Posted on 05/25/2006 6:25:18 AM PDT by NYer
LAS VEGAS -- As a Bishop Gorman High School teacher for six years, Jeff Crouse relished imparting knowledge to young minds.
With his doctorate in film and television studies from the University of Warwick in England, Crouse handpicked cream-of-the-crop seniors to take his college-level classes in philosophy and film studies.
He was active outside the classroom, too _ challenging students through a Philosophy Society Club and heading the school's chapter of Amnesty International.
A former seminarian, Crouse, 45, said he appreciated the Catholic culture at Bishop Gorman because of the freedom it allowed him to develop his classes and to teach from a religious perspective.
But he discovered Bishop Gorman's absolute intolerance on some matters when he promoted himself on the popular Web site MySpace.com, where he detailed his taste in music, movies _ and men.
It somehow came to the attention of school administrators. Within a week, he was fired.
Crouse said he was called into the principal's office May 12 and told he was being terminated, per his contract, for "maintaining, by word or action, a position contrary to the ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church."
According to Crouse, when he asked what the infraction was, officials showed him material from his MySpace page, but wouldn't elaborate.
Las Vegas Diocese and school officials declined to comment on Crouse's case, citing personnel confidentiality.
Crouse would not discuss whether he regretted posting his personal profile on the Web site, or whether he plans to fight his termination.
He has found himself in the same lot as other Catholic teachers across the country who have been fired for espousing beliefs or acting contrary to church teachings.
Violating church doctrine is grounds for immediate dismissal, according to a contract all Bishop Gorman teachers sign.
Crouse wrote on his Web site that he was gay and looking for "straight-acting single men." The church teaches that same-sex relations are a sin.
The Catholic Church expects teachers to serve as role models for students and to know, act and teach in accordance with church doctrine, said Richard A. Facciolo, chancellor and superintendent of schools for the Las Vegas Diocese.
At school, Crouse did not discuss his sexual orientation and did not mention the Web site, students said.
"He's a really good teacher, very creative," said a student who asked not to be identified. "He really tries to get the kids into learning. He should have every right to do what he wants as long as he doesn't bring it into the school, which he didn't."
But Catholic educators disagree.
"The ideal is to kind of practice what we preach," said Leonard DeFiore, an education professor at Catholic University and past president of the National Catholic Education Association. "Parents entrust their children to Catholic schools with the understanding that they are going to get teachers and a curriculum that reflects that Catholic faith."
There are various examples of Catholic teachers being fired for violating church doctrine.
A Milwaukee teacher is appealing her 2004 firing for getting pregnant through in vitro fertilization. In April, a football coach at a Massachusetts school was fired for getting his girlfriend pregnant. In November, a young Brooklyn, N.Y., teacher was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock. And in October, a Sacramento, Calif., teacher was fired after officials learned she had previously volunteered at an abortion clinic.
In earlier cases, teachers have been fired for espousing pro-choice beliefs and for getting remarried without having the previous marriage annulled.
The church teaches that sexual acts are reserved for marriage, for purposes of procreation. Anything else is considered a sin, including premarital sex, homosexual acts, using birth control or artificial means of getting pregnant.
Nonreligious employers are legally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, but religious organizations can hire and fire on the basis of their religious beliefs. That allows them to put restrictions on employees, including their sexual orientation, said Lee Rowland, a public advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Bishop Gorman may consider that a bona fide part of the job is to be straight, which we believe is unfortunate," Rowland said. Crouse's pages on the MySpace site contain no mention of Gorman. He identifies himself as a 45-year-old Catholic single man who "adore(s) my job and I have all summer off."
Walt Rulffes, superintendent of the Clark County School District, wouldn't speculate how the incident would have been handled if the teacher involved was a public school employee.
However, Rulffes said, "All individuals in positions of trust who work with children must be held to the highest standards."
You're not exactly a student of critical thinking, are you? But if those two asinine questions were not your doing, I withdraw the comment.
Sorry, I'm done doing your research for you. You clearly have no interest in the subject aside from beating the "gay is OK" drum.
Well I'll give you one thing. I certainly don't have the interest in the subject you do. But if I did, I would certainly not toss out 95% of the studies without ever looking at them, simply because they ran contrary to what your ping list told you to think.
Yeah, whatever. Is that DNC talking point 21 or 25?
Nah, not really. I tend to lump all extremists together, left or right. Some of them deserve each other.
Not surprisingly, you completely misunderstood my point, which was--I think that ALL psychological and sociological statistical studies are of little worth. They are soft sciences trying to their darndest to look like hard sciences.
I thought we were talking about homosexual tendencies here, not astrophysics. Since your talking points tell you its simply a choice and not anything physical, why wouldn't psychology play a role? If by hard science you mean biology, careful, you may get tossed out of here quicker than me.
To confuse such with science or medicine is a profound mistake.
So, in other words, if a medical doctor made a statement about the physiology of homosexuals you would consider those opinions?
Yeah, those darn free-thinking liberals that gave us the French Revolution and every dictator since then.
Yeah, the same ones who put those evil thoughts into Galileo's head, and led Newton astray. Durn libruls!
What a fluff piece.
No way this person should be around children. I bet there is FAR more to this story than the reporter is letting on.
The catholic school is 100% within their rights.
Yup and gave us the holocaust, Hiroshima, pornography on the internet, abortion-on-demand, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. gotta take the bad with the good, I guess.
Well, if that's your idea of free thinkers, ok.
The free thinkers are quite proud of turning away from the church's moral authority. As Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, everything is permissible."
I'm sure with your background, you understand the concept of the false dichotomy. I gave your questions far more time than they deserved.
Can you provide links for me to all the studies making up that 95%? And while you're at it, go subscribe to a bunch of APA journals for me, photocopy the relevant articles and fax them over to me, will you?
Well faxes seem so backward. If you wish, and your thought police leader gives you permission, I will be happy to post a number of links, leaving out the APA addressing the issue of "it's only a choice". You let me know.
Ah, so someone who thinks that sexual relations within marriage between one man and one woman is normal, lifegiving, healthy and good but that homosexual behavior is grotesque and abhorrent, is an extremist? If that makes me an extremist, then guilty as charged.
Not at all. In fact I respect your right to believe whatever you want. An extremist is one who wants to prevent all other ideas but his own from entering the debate. While that definition doesn't fit you, because you have at least permitted the debate to go forward(even if you want to keep changing the rules), it does fit others here. The first sign of an extremist, or radical if you will, is a person who can not debate an issue and therefore attempts to stifle those who can.
My point is that psychological science, while reasonably good at identifying root causes of many problems, has done an amazingly poor job addressing and curing them.
Can't argue that one. Not much into that part of the medical profession anyway.
In the case of those with same-sex attraction disorder, they have simply been abandoned by the psychological community, patted on the head, and told to sodomize each other to their hearts' content
That's because they have determined (with concurrence from the AMA) that their condition is not psychological, but physiological. Yet they continue to treat those who do have problems which may be connected to the homosexuality, as quite a few do.
"Homosexual" physiology is the same as any other human physiology--at least before the years of misuse and abuse. Any medical doctor who said otherwise is a crank.
Well, among your other talents, you can now judge the qualifications of doctors. But I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Again, check in through your chain of command, and I'll be happy to provide some links if you like.
Enjoyed. Gotta go now. You're a good sport.
;-)
A free thinker is one who does recognize that the Church's "moral authority" has evolved and changed over time, and is therefore a fair topic for discussion. The concept of abortion comes to mind.
A free thinker is someone who recognizes and questions that which is completely ludicrous, regardless of who claims to be the final authority on the subject.
Wonderful theory. However, in practice, a freethinker is one who disregards the Church's moral authority and claims to have their own. Inevitably, their own appetites are the only moral authority they choose to recognize.
Good dodge. Didn't think you would take me up on it. So at least you do agree that Galileo and Newton were free thinkers? But didn't God give us freedom to think? Are non free thinkers then those who are directed or told what to think?
Freethinking is but another moral relative concept you introduce into the mix. Your conclusions are absurd REGARDLESS you cherish the freethinking that birthed them...
I dodge nothing. As I recall, Galileo submitted to the Catholic Church. I have no problem with him, he recognized the importance of the church unlike his impious followers.
God gave us free will, so we can think and do whatever we want. We are just as "free" to murder as we are to create.
I read your post and appreciate and agree with your thoughts in general. Once I get a moment to respond in greater detail I will offer my thoughts on your thoughts.
That's only a valid assessment if there are no other qualified teachers available. As has already been said, that is not the case.
I don't think that just being a homosexual is the equivalent of being a pedophile.
From a biblical perspective, there's no differentiation in sexual sin. It's all perversion in God's eyes.
"I'm sure that's not what you were insinuating."
The church should not just shrug it's shoulders at sin, period.
Yes, the Catholic Church was supreme in everything. They knew through dogma demonstrated by the Bible, that the earth was central to everything, and Galileo's belief that the earth revolved around the sun was heresy and he was so convicted by the Inquistition. He was imprisoned for having such thoughts and trying to tell the world about them. Is that the kind of disregard for the Church's moral authority you are referring to? And you wonder why intelligent people question some of the Church's dogma today? Do you approve of how the Church has handled scientific inquiry such as that of Galileo?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.