NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > Entertainment blogs > Manhattan Diary > Catholic Church fires Mass woman for marrying

Manhattan Diary by Cahir O'Doherty

Catholic Church fires Mass woman for marrying

Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2010 at 02:09 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

55 Comments

RSS

Archives

It's happening again.

Cathedral High School in Springfield, Massachusetts has forced out the school's athletic director, Christine M. Judd, after she married her female partner in August.

Judd, who is described on the school's website as 'one of the key members of the faculty and a positive role models for the students,' said was pressured to leave after marrying her female partner last month.

The local diocese has listed her departure as a resignation, but Judd said she is currently exploring her legal options. It's believed that matters came to a head when an unidentified person made a photograph of Judd's wedding available to the diocese. Judd also clarified that the Cathedral High School had nothing to do with her departure, it was strictly a diocesan decision she said.

Mark E. Dupont, a spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, told the press that Judd did resign, but he declined to respond to Judd's parting comments, or on the issue of her marriage in August.

'Without being specific to this matter, it should be clear that all employees of our Catholic schools are made aware of our policies and regulations,' Dupont told the press. 'This includes language that clearly states that whenever by public example, an employee engages in or espouses conduct which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Church, that employee may be subject to disciplinary action. To do otherwise would be in contradiction to the values we believe in and are teaching in these same schools. So while we certainly want to be compassionate and understanding, we must be true to who we are.'

We must be true to who we are. So any teacher in contravention of Catholic dogma at Cathedral must be sweating right about now - I mean all the divorcees, the married people who use birth control, the men who have had vasectomies, and anyone who's privately pro-choice on abortion.

Call me a cynic, but somehow I imagine they'll all be spared. The Church is highly selective over which sins it puts up with, after all. Call it cafeteria contrition - or just call it what it is, text book religious discrimination.

It's being gay that seems to really incite Catholic purges. The question is why? What's so inherently more sinful about being gay that any trace of it must be eradicated? Do Church authorities think that just the mere fact of being gay put's you in total contravention to every Catholic teaching? Judd, 35, never discussed her sexuality during her 12-year employment at Cathedral High School.

So could it be that her firing was predicated on one the most frequent charges we hear about marriage equality - if it's passed at the federal level eventually gay people will start suing to have their marriages performed in church?

The fact that this has never happened anywhere in the world, ever, hasn't deterred conservatives from making this argument. It could happen, they say. The Cleveland Spiders could win the World Series, too - hey, you never know.

But hypotheticals are unreal things, what's happening to Christine M. Judd is a terrific reality.

Critics who say that it's a private school run by the Catholic Church, and that she knew the rules and got what was coming to her, need to examine their own reasoning for cognitive dissonance - marriage equality wasn't legal in the state twelve years ago. And it may be worth mentioning that many gay people work these jobs because they're an economic necessity.

However you look at it, it's a sad story. In recent months children as young as five have been thrown out of Catholic schools in the United States for simply having gay parents. It's a new and disturbing tactic.

When Massachusetts' Saint Paul Roman Catholic Elementary kicked out an eight-year-old boy with two mommies, Boston's archbishop Sean Patrick O'Malley stepped in to condemn the move. Let's hope he won't sit silently this time.

E-mail

55 Comments

15 - 55 | See all comments

Irishjule | Sep 26, 2010, 03:43 PM EDT

It's time for the Catholic laity to stand up and defend the faith. Too many people, even some clergy, have become too liberal and secular. Too many don't believe in the True Presence of the Eucharist, the sinfulness of abortion or of the immorality of homosexual relationships. It is no sin to be born a homosexual, but those who are can become saints by accepting their cross and living a good single life. (Believe me, the married life isn't a piece of cake for most people, either.) The priesthood and sisterhood have sacrifices and challenges too. This woman knew the church's teaching but completely disregarded it. The diocese had a moral obligation to defend the teachings of the church. The Catholic faith is a precious gift and we should all treasure it and nurture it throughout our lives.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Sep 21, 2010, 05:03 PM EDT

The more I see of hollabackgurl's rants, the less sense I can make of them. Conversely, Carroll09's posts I find well thought out and full of sense, always developing as they go on whereas hollabackgurl's just fade into nonsense. Hollabackgurl and others, incl me, should learn from Carroll09 - always honourable in points, posts and ripostes.

Report abuse

Carroll09 | Sep 10, 2010, 10:59 AM EDT

Hollabackgurl- since you're so keen on pointing me towards what the story says: where does it say that she went out of her way to be discreet with reference to the "marriage" specifically (not to her sexual orientation, which the article does indeed mention)? Where does it say that it was a parishioner who went to the diocese with a photo? Where does it say that said parishioner had a grudge? If it was a parishioner with a grudge, where do you suppose they got the details of Ms Judd's wedding time, date & venue if Ms Judd was keeping her relationship such a secret?

Report abuse

hollabackgurl | Sep 10, 2010, 10:33 AM EDT

She didn't publically marry. In fact she went out if her way to be discreet. It was a parishioner with a grudge that ran to the diocese with a photo of her wedding to out her. That's all there in the story but you're going to overlook it to rationalize your religious discrimination, Caroll09. Many Cathoilcs take a view that's contrary to Church dogma, but only the gays lose their jobs. You can try to excuse it, but you'll fail because it's inexcusable.

Report abuse

Carroll09 | Sep 09, 2010, 04:12 PM EDT

Mr O'Doherty, you ask "It's being gay that seems to really incite Catholic purges. The question is why? What's so inherently more sinful about being gay that any trace of it must be eradicated? Do Church authorities think that just the mere fact of being gay put's you in total contravention to every Catholic teaching?". Clearly you know nothing about the teaching of the Catholic Church on sexuality- you are, as usual, making up your own version of the Catholic Catechism to create another anti-Catholic rant. What the Catechism of the Catholic Church ACTUALLY says is that homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered- not the person, not the inclination, but the ACTS. The homosexual PERSON, however, according to the Catechism [2358], is to be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Yes, there may be others in the school whose lifestyles are at odds with the Church's teachings, however, Ms Judd made a public statement about her lifestyle by "marrying" another woman. She never discussed her sexuality during her 12 years of employment at the school- clearly, therefore, it was her PUBLICLY going against the teachings of the Church that caused the current situation.

Report abuse

James12 | Sep 08, 2010, 08:34 AM EDT

minpindally, Please don't confuse judgement with admonishment. The passage you reference deals with judgement - not admonishment. Scripture and Church teaching allow admonishment (a warning).

Report abuse

minpindally | Sep 08, 2010, 01:26 AM EDT

He who is without sin,let them throw the first stone.We are all sinner's .

Report abuse

rndidonato | Sep 07, 2010, 11:46 PM EDT

"...I mean all the divorcees, the married people who use birth control, the men who have had vasectomies, and anyone who's privately pro-choice on abortion" This is such a ridiculous statement. First of all, divorce in itself is not a sin. Remarriage outside of the Church is a sin. As to the other things mentioned, how would anyone know if a couple were using birth control, if a man had a vasectomy or if someone was privately pro-choice. This woman "married" another woman knowing that is was against the policies of the school and the teachings of the Church. What's your problem? Not that it's any of your business anyway. It's between this woman and the school/church. Some things are absolutely wrong no matter what the "law" is. Abortion is legal but that doesn't make it right. It is the Catholic Church's right to abide by its convictions.

Report abuse

hollabackgurl | Sep 07, 2010, 05:00 PM EDT

Saint Florentius protected the Holy See against heresies. I see you're carrying on the tradition. But you can't become a saint by telling lies.

Report abuse

Florentius | Sep 07, 2010, 03:05 PM EDT

Want to talk about cognitive dissonance? Just a few years ago, the Boston archdiocese was rocked by a hideous homosexual sex abuse scandal. Yes, it was a HOMOSEXUAL scandal--read the Jay Report if you don't believe me. Nearly 90% of the cases were homosexual in nature. After being burned so badly by homosexuals in its employ, the Church has taken a zero-tolerance stance against homosexuals in positions with easy access to children. And in my opinion, Mother Church is absolutely right to do so. I went to Catholic (Jesuit) school in the 1970s & 80s and the whispers about both homosexual priests and lay teachers were everywhere. We only found out later that many of these whispers were true--and much worse--that abuse was covered up and that those doing the covering up were often homosexuals as well. For this reason, among others, Catholic parents of my age are homeschooling our children in greater numbers than ever before. I fully support any and all efforts by the Church to make sure that homosexuals--and anyone who publicly embraces a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Church--have no access to children in Catholic-run institutions.

Report abuse

islandgirl21 | Sep 07, 2010, 01:51 PM EDT

First of all, Mr. O'Doherty's piece of writing is incredibly biased and misinformed and second he doesn't know what his is talking about. For example, Catholic teaching does not state that a Catholic cannot get divorced! It does, however, state that a divorced Catholic cannot remarry --- that is very lot different. Next Mr. O'Doherty lists "Catholic who use birth control and are pro-choice: Those Catholics are "Catholic" in name only and do not practice their faith honestly or faithfully; and yes, if they work for the diocese, they should be worried if it were to become public knowledge and cause scandal to faithful Catholics. And then the author writes the following: " And it may be worth mentioning that many gay people work these jobs because they're an economic necessity" Give me a break! When is it economic necessity to work as a teacher for the Catholic Church in the United States. In the U.S. there are more teaching positions in public schools than in parochial or private schools. The article is a total farce, a complete joke!

Report abuse

James12 | Sep 07, 2010, 01:29 PM EDT

akellyny, show me the evidence that the words of Scripture were changed millions of times. Translated into other languages many times yes, but if you compare, for example, the Qumram tests from 2K yrs ago to modern hebrew texts they are vitually the same. People may interpret words differently, but that is where Scriptue says only the Church has the proper interpretation on matters of faith and morals.

Report abuse

PhlutiePhan | Sep 07, 2010, 01:28 PM EDT

In regard to sin, there are public and private sins. This woman lived a lesbian lifestyle for years and it was known. Once she entered into a public and legal marriage, the issue changed. She was publicly flaunting the rules of the institution for which she worked. Yes, let's see if C. O'Malley "wimps out" again.

Report abuse

James12 | Sep 07, 2010, 01:22 PM EDT

Cahir, your statement about gay weddings in Church is a strawman and you know it. By doing so you give the misleading impression that it is fear of being sued that drives the Church. It is not. It is that active homosexuality is always immoral and must be opposed. See the way St. Paul admonished the Corinthian church in regards to the man who married his mother in law. Same with homosexual marriages.

Report abuse

James12 | Sep 07, 2010, 01:13 PM EDT

What is wrong is that 'gays' want to make active homosexuality OK within the Church. That is why they are rebuked openly. I havn't seen too many adulterers who want to make their activity OK within the Church. If I did, I would rebuke them also.

Report abuse