A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors


Garnett on Eastside Catholic

At MOJ, Rick Garnett has posted some thoughtful remarks on the situation at Eastside Catholic.  Although I am inclined to agree with him that (at least for Catholic elementary and secondary schools who do not accept state funding) this is a choice for the Church to make, it seems to me that the Church has left itself the space to make a different choice in these situations.  It could choose to view the injustice it sees in gay marriage as (in its view) one that is perpetrated by the state, and not by the participants in gay marriages.  Consequently, as to actual gay couples, it could simply treat the marriages as a nullity and ignore them.  On this view, the Church's beef is with the state, not with the gay couple.  If it is willing to hire someone who is gay, it should not fire him/her for taking advantage of a set of secular benefits that the state has chosen to exend to him/her.  Of course, I reject the Church's teachings on homosexuality, so I would favor an even easier way out by treating committed gay relationships as morally valuable.  I take inspiration in my own marriage from the committed gay couples I have known.  But even for those who accept the Church's teachings, I think there is ample room for a change of course.  And this seems to me to be the students' principal insight.

About the Author

Eduardo Moisés Peñalver is the Allan R. Tessler Dean of the Cornell Law School. He is the author of numerous books and articles on the subjects of property and land use law.



Commenting Guidelines

  • All

Interesting to see the students calling the shots.

I do think Garnett frames the issue correctly: how do Zmuda's public marital circumstances 'fit' the school's Catholic mission?  An administrator would need to ask: "Is firing him consistent with our mission?  If we keep him on board and rightfully refuse to gloss over the sinfulness of his marital status, is there a way we can reconcile that with our mission?"  I agree, Eduardo, that there is more than one possible answer to these questions.


Response to Garrett (whose approach is too limited and too legal - need to be pastoral here)

Echoes my comments from the initial Eastside posts earlier this week.


 It could choose to view the injustice it sees in gay marriage as (in its view) one that is perpetrated by the state, and not by the participants in gay marriages.


This is moral relativism at its best.  No one is required by the state to marry.  People are responsible for their free choices; that is the whole point of a free will.

Here's an interesting take, from a Jesuit -- gays today as the Gentiles of the early church:

And more...

^Gotta say that I think his reading of that material rings false.

Focusing on what is legal is a sign that one doesn't have a strong argument about what is right and just.

I agree Eduardo.

Opposing legalising same sex marriages does NOT mean the Church must sack employees who have them, for the simple reason that NOTHING in the same sex marriage vows violates Catholic doctrine.

Wonderful to see the love and solidarity of the students, what a magnificent witness to the gospel of love !

God bless


Add new comment

You may login with your assigned e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.

Or log in with...

Add new comment