Same to you and yours.
While it is perfectly understandable that the RC has the right to terminate its employees based upon their own behavior criteria ... it's a bit beyond the pale to say that this woman could not control her own sexuality.
We don't know her motives, that is true. But it is also true that Catholics are to believe marriage is an important thing, the only proper place for sexual expression.
She controlled herself in a perfectly God-given way ... by getting married (though I know the RC has problems with that).
Had she gotten married, there would be no problem. But she did not get married. Catholics (and no one is forced to be one) have their own set of obligations and rules they must abide by. One of them is that marriage is a sacrament, and that only Catholic-approved marriages are valid for Catholics. A Catholic who thumbs her nose at the Church in this manner has effectively announced her dissent.
If you franchise a KFC it says in your agreement that you need to buy "secret herbs and spices" from the company. If you contract with a local foodservice supplier for "fried chicken spice" and don't buy the real stuff from KFC, you are in violation of your agreement.
Same thing here. A Catholic agrees that marriage is something over which the Church has dominion. To go "outside" for marriage-like services is to breach both her employment contract and her faith-committment.
And I think that she was more desperate than anything really (what with a dying boyfriend and all). Pretty heartless to refer to her as 'stupid'.
We don't know all the facts. If there was no impediment to her getting a Catholic marriage and she didn't, then she's stupid. If she did what she did cause she or the boyfriend had unresolved past-marriage issues (that is, they were not free to marry each other according to the Church), then she has declared her protest to the faith. Maybe that's not "stupid," but it's disingenuous to claim victim status based on an illness when one is really faced with other impediments to marriage.
SD
It was interesting reading the responses on that thread. Someone suggested that one or the other of the parties in question might have had an impediment to a Catholic marriage, such as a previous marriage that had not been annulled. If true, that would explain a lot. It was unclear whether or not the diocese had given her an opportunity to make her marriage licit. I would hope so.
There was a post way back from you though that in some circumstances marriage outside of your church was accepted. Why is this case different?
Would you be surprised if I called you a super hyprocrite?