He was also contracted to his employer and, as such, there were expectations of that contract. He was adjudged to have breached that contract.
Every employer has written or implied obligations outside the performance of their duties.
Joan doesn't follow some of the theological or religious tenants of Catholicism. She, in my opinion ...
So, as long as it conforms to your opinion it's 'not the same'?
I could say the same about Folau, only it wouldn't just be my opinion. He was found by duly establish enquiry to be in breach of his contract. It's more than about an individual's opinion.
... is on a path of her own making without support for good reason, as many in the church's history have tried to pave- only to hit a dead end.
Your opinion is noted.
If Chittister was subject to an enquiry which showed, in a way that we can examine, that she was adjudged to have broken her 'contract' and if the reasons she was sanctioned were available to the public then, it would be an analogous situation.
But you're right; it is different.
Nothing about this is open to public scrutiny let alone something official we can refer to.
Unlike the Folau case, nobody in authority is answerable for their actions.
If you assert that Folau's case is part of a 'new and ugly Australia' then surely you have to conclude that the situation with Chittister is even worse?
Or is freedom of speech something that is only available to those we agree with?
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »