was between a high quality school imbued with Catholic values, but with staff that did not follow church doctrine 100%, or a poor quality school that only hired staff who follow catechism to the letter, which would the wealthy Catholic parents of Chicagoland prefer?

Edited by Fox On Socks
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the perspective of the school, I think it shouldn't be a problem until the point of her using her position to contravene/undermine school (church) policies, eg perhaps by encouraging students to seek abortions, or certainly by helping students access abortion services. It doesn't sound like she is doing this?

From the personal perspective, working for and therefore "being aligned with" the church which is so strongly opposed to abortions might be a compromise of personal integrity, but that's probably just up to her to figure out, and it seems like she has?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lady I know, about 41 years old, has a PHD from U of I, and has a post as a guidance counselor at a prominent Catholic Girls High School in the Chicagoland area. She mentioned to me that she is active in pro choice rallies. She has waxed and waned regarding how much she mentions her activities, her stances, to the students she counsels. She is an avowed feminist, and has little respect for any pro-life, or should I say 'anti-choice,' positions.

 

I told her one day, that it seemed a little inconsistent that she would have such a stance and at the same time work for Regina, the school in the Chicagoland area. I said that if she felt that way, she should teach at another school - a secular and/or public high school.

 

Her position on the matter was that the school's emphasis was on having a 'single gender environment.' She said that the school's population is very liberal and that the parent's expect to have their children taught accordingly. Then came the statement that I found most unsettling:

 

"The religious 'piece' comes second."

 

I told her that I couldn't imagine being the mother or father of daughters trying to raise them in a religious home. First, you have to pay taxes to a public school, and then, to get a religious education, you have to send your kids to a private Catholic High School - double tuition. Then, to find out that there is a Psychology PHD on staff that is likely asserting the ethical green light on abortions - that would be tough to swallow.

 

I am not religious, and I can see the ugliness both of allowing and disallowing the freedom to choose an abortion. But the Constitution does provide freedom to practice a religion. Parent do have the right to raise their children in a religious home. The Catholic Church is unquestionably pro-life.

 

I question her accuracy in assessing what the parents at this high school really want for their children. The school probably gets money from the Church as well.

 

I would be interested to hear other opinions.

 

Double tuition? No, its called property tax. If you don't want to pay it, rent. Public education is a necessary public good. Abortion is too (see Freakanomics). So if you have a huge problem with tax dollars going to public schools try Florida, Mississippi or soon to be Wisconsin, where they dont value that public good.

 

Second, if youre child was in public school, you'd be lucky if the counselor had a masters. id be thanking jesus for qualified people.

 

Third, if the school is aware and cool the parents can put their children in a different segregated school (maybe they could find a racially segregated school so their kids don't have to interact with anyone of a different religion or race!).

 

fourth, youre friend may have been hamming it up to get a rise out of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you have a huge problem with tax dollars going to public schools try Florida, Mississippi or soon to be Wisconsin, where they dont value that public good.

 

actually nevada is going to be last after the $400 million budget cuts. fuck yeah.

 

/:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

lol, if Freakonomics changed the way you look at the world, you probably didn't have much of a worldview to begin with.

 

Levitt is just a hotshot economist with a huge ego who thinks he can sociology because he's so smart.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are pro-choice Catholics, pro-female-priest Catholics, pro-condom Catholics, pro-same-sex-marriage Catholics, and there are probably some Catholics that think were should bring back stoning and other Biblical punishments.
This.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, if Freakonomics changed the way you look at the world, you probably didn't have much of a worldview to begin with.

 

Levitt is just a hotshot economist with a huge ego who thinks he can sociology because he's so smart.

 

No, now I have an incentive based lens to look at the world through.

 

Levitt is so chill! His lisp is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retired, I have to agree with SVFrey in his characterization of Freakonomics. The chapter on this book suggests that the legalization of abortion reduced crime because the fetuses that were aborted were likely to be unwanted children. I don't think that provides much ethical justification for abortion for the public good or any good.

 

Fox: You're points are clearly more cogent, however, I don't see abortion as one of many ancillary issues to the Catholic faith. In my experiences going to church, and reading Catholic materials, the issue of abortion is center stage and treated as the great holocaust of our age. All these other issues? Gay marriage, woman as priests, contraception - those are all very secondary compared to how the church feels about abortion.

 

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/abortion/teaching.shtml

 

 

Shouldn't a community be able to have a school with it's own set of values? Sure. Just don't call it a Roman Catholic school and don't take money from the Church.

 

Several people mentioned that the school should be happy to have a PHD level psychologist on staff. In almost every case, I would say so. If she taught history or math, I wouldn't have a problem. But to have a counselor at a Catholic Girls School that has a very liberal agenda about reproductive freedom particularly abortion?

 

I appreciate everyone's comments, but I'm not swayed.

Edited by Hephaestus
link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are pro-choice Catholics....

 

I disagree. The term itself is a contradiction. There are people that might characterize themselves as such, and I know there are groups out there. But as you look through these groups, these web sites, the literature, do you see title 'Fr.' in front of any of their names?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. The term itself is a contradiction. There are people that might characterize themselves as such, and I know there are groups out there. But as you look through these groups, these web sites, the literature, do you see title 'Fr.' in front of any of their names?

 

right, but if you also read the literature, you would know about the punishment to those that speak out.

 

catholicsforchoice.org

 

john obrien is a pretty chill dude

Edited by retired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=96001

 

But I see here that Dan McGuire, a major pro choice Catholic figure, is not such a cool guy.

 

Retired - I am reading the bios on the website for Catholics for choice. None of them are priests - they are a group of feminists. The sad part is that I agree with the feminists on plenty of issues. For example, I think not letting women be priests is not only wrong, I think it's unconstitutional. I think it's a great absurdity.

 

When people ask me these days whether I am pro-life or pro-choice, my best answer is that I can see the ugliness of both the choice and non-choice worlds.

 

The pro-choice movement needs to beef up it's rhetoric. I don't think that describing it as a health care issue is a good way to approach it. Yes, there are a lot of health issues surrounding an unwanted pregnancy, but it really isn't a health issue, it's a moral issue. I also don't think that the constant slogan of 'it's my body, and I should be able to have control over my body' adequately describes the situation.

 

I think the pro-choice movement would make great strides if it were to go into more depth about the circumstances surrounding an unwanted pregnancy. Talk about men that have become monsters once the woman becomes pregnant. Discuss instances of infidelity. Rather than focusing on rape and incest, discuss situations like a man lying to a woman about future plans, just to have sex with them. I am sure that happens with incredible regularity. Talk about the indelible effect that would have on a woman's life, having to carry and perhaps raise a child (if putting the child up for adoption is not an option).

 

Come right out and say 'yes, we are balancing the right to life of the fetus with the women's rights, but the fetus has barely crossed into humanity, while an unwanted pregnancy could have enormous consequences on a fully developed individual in the woman.'

 

Focus on what's really true - a lot more ears will open.

Edited by Fox On Socks
merge double post
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a "Pro-choice Catholic" is pretty absurd (and I make this statement in contradiction of the quoting done by TheGreatInstigator, who is a poster I respect very much do his general awesomeness and our shared enthusiasm for Catholic Socialism and related literature).

 

The fundamental dogma of the Roman Catholic Church has always been the redemption of the body in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This dogma presupposes a couple of important things - the most relevant of these is that the human body is necessarily worth redeming. That being said, the Church's most fundamental normative moral statement has always been that the protection of human life is a moral imperative. You'll find this Truth, and it's derivations [i.e. that abortion is fundamentally wrong] have always been, and will always be, core dogma. Anyone proclaiming something different grossly misunderstands what it means to be Catholic [please don't quote this post and claim I'm saying these are bad people. That's not what I said]. Also, I'd like to mention that FoxonSox's claim that Church dogma is malleable is a huge mischaracterization.

 

As far as this counselor is concerned, it's likely that she's a cool person and decent at her job. She shouldn't be fired unless she's passing out pro-choice literature at schol or claiming the Church loves abortions or something.

 

===============================================

 

Also, I think it's kind of funny that Retired tries to characterize "pro-choice priests" as some kind of oppressed minority, being unfairly punished for "speaking out." Not removing these people from their positions would be like Apple endorsing their programmers running pro-PC demonstrations in the streets. The Church is just taking crappy employees off of their payroll.

 

===============================================

 

It can’t be denied that there are women who could be more moving orators than some priests and provide more consolation within the confessional. But the debate over female ordination shoudn't be about who could be a better priest, and it isn't a question of illegality. First of all, the Church actually employs just as many women as men, albeit in different roles. The lack of female priests is a result of following the tradition of Jesus, who selected and ordained twelve men to the priesthood during his own life. He had lots of female followers, they just didn't become priests. That's just a tradition however (not a dogma!) , like the celibate priesthood. If you check out Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (none of you will, because you're far too comfortable attacking the Church anonymously via the internet to ever learn anything about it), you'll see that those things could concievably change. Priests actually got married up until about 1200 AD, and still do in Eastern rites.

Edited by Gordon Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't a community be able to have a school with it's own set of values? Sure. Just don't call it a Roman Catholic school and don't take money from the Church.
I disagree. The term itself is a contradiction. There are people that might characterize themselves as such, and I know there are groups out there. But as you look through these groups, these web sites, the literature, do you see title 'Fr.' in front of any of their names?

 

I think both of these statements show that the core issue here is not abortion or a school's hiring practices. The ultimate issues are "what is a Catholic?" and "what is Catholicism?" At its heart, the Catholic church (like all religions) is a large organization of people who self-identify as Catholic. There is no application process or interview; if you call yourself a Catholic, you are a Catholic (and excommunication went out of favor many years ago). So if you can personally square your faith and your beliefs that disagree with catechism, then the Church will have you. Certainly the leaders of the organization (from the pontiff on down) will follow catechism more closely than the average lay person (or at least will be far less likely to voice disagreeing views), but the fact that not all clergy are in complete lock-step on all issues shows that complete, unquestioning devotion to papal interpretation is not required.

 

Now, you argue that abortion is a Very Important issue in Catholic teachings. Likely less important than the divinity of the trinity, but probably more important than clerical celibacy, if I understand your argument. And certainly that makes sense. If there is any rock-solid, clear-cut law in Christendom, it's the Ten Commandments, which say nothing about priests having sex, but definitely say that you shall not kill other people (or "murder" depending on the translation).

 

If you believe that abortion is murder, then it would seem very difficult to reconcile pro-choice beliefs with Catholicism. But that necessary condition cannot be assumed. In order to believe that abortion is murder, you have to believe that life starts at conception (or, at least, sometime prior to birth). (Otherwise, what is being aborted isn't alive and, thus, is not covered by the "don't kill" commandment.) There are certainly many Catholics who think that life does begin before birth--several popes among them--but that construction is not spoken to in the Ten Commandments and is also not directly addressed elsewhere in the Bible. It is, like female priests and condom use, an issue that is clearly established in Catholicism, but only by papal decree and historical practice.

 

So, if people can be considered "Catholic" even though they think that birth control is permissible, then there is no logical reason why followers who think that life begins at birth should be deemed "not Catholic." Both beliefs disagree with catechism, but neither directly disagrees with the Bible.

 

It makes sense that Catholics who think life begins before birth will place Very High Importance on the anti-abortion teachings of Catholicism, after all, murder on that scale is usually called genocide. But there is a lot less emphasis placed on the predicate question, when does life begin? If you answer it one way, then it opens the door to being Very Strongly Against abortion, and if you answer the other way, then it opens the door to a panoply of neutral and pro-choice views.

 

So yes, people who closely follow the Pope (like clergy) will hold that life begins before birth and, therefore, will tend to place a lot of emphasis on the evils of abortion (because it's difficult to be mildly anti-murder). But pro-choice Catholics aren't that far away, doctrinally-speaking. They (I assume) definitely agree on the major point that murder is wrong, they simply disagree that abortion is murder.

 

If the Church demanded 100% adherence to every element of catechism by its followers and school counselors, then you'd have a very strong argument. But it doesn't. If the people who think priests can have sex are still in, then so are the pro-choicers...

 

Edit: As you note above, there is an alternative ground for justifying pro-choice views that is often overlooked (I did not address it here), that of the conflict of rights with the mother. If you believe that the mother's rights are greater than the fetus' (for example, if the mother's health is endangered and that outweighs the fetus' right to continue developing), then that at least opens the door to believing that abortion can be acceptable in some cases, even if you also believe that the fetus is alive. Obviously, the more emphasis you place on the mother, the more acceptable pro-choice views become.

 

Also,

For example, I think not letting women be priests is not only wrong, I think it's unconstitutional.

Which Constitution? Because the U.S. federal one doesn't prohibit sex discrimination in private employment. And even though Congress can prohibit it by law, the First Amendment protects religious institutions from Congressional reach there.

Edited by Fox On Socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things:

 

The Catholic Church does not regulate who is and is not "Catholic." With a billion persons identifying themselves as such, that'd be sort of difficult. The Catholic Church does regulate who is on its payroll [parish priest or this counselor, for example]. You say that many of the people attending Mass every Sunday maintain beliefs that are opposed to those of the Church. Ok....that really isn't relevant to the discussion being had.

 

What is relevant is

a) the nature of the beliefs held by Church employees, and

B) the way in which those employees are promoting those beliefs and whether or not they are representing them as Church doctrine

 

As far is a) is concerned, the wrongfullness of abortion is a far more fundamental dogma than, say, celibate priests (which isn't even dogma). See my earlier post on this.

We don't know exactly what she's doing in regards to B) which is why it's difficult to say she should definitely be fired or definitely be kept on. See my earlier post on this too.

 

======================================

 

On the nature of Life:

From the moment of fertilization, the zygote has a unique, 46-chromosome genetic identity that is different from the 46-chromosome genetic identity of its mother: it is a new genetic individual that did not exist before. That is, it is a living human person. Any definition of life besides this one is pretty ridiculous. It makes no sense to say that an implanted blastocyst is more human than this zygote. Saying that a cluster of cells must be six, seven, or nine months old or that it must contain a nueral tube or a beating heart or at least three fingernails is equally abitrary. Others say that an individual must be "self-supportive" in order to be afforded the right to life; this kind of logic justifies violence and murder of the elderly, comatose, mentally retarded, very young, paralyzed, etc, etc.

 

I've always considered myself to be a very open minded person, but no argument in favor of abortion has ever struck me as remotely rational.

 

Edit: this post is supposed to respond to the one above it. I didn't want to be a line by line quoting douche bag.

Edited by Gordon Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholic Church does regulate who is on its payroll [parish priest or this counselor, for example].

If we assume that the Church acts "catholic-ly" in everything it does, then it would seem that there is no problem with the hiring and retention of this pro-choice counselor because it has happened. Right?

 

On the nature of Life:

From the moment of fertilization, the zygote has a unique, 46-chromosome genetic identity that is different from the 46-chromosome genetic identity of its mother: it is a new genetic individual that did not exist before. That is, it is a living human person. Any definition of life besides this one is pretty ridiculous. It makes no sense to say that an implanted blastocyst is more human than this zygote. Saying that a cluster of cells must be six, seven, or nine months old or that it must contain a nueral tube or a beating heart or at least three fingernails is equally abitrary. Others say that an individual must be "self-supportive" in order to be afforded the right to life; this kind of logic justifies violence and murder of the elderly, comatose, mentally retarded, very young, paralyzed, etc, etc.

 

Sure, if you try to pin down a medical/physical definition of "life" you're not going to find many clear lines (live birth is one the few, hence we consider it very important for society and the individual). The problem with trying to legislate or act morally using the medical timeline is that it is gradual and can lead to absurd regression. (Why start at conception? Even gametes (sperm and eggs) have a different "genetic identity" than their host, so let's not discount their humanity too! And vasectomies probably cut short more lives than abortion does.) But if, as many religions do, you define life by the possession/acquisition of a soul, then the lines can be drawn very clearly ... wherever you want.

 

(And on a side note, everybody who I've heard espouse a "self-sufficiency" standard for life agrees that the definition only applies prior to live birth. None of them support "violence and murder of the elderly, comatose, mentally retarded, very young, paralyzed, etc, etc." So try to avoid these strawmen.)

Edited by Fox On Socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. The term itself is a contradiction. There are people that might characterize themselves as such, and I know there are groups out there. But as you look through these groups, these web sites, the literature, do you see title 'Fr.' in front of any of their names?
I'm far too tired and have far too much to do in the morning to write a comprehensive response to everything that's been posted thus far, so I recognize that I'm strawmanning the arguments being made by both Heph and Phil. However, do you really mean to insinuate that one must be a priest in order to be give an opinion as a Catholic?

 

I'll also note that I find myself in the "pro-life" camp (though I despise the term, along with "pro-choice," as I've explained elsewhere on these boards; no sympathetic individual is anti-life, and no sympathetic individual is anti-choice), so I won't be authoring any responses from the position of a "pro-choice Catholic." I only mean to suggest that Catholics are a heterogeneous group, and that many individuals outside of the Catholic Church mistake us for adherents to a singular doctrine. To suggest that there exists a single theology of the Catholic Church is inaccurate. There are obvious commonalities that unite all Catholic beliefs, but even those commonalities have undergone substantial evolution over time. Thus, even they can be taken as static identifying features only after careful scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg - the clergy defines the Catholic position. The Pope defines the position. Anyone can have an opinion, but if that opinion is diametrically opposed to core values of the Church, you have to start asking yourself if you're really Catholic.

 

It's easy to talk about the abortion issue in a vacuum. I have been more interested in the underlying psychology of why people are either pro-life or pro-choice. Here are some of the really telling features:

 

  • What your sex is.
  • What your socioeconomic background is.
  • Who are the women in your life?

I had to smile when I wrote #3, because I know how true it is.

 

There is only one woman in my life. She's shy, timid, wouldn't hurt a fly. She was married for 37 years, and I am quite certain she never had sex with anyone other than her husband. She is unquestionably pro-life, and she has gone to mass every week for the last 80 years.

 

I ask myself who are the women in Greg's life? In Retired's life? In Gordon's life? In Fox's life? Isn't that where the truth really lies?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg - the clergy defines the Catholic position. The Pope defines the position. Anyone can have an opinion, but if that opinion is diametrically opposed to core values of the Church, you have to start asking yourself if you're really Catholic.

 

It's easy to talk about the abortion issue in a vacuum. I have been more interested in the underlying psychology of why people are either pro-life or pro-choice. Here are some of the really telling features:

 

  • What your sex is.
  • What your socioeconomic background is.
  • Who are the women in your life?

I had to smile when I wrote #3, because I know how true it is.

 

There is only one woman in my life. She's shy, timid, wouldn't hurt a fly. She was married for 37 years, and I am quite certain she never had sex with anyone other than her husband. She is unquestionably pro-life, and she has gone to mass every week for the last 80 years.

 

I ask myself who are the women in Greg's life? In Retired's life? In Gordon's life? In Fox's life? Isn't that where the truth really lies?

You're missing the point.

 

Firstly, this isn't a thread about abortion. Cross-x has quite enough of those already, so I'm not interested in making this a thread about abortion. But if you were correct in suggesting that the identity of one's female companion(s) is an important factor in determining one's position on abortion, then my girlfriend's identity as a bisexual atheist Jew would probably lead me to something other than a "pro-life" conclusion. And it hasn't, so I'm inclined to dismiss your premise.

 

Let's return to the more relevant question: whether the Church's position on an issue can be reduced to a glance at the papal bulls. You suggest that the Church's position is defined both by the Pope and by the clergy (just the diocesan clergy, or the religious clergy as well?). I would put forward a case where that position may be more nuanced than you would think: the appointment of women as priests.

 

The codified status quo is obvious: women are not permitted to serve as priests in the Catholic Church. I and the vast majority of my Catholic friends find this problematic, and it's a position of some salience for me. Accordingly, I've asked each of my three past parish priests (all diocesans, mind you) for their views on the issue. Invariably, these priests said that they saw no theological basis for the exclusion of women from the clergy and hoped that women would be allowed to be appointed to the priesthood in the future. Two of the three suggested that women were likely barred from serving because of the ancient association of menstruation with uncleanliness and thus ungodliness -- a view which most of us no longer hold.

 

I'll concede that my sample size is quite small, but there was no sample bias here -- I didn't seek out progressive members of the clergy, I just asked the ones with whom I happened to have a relationship. I would describe one of these priests as fairly progressive, one as fairly conservative, and one as being somewhere in the middle.

 

The point is that even within the ordained membership of the clergy, the Church's positions are not homogenous. Of course, each baptized member of the congregation is also a member of the Church, and our views are not homogenous either. An interesting example is the case of immigration -- the papal position (and that of the most important members of the clergy) stands in firm support of amnesty and legal protections for undocumented immigrants, but the conservative segment of the congregation (the "pro-life," anti-gay-marriage wing) frequently has other views. Are these individuals not really Catholic either? Because that's what your logic would suggest. If one cannot be a "pro-choice" Catholic, one cannot be a pro-deportation Catholic.

 

Of course, such a view is infinitely regressive to the point of having a fairly minute Catholic Church. That's where your position falls apart: it's just doesn't make any sense to try and tell someone whether she is Catholic or not. Catholicism is a matter of faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg - I gotta say I disagree. You are trying to say that other issues are equally important to the Church as the abortion issue, and they aren't.

 

The counsel on Catholic Bishops does not issue a statement saying 'The Catholic Church is a Church in Favor of Strict Immigration Laws.' But it does issue a statement 'The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church.' This issue is way, way more important to the Church than any of the issues presented. There is really no comparison to be made.

 

I have known that this was your point from the get-go. You state it well, but I gotta disagree.

 

I told El (the PHD woman), that what she is doing is like working at Domino's Pizza and giving every customer that comes to the counter a coupon for Papa John's.

 

A psych counselor at a Catholic Girls school? I'd have her terminated.

Edited by Hephaestus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A psych counselor at a Catholic Girls school? I'd have her terminated.

 

Yes, let's fire someone undoubtedly qualified to advise young women because they have a set of political beliefs which differs with those held by her employer. Smacks of "If you don't like 'Merica, you can get out!" type logic.

 

If she's not proselytizing, there's no problem. I imagine she doesn't. If she were, she probably would've been terminated already.

 

EDIT: Just re-read OP. She's a guidance counselor? Somehow I don't think her having a doctrinal difference of opinion with the church comes up much when she's helping teenagers make sure they meet their graduation requirements.

 

You trollin'.

Edited by BenR
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...