55 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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).

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

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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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!

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• James12 | Sep 07, 2010, 01:09 PM EDT

  lemonhead, you confuse judgement with admonishment - there is a difference. Admonishment is permitted in Scripture and Church teaching. Also, God does judge - ultimatley at the Last Judgement.

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

  akellyny, your comments would be considered premature at best by people (including atheists) who have had near death experiecnes.

• who12345counts | Sep 07, 2010, 11:59 AM EDT

  How much more slanted can this article be? We are Catholic. We are Roman Catholic. If you do not want to conform to this religion then choose something else. Make up your own. We have the obligation before God to uphold His laws. It is not about the gay teacher it is about the gay "marriage" which is truly an abomination before God. We all sin. We don't publish those sins. We are ashamed of the sins. We teach as Catholics that the natural family is a man and a woman. The child who was spared the embarrassment that would have been raised when he went home and asked about his parents and were they obeying God would lead to more pain for him.

• LeticiaVelasque | Sep 07, 2010, 10:30 AM EDT

  I agree that all Catholics who are fornicating, aborting, and contracepting are equally guilty and should resign. Tell me, how do you prove that they are? When Judd took the job, she knew the Church's teaching and that the school enforced it. Period. She's trying to make a martyr of herself for 'the cause'. Spare me. She can make twice the money she's making in a public school where she will probably get preference for her so called marriage.

• elainep | Sep 07, 2010, 09:31 AM EDT

  The world will soon be awakened from it's spiritual slumber and those who do not believe will be in for a very big shock. Teachers who work in Catholic schools know they must be practicing Catholics and must lead by example. When they choose to push there own agenda and go against the teaching's of the church they can expect to be repremanded.

• akellyny | Sep 07, 2010, 09:09 AM EDT

  "God" is the Santa Claus for adults. When will people stop believing this rubbish, written and changed by man millions of times. Such gullible fools are these "hypochristians."

• mayoman | Sep 07, 2010, 08:01 AM EDT

  This is yet another example of what distresses me about my Church. How terribly tentative and slow the bishops are to deal with the crime of pedophilia, and yet how determined and prompt they are to summarily fire a woman, (that the Church itself has applauded), that committed no crime, but has only exercised her legal rights.

• WatchingMedia | Sep 07, 2010, 06:32 AM EDT

  Where did this author get her education in a barn? It is not a sin to get a Divorce. It is sinful to get remarried. Nobody knows who uses birth control since this is done in the privacy of ones own home. Yes any man who publically shows off his vasectomy would be fired. MARRIAGE IS A PUBLIC ACT. Do you understand that?

• WatchingMedia | Sep 07, 2010, 05:17 AM EDT

  The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on homosexual behavior - which will NEVER be approved (#2357 -2359). So are PROTESTANT and Catholic Bibles: Rom 1:24-24; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10; Gen 19:1-29. All sexual acts outside of marriage (defined as being between one man and one woman) is a Mortal Sin.

• WatchingMedia | Sep 07, 2010, 05:09 AM EDT

  Anyone who wants to be employed by a Privately owned Catholic organization must respect, and "publically" adhere to Church teachings. Marriage is a PUBLIC act. If anyone wants to know the teachings of the Church, read the "CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition".

• lemonhead | Sep 06, 2010, 09:10 PM EDT

  I feel if she is doing her job in which it seems she has, they shouldn't discriminate. Her private life is hers, as long as she doesn't bring into the classroom. No one has the right to discriminate, remember God is forgiving, and non-judgemental, it's us humans who are judgemental.

• macstwo | Sep 06, 2010, 05:05 PM EDT

  She knew the rules and also the church's feelings on same sex marriage. She's trying to make a statement, but if you want to do the crime, you have to be willing to do the time. No questions the school administration was correct.

• wasqazz | Sep 06, 2010, 12:03 AM EDT

  makes me ashamed of being catholic.. why take it out on an 8 year old. it's okay to have sex with little BOYS and GIRLS and you don't get fired, but two adults get married and you loose your job?? sick

• Colliegirl | Sep 05, 2010, 10:55 PM EDT

  The regulations clearly state "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." Private sins are a matter between the employed person and God, but 'marrying' one's gay partner is definitely making a public statement that one is living in a sinful manner and proud of it. She is a popular teacher who is giving scandal. She has rejected the moral teachings of her faith. And she knew that this would happen. I'm not unsympathetic to the woman but this is giving a poor example to her students. They would see that a nice person can live the gay lifestyle; therefore there's nothing wrong with acting out your sinful sexual impulses. As a Catholic parent, this isn't the message I want my kids to learn in Catholic school. I want them to learn to follow God's will even against their inclinations.

• 2BorNot2B | Sep 05, 2010, 09:19 PM EDT

  Mavaureen, cry not for the Church and its priests, there will be plenty left to carry on the work. She will survive like she has for 2000 years, with saints and sinners in her midst, because Christ guaranteed her survival.-- So far, the Church should, has, and will continue to kick out those priests who entered the ministry to have easier access to other men. Those are the ones that have brought shame upon her. However, I personally know homosexual priests who live a holy and courageous life, keeping their vow of celibacy intact. They are not, and should not be condemned; they are in fact a great asset to other Christians and they do, will, and should remain.-- People like you and the writer of the article are so angry and eager to slam the Church, you forget her ultimate purpose is to facilitate the forgiveness and redemption of sinners and a path to a happier life after this one.

• 2BorNot2B | Sep 05, 2010, 08:55 PM EDT

  Porkia777 you seem to have a grand obsession with 'men in dress' -- How do you feel about women in pants? Should we disregard, ignore and ridicule whatever pant-suited women have to say and do, just because they dress like men? Think about Billary Clinton and Michelle Lakeesha Obama and just flip them off because they certainly don't always (if ever) dress like you think they should. Right?

• Carroll09 | Sep 05, 2010, 07:24 PM EDT

  Rebelforce, you say that "we also know that Jesus never even mentions the 'sin' of homosexuality at all"? And how exactly are you privy to every word spoken by Christ? The very last line of St John's Gospel says that there were so many things that Christ did, that if they were all to be recorded the whole world could not contain the books that would be written. Christ sent His Apostles primarily to PREACH with the authority that the Holy Spirit would provide - the teaching authority, in fact, preceeded the Bible. St Paul taught with this authority and reinforced the teachings in his epistles. Thankfully, the Catholic Church prizes Sacred Tradition (i.e. the oral teachings of the early Church) as much as Sacred Scripture - the idea of the Bible as the sole rule of faith is a relatively new idea, having only been born in the Protestant "reformation" in the 16th century.

• killowen | Sep 05, 2010, 07:01 PM EDT

  Gays a go go. Sows on sows ........ brave new world.

• 2IFBYSEA | Sep 05, 2010, 06:37 PM EDT

  Brilliant Article!! The statement you wrote,(see below) sums up,the hypocracy,predjudice,and Dictatorship, of those,supposedly representing ,God. "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......' The Vatican, never acted so swiftly,when it comes to ........PHEDOPHILES!!!They KNOW THE RULES....but,apparently,there are several sets of rules. I congradulate,both Women.....life is too short,for living, as someone we are not. Lw

• Advocate | Sep 05, 2010, 05:59 PM EDT

  This creature is NOT "married!" Simply by 'definition' such people will NEVER / can NEVER be "married! Call their relationship whatever you will, but "Marriage" is a 'plan' designed by Yahweh/God. No law or act of man can 'change' His definition --- Plain & simple! For our silent tolerance of every Form of Evil, We the SHEEPle are about to pay a price we shall not be happy with, via our Creator. (My comments have nothing to do with any 'church policy' made by man, Etc., etc.)

• Rebelforce | Sep 05, 2010, 05:28 PM EDT

  Unless the Catholic church wants to be seen as blatant, unrepentant hypocrites, they must now get rid of anybody in their employ who is Divorced. We know that Jesus spoke out clearly against Divorce in the Gospels. He opposed it in no uncertain terms. We also know that Jesus never even mentions the "sin" of homosexuality at all.

• Christisall | Sep 05, 2010, 04:42 PM EDT

  The Catholic Church is the one thing that will be left standing when all the end times happenings are over. Every other organization will be gone. The reason is that it is the one church Christ began and He will see it through, whether you like it or not. I happen to think it is grand!

• Christisall | Sep 05, 2010, 04:40 PM EDT

  I think the Catholic Church is correct in following God's laws, not man's silliness, Imagine: men marrying men and women marrying women. Abnormal and obscene. . .

• noniboni | Sep 05, 2010, 03:29 PM EDT

  I don't see any reason she should have been axed. If she is true to her partner and not like some of the Irish priests and bishops who get away with abuse, let her be. I believe marriage is between a man and women. She simply made a partnership with her "wife"

• Rebelforce | Sep 05, 2010, 02:33 PM EDT

  "Woe Unto You Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! You lay heavy burdens on other people's backs, but you wouldn't even lift a finger to help them carry it. Brood of Vipers!" —-Jesus of Nazareth

• SouthBendNative | Sep 05, 2010, 02:22 PM EDT

  Um, she married another woman. That goes against Catholic teaching. Of course they fired her. They had no other option.

• lilacbp | Sep 05, 2010, 02:20 PM EDT

  It is time for The Catholic Church to fade away

• mooncoin | Sep 05, 2010, 01:43 PM EDT

  I do not understand how the same church has not kicked out the priests that have sexually abusded children but moved them, then turn around and kick out a teacher who is open about her consentual relation ship with an adult and even married her partner

• double11 | Sep 05, 2010, 01:34 PM EDT

  pedophilepriests are ok the church sucks

• Nicomax | Sep 05, 2010, 01:33 PM EDT

  Good reminder on the contraception matter. Most forget that Rome is still dead set against contraception, which would come as a surprise to most Americans. Until the Supreme Court in the Griswold Vs. Connecticut decision in the 1960's declared that state laws banning anyone from using contraceptives was unconstitutional there were areas around the country doing just that.

• PhlutiePhan | Sep 05, 2010, 12:50 PM EDT

  Are you daft? Did the Blarney Stone hit you in the head? You are saying that Catholic schools do not have a right to enforce the Church's own doctrine. O'Malley "wimped out" and Chaput in Denver did not. Semper Fi.

• maryosullivan | Sep 05, 2010, 12:15 PM EDT

  This is the same religion that covers for pedifiles and welcomes terrorists like Tony Blair and others of his ilk into its flock... politics as usual is the name of the game

• moygannon | Sep 05, 2010, 12:07 PM EDT

  Anything the church does is debatable and, in this case, just from a moral point of view, justifiable.

• 2BorNot2B | Sep 05, 2010, 12:04 PM EDT

  Says O'Doh**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.**-- Shees, ya think?-- I personally can see the wholesale firing of Dogma-mutinous male teachers who would openly flaunt their vasectomies! As for the divorcees.. those would be easy to detect and exclude from employment as well, if their payroll records show they have re-married. -- The pro-aborts too, they are usually firebrands who cannot keep their trap and murderous sympathies shut. That leaves only the birth-controlers; but who, 'pray tell,' is so naive as to deduce that someone in his/her early 20's or 30's with two children and a gap of 4 years between them has suddenly become barren?-- For the Church, it comes down to personal integrity, faithfulness, repentance and forgiveness. Unless the subject is intent on rubbing the doctrinal nose of the Church, as many are trying to do now.

• 2BorNot2B | Sep 05, 2010, 11:40 AM EDT

  One more pro-gay/anti-Catholic screed from O'Doherty... what a surprise! Is it any mystery by now where his/she's hate arsenal originates?-- He starts it off by using cunningly deceptive come-on attract the usual vultures: "Cath Church fires Mass woman for marrying!" -- After seeing the picture of the 'marrying woman' he should at least have conceded the benefit of the doubt to the school that employed her for either not being able to discern her 'sexuality' or for keeping her on the payroll until she OVERTLY contravened the rules clearly stated on the 6th paragraph above.

• mrkennedy | Sep 05, 2010, 11:17 AM EDT

  I am curious, why did God creat Adam and Evem and not Eve & Gloria?

• errigal | Sep 05, 2010, 11:00 AM EDT

  I may be weired but I though all people were respondsible for there own life. I may belive that most Catholics do not know or care about the Rites of the Church as long as they can get there kids into Cathloic School. Some may not even know there kids may come out of the closet one day. AMEN.

• feetxxxl | Sep 05, 2010, 10:07 AM EDT

  if the church was to uphold scripture over their doctrine they would see that being homosexual does not come against the godlove (love one another as i have love you) of the 2nd commanment, love your neighbor as yourself, THE SUMMATION OF ALL NEW COVENANT LAW(romans and galatians) nor does it come against the fruit of the spirit of galatians, paul saying that the acts of the sin nature are obvious(easily discernable)in that by their very own nature show how they come against the fruit of the spirit of christ(gal5). therefore homosexuality cannot be a sin under the new covenant of christ. as believers and not doctrinaires our concern is about the spirit that one is given over to as in romans1. homosexuals bond out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust and respect,(not shameful lust) for a shared committed life together the same as heterosexuals. they have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. the are not less a father, friend, doctor, counselor, teacher, spouse, pastor, soldier, neighbor, brother, etc.

• Mavaureen | Sep 05, 2010, 09:51 AM EDT

  Sad, sad, sad!!! Is the Church kicking out gay priests, too? Jeez, they won't have too many priests left to carry on the work. We won't even mention the pedophiles who were protected by that same church and even receive a pension when they "retire".

• Portia777 | Sep 05, 2010, 09:02 AM EDT

  Them womb men again - who just refuse to obey the men in dresses.!