Las Vegas Catholic school fires gay teacher over MySpace page

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."

"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."

I see you pinged for some help. No problem.

You'll have to excuse me. I don't have the links at hand and don't have the luxury of time to cater to your demands for such.

You seemed to have little difficulty discussing the larger issue, the growing problem of improper student-teacher contacts, so I am merely responding to you.

Baloney. You're using the 'Seamless Garment' strategy--that is, deflect the focus off of the one narrow issue under debate (homosexual teachers) and make it just one small issue amidst a host of larger ones that we should be focusing on. Sorry, not buying.

Up to this point we have been discussing improper and illegal behavior....The initial issue seemed to be whether or not the teacher's sexual preference found its way into the classroom in terms of his behavior.

Maybe we're having two different discussions, then. I'm specifically talking about homosexuals in teaching positions--particularly in Catholic schools. You remember, what the article is actually about? My position is that it's a bad idea to put a non-celibate, out, homosexual in a classroom setting--just as it would be entrust the education of children to anyone with a serious mental disorder.

Let's try this again. Do you agree with this statement: "Heterosexual conduct within the bounds of marriage is good, healthy, natural, lifegiving and proper." Homosexual conduct is never any of those things under any circumstances."

Check [ ] Yes. [ ] No.

I've addressed this issue in other posts.

Perhaps. But have you read the article? If not, here's the link again [The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement (Caution, graphic contents)].

I imagine most homosexuals who are teachers are in that last group and just want to obey the law and provide the same quality education that most heterosexual teachers want to provide.

Links?

On the other hand, there are a number of professional studies indicating there is no linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Right. And both APAs and the AMA now say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Sadly, we've gone way past the point where psychological and sociological studies can be accepted as ironclad proof of anything aside from the barely concealed political bias of the researcher.

Furthermore, most mainstream "gays," if you catch them at the right moment, will tell you that they think the age of consent should be lowered. Right, Sir Elton?

Baloney. You're using the 'Seamless Garment' strategy--that is, deflect the focus off of the one narrow issue under debate (homosexual teachers) and make it just one small issue amidst a host of larger ones that we should be focusing on. Sorry, not buying.

OK, I'm game. Let's stick with homosexual teachers and the issue of child abuse. Make your point and I'll respond. We'll make believe that only homosexuals (1.5% of the population) involved in child abuse is the problem.

You remember, what the article is actually about? My position is that it's a bad idea to put a non-celibate, out, homosexual in a classroom setting--just as it would be entrust the education of children to anyone with a serious mental disorder.

Well then, we just have to agree to disagree. But we do agree that the school has the legal authority to fire the teacher. We don't agree on the degree of propensity of homosexuals to abuse children though. As for serious mental disorders, I'll leave that for you and your ping list to dance around.

Let's try this again. Do you agree with this statement: "Heterosexual conduct within the bounds of marriage is good, healthy, natural, lifegiving and proper."

Usually, though I could point to thousands of cases where that's anything but true. The divorce rate in this Country alone indicates that's simply not an absolute.

Homosexual conduct is never any of those things under any circumstances."

Not being a homosexual, nor in seeing many cases of homosexual unions breaking up, I can't say one way or the other. As was brought out in another thread, numerous studies are being made with respect to homosexual unions and children. No substantive study free from any defects has yet been made public to my knowledge. But I though you wanted to keep this strictly about the one teacher who was fired for outing his homosexuality on a website. Not sure what that's got to do with marriage. You're confusing me about what you want to discuss.

Perhaps. But have you read the article? If not, here's the link again

I have tried to follow your links and respond to them in a professional manner. I'm not going to go through every link. I gave you the name of a book and you did not respond indicating either an interest or a knowledge. Fine. But Bruce's point about militant homosexuals is good. I don't have to like homosexual behavior or even pretend to understand it. They are who they are, and if they do not wave it in my face then I will leave them alone. I do not spend my entire life fighting windmills. If you want me to address the link, then start another thread on it and ping me.

Right. And both APAs and the AMA now say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

How dare they. I mean, why would doctors and psychologists feel they have any special training or education to make such judgments when they can check in with one or two ping lists and learn everything they need to know.

Sadly, we've gone way past the point where psychological and sociological studies can be accepted as ironclad proof of anything aside from the barely concealed political bias of the researcher.

Where does that leave you then? Surely you are not suggesting the links you have provided me had no bias attached by either the author or the user? One of your "group" provided a link to a study that showed that 49 studies of homosexuals and children that reflected the children were not harmed (any more than with heterosexuals) contained one or more flaws based on the study's guidelines. But then several of the "group" provided their own studies, which no doubt suffered from the same deficiencies. I honestly don't know how you folks make some of the judgments you do if you reject all studies except only those that support the determination you have already reached. Most people would look at studies on both sides of an issue before reaching conclusions, especially those they were palpably ill-trained to diagnose. Political perhaps?

Furthermore, most mainstream "gays," if you catch them at the right moment, will tell you that they think the age of consent should be lowered. Right, Sir Elton?

Truly you don't want to go there. But if so, let me know.

If you believe that the Catholic Church teaches the Truth of Jesus Christ, then you'll understand that teaching one without the other is pointless. If you think that Catholic dogma is lies, why expose your child to it at all?

A fair question. Schools are for education. Many Catholic schools provide a better overall education that most public schools. I don't have to agree with all Catholic dogma (which has of course changed dramatically over the past couple of thousand years). No school is free of ideas and concepts completely acceptable to everyone. I always made it my point to know what was being taught to my children, and intervening when necessary at home with supplementary education. Churches are for dogma and moral teachings. Home is for moral exposure where a family is not church going, and schools are for education.

But I don't condemn or criticize anyone for their reasons for choosing or rejecting a Catholic school.

I fail to see the validity of your comment since you indicate there are other qualified teachers. Or perhaps you didn't really mean that they were willing to sacrifice the quality of education in order to enforce their policies. That seemed to be what you were implying.

No, just that their priority was something other than education. If they later hire a qualified teacher, then from that point forward, the education is alright.

If they had failed to enforce their (quite biblical) policies with this teacher, then they would have been guilty of turning a blind eye to sin just as they did with the instances of pedophilia. Fortunately, they didn't do that this time.

I don't think that just being a homosexual is the equivalent of being a pedophile. I'm sure that's not what you were insinuating. One may be a sin, and I'm not going to argue that. But pedophile conduct must be an infinitely more disgusting sin in the eyes of God.

Everything else you've said on this thread is pure meaningless fluff. Here's the nub:

Do you agree with this statement: "Heterosexual conduct within the bounds of marriage is good, healthy, natural, lifegiving and proper." Homosexual conduct is never any of those things under any circumstances."

Check [ ] Yes. [ ] No.

Your response was (to consolidate):

Usually, though I could point to thousands of cases where that's anything but true. The divorce rate in this Country alone indicates that's simply not an absolute. Not being a homosexual, nor in seeing many cases of homosexual unions breaking up, I can't say one way or the other. No substantive study free from any defects has yet been made public to my knowledge. But I though you wanted to keep this strictly about the one teacher who was fired for outing his homosexuality on a website. Not sure what that's got to do with marriage. You're confusing me about what you want to discuss.

That's a lovely non-answer. Were you ever a politician?

How dare they. I mean, why would doctors and psychologists feel they have any special training or education to make such judgments when they can check in with one or two ping lists and learn everything they need to know.

The American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove SSAD from the DSM was done by a vote that was purely political and not based on any new scientific discoveries. Since when is science a democratic process?

Surely you are not suggesting the links you have provided me had no bias attached by either the author or the user?

That's a problem endemic to the social sciences--and it slants much more heavily to the pro-homo than the anti-homo side. Based on my reading of dozens of social science articles in academic journals, I have concluded that most of these soft-science statistical studies are pure, unadulterated BS. For a real eye opener, try reading the journal Accountability in Research on a regular basis. It has made me infinitely more cynical of all this garbage--particularly the pro-homosexual studies that produce results which are beyond counter-intuitive.

That's a lovely non-answer. Were you ever a politician?

It's the best answer you'll get. Were you ever a thinker? Oh, nevermind.

The American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove SSAD from the DSM was done by a vote that was purely political and not based on any new scientific discoveries. Since when is science a democratic process?

Well, clearly I don't follow these things with the gusto you do, but I don't know. Do you have a link to the proceedings, with all of the various studies? Science may not be a democratic process, but over here on a couple of ping lists, it's definitely a lost process.

For a real eye opener, try reading the journal Accountability in Research on a regular basis. It has made me infinitely more cynical of all this garbage--particularly the pro-homosexual studies that produce results which are beyond counter-intuitive.

That's a pretty good way of saying "your studies are junk'....mine are cool". But if you can blow off a few hundred studies, then you are left with your original conclusion....it's whatever I say it is!

Well, clearly I don't follow these things with the gusto you do, but I don't know. Do you have a link to the proceedings, with all of the various studies?

How about these links?

Exposed: Homosexual Child Molesters

EXCERPT:
Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals.

Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal.

EXCERPT:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.
This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.
What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Science may not be a democratic process, but over here on a couple of ping lists, it's definitely a lost process.

And where is your "science" -- I have yet to see you quote ANY science supporting your opinion(s) on homosexuality. You float your opinions in Devil Advocate fashion all the while claiming not to advocate for the "Devil" and when questioned you indignantly demand "science" or "proof" to refute YOUR faith in the homosexual disorder being innocuous and something to be accepted and tolerated without discrimination.

If the issue was one decidely science based AND if argued legally the issue involves setting aside precedence comprised of tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law then objectively YOU should provide the science -the evidence -you wish to turn reality on its head from a legal perspective -where is YOUR proof?

Instead if the issue was one decidely Religious based AND if argued from a moral laws perspective the issue involves again setting aside precedence comprised of tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law IN ADDITION to Sacred Scripture then objectively YOU should provide the theological basis -the "evidence". Again, IF you wish to turn reality on its head from a religious perspective -where is YOUR proof?

You post many statements supporting the homosexualization of society; however, your aruments are premised in nothing but wishful thinking...

It's the best answer you'll get.

No surprise there. When you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS.

Well, clearly I don't follow these things with the gusto you do, but I don't know. Do you have a link to the proceedings, with all of the various studies?

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.

Science may not be a democratic process, but over here on a couple of ping lists, it's definitely a lost process.

Yeah, whatever. Is that DNC talking point 21 or 25?

That's a pretty good way of saying "your studies are junk'....mine are cool". But if you can blow off a few hundred studies, then you are left with your original conclusion....it's whatever I say it is!

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. Psychology and sociology are all about opinion--not fact. Certain opinions which are in the ascendancy today, will be in the trash tomorrow. To confuse such with science or medicine is a profound mistake.

Thanks for the very helpful, clear and uncluttered information.

The way I see this situation with this homosexual teacher:-

He publishes his sexual appetite in public, immediately accessible to anyone with the internet.... as so:

"In my eyes, consideration and compassion are very sexy. I'm attracted to straight-acting, single men (if you wear a baseball cap and drive a Wrangler you're halfway there). Defying political correctness (sorry!), please no bisexuals, those with HIV, or effeminate men. Major turn-offs are those with self-defeating behaviors."

So, it certainly isn't hidden that he is advertising and looking for homosexual 'companionship'.
His 'friends' list contains 9 males, of the following ages:
18, 39, 21, 20, 43, 27, 20, 21, 17

He is a 45 year old homosexual with a blatant advert, and 6 of the 9 male 'friends' on his profile are less than half his age.

He is/was a teacher in a Catholic school.

Regardless of what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality, aren't the alarm bells ringing loud?

I hope I've made my point clear.

Good post. Definitely adds to the picture...

As to homosexuality, the Church tends to take one at face value without proof necessary (after all, homosexuality unlike homosexual activity is ONLY a self-declared condition) -IF one claims to suffer the homosexual disorder they are to be legitimately discriminated against as to certain roles, vocations, and or jobs...

Individuals are always free to reject rather than embrace that which the homosexual disorder predisposes them to... In that case one would state they "were" an active "homosexual" but have repented and seek to faithfully follow His path. Over time as with breaking any bad habit the disorder would have less effect on the individual and as such merit less concern and less need for legitimate discrimination to be necessitated...

This document generally outlines the concept I attempt to address:

Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies

2. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry
From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

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.