Mark Zmuda, a well-liked vice-principal at Eastside Catholic School in Sammamish, Washington, was recently fired from his job because he married his male partner. He was not fired because he's gay. As you will see and hear in the interview below, he was also not fired because he violated his contract, nor was he fired because his performance in his job was unsatisfactory. He was fired because he married. Period. But here's the very curious part: The Catholic school has informed him that he can get his job back if he divorces his husband.
I hate to use this cliche, but really, I can't wrap my head around that. The Catholic Church does not condone same-sex marriage, but in order to get his job back, they told Mr. Zmuda that he has to divorce his husband? Divorce is not condoned in the RCC either.* So what's going on here? None of this makes sense.
(*Actually, that's not quite right. A wife or a husband CAN obtain an "annulment" of their marriage from the Vatican, which would then mean the RCC acknowledges that the marriage was made under false pretenses and is not valid, even if the couple has had a number of children. So, in a round-about way, divorce is sanctioned in the RCC, if one has the money to buy one.)
This, of course, is very curious, and I don't know how the Eastside Catholic School expects Mr. Zmuda and his partner to divorce and then go through a commitment ceremony, which is legally non-binding and a step-down, so that the RCC's moral sensibilities will be assuaged.
Andrew Sullivan says it so much better than I could express it myself:
"What does it say about the twisted, absurd view of homosexual persons that the Catholic Church should demand that they divorce their spouses as a condition of working for a Catholic organization? It tells you so much. What the church is saying by this is that homosexuals should be punished for constructing stable, committed relationships of mutual care and support. If they stay single or have some kind of down-low commitment ceremony, all will be ignored."
The overwhelming majority of students at the school support Mr. Zmuda:
“We care too much about Mr. Zmuda to let this go,” said Ian Edwards, a senior at Eastside Catholic, after speaking at the second demonstration in as many weeks outside the old chancery of the archdiocese. With social media at their disposal, the students are thinking big.
They plan to organize, nationwide, a “Z-Day” on Jan. 31 to protest the forced resignation of Eastside vice principal Mark Zmuda after his same-sex marriage last summer.
“We encourage students, at Catholic schools or otherwise, as well as any other impassioned individuals, to proudly wear the color orange on that day. In so doing, we will be showing solidarity with Mark Zmuda, as well as expressing our hopes for an enlightened perspective on issues of sexuality in the Catholic Church,” said a statement read by Edwards and other students."
What do you think?
7 comments:
I have some optimism. After a long period of one step forward two back, the church seems to have at least reversed that under Pope Francis.
The laity is still a good deal ahead of the leadership.
If the RCC considers homosexuality to be sinful (which many of us don't), and considers marriage to be a holy state of love and commitment (which most of us do), then why can't the RCC resolve this conflict with a simple act of Christian forgiveness? And where does the new pope stand?
Ducky, it appears the Catholic school in this story is sorely conflicted. It claims it cannot employ a man whom they believe is living in what they consider a sinful relationship; but then asks the man to commit what the RCC considers another sin in order to re-employ him.
(O)CT(O)PUS, the new pope has said that the RCC spends too much time worrying about abortion and homosexuality and not enough time worrying about the hundreds of millions of poor people who desperately need help.
His priorities, IMO, are correct, but don't look to the RCC for any change in their attitude toward gay marriage or abortion.
I think the de-emphasis on those subjects is a good thing; I don't think the Church's teaching on them will change in my lifetime.
Off topic but relevant these days.
The national media sure haven't jumped on the story.
The COINTELPRO burglary
Wisdom:
"Challenging homophobia and racism is hard work. Eradicating them is even harder. When we suppose that there is a right that protects our actions to discriminate, defame, and brutalize one another or the history that has brought us to this place, we have fallen far from a high moral ground or protecting the Constitution.
Wrapping our sins in religious language and values cannot protect us. And as I’ve said before, there remains much more work for us to do to help bring in greater spaces of justice for all." --Emilie Townes
Let me add another twist...
The Bible teaches that as believers, we should not be unequally yoked. To put it bluntly, Christians and non Christians should not be married.
So... what happens if the RCC realizes that they have hired a Christian person who is in fact unequally yoked? Should they divorce?
What about if someone comes to faith after the marriage but their heterosexual partner does not? Should they then divorce?
This is the idiocy, and inability to think about the real world that vexes me to no end about my faith and religion.
I will just say, it is getting increasingly difficult to get funding and support for worthy work from the Christian community if you dare step outside the narrowly defined orthodoxy.
There are many Christian leaders who are unwilling to risk their jobs and their life saving work to speak out against this type of baloney...
He should be able to sue for wrongful termination. I say "should" because in many state it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on sexual orientation. It certainly should not be, but it is. In any case, why don't they go with the pope on this one? Pope Francis said "if someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?" Obviously the guy who was fired was judged to have done something wrong.
Post a Comment