Thanks for typing all that, I didn’t feel like typing it all. But yea, that’s it. What’s worse is how those people pull the ‘sexist’ thing saying the rule can only be enforced on a woman. well, clearly. men don’t get pregnant. If a man did get pregnant, they should fire him as well, because he is probably really a she who got some kind of against-the-church surgery or something.People who have issues with sexual morality have no place in or around a Catholic education establishment. The employment handbook was very clear: “must convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions.” If you sin, you aren’t conveying the teachings of the Catholic faith and ought to be fired.
That is a good point. But i still don’t think it would be appropriate for an unmarried and expecting individual to be heading a classroom. especially with such young children. it’s too much to explain all that to pre-schoolers who might ask (because they will notice) about her baby.Hmm. I agree with the idea that people who teach at a Catholic school should be committed to Catholic moral standards.
Here is a question, though.
What if a person in this situation (man or woman, it takes two after all) repented? Shouldn’t that be taken into consideration?
I think that someone who fell and then repented, who understands the consequences and pain caused by sin, could have very powerful messages for students. One message is the cautionary one - a reality-based counter to the secular hedonism that gets pushed on them all the time. Another is forgiveness - that those who fall may repent and be forgiven and accepted.
However, if there is no repentance, then employing the person is not justified. The children do need a proper example.
Yes, I had thought of that. Perhaps it does not need to be addressed with ones so young?That is a good point. But i still don’t think it would be appropriate for an unmarried and expecting individual to be heading a classroom. especially with such young children. it’s too much to explain all that to pre-schoolers who might ask (because they will notice) about her baby.
I don’t see what it is that is sexist about this at all. If a person commits adultery, masturbates, has purchased pornography or happens to have same-sex attractions, the verdict is the same. Fire them, expel them, get rid of them. None of these issues is constricted by gender. The thing is that Catholic education is becoming a morass of relativism. The formation of those who seek an education from the faith is of utmost importance and neither students nor the rest of the faculty should be exposed to someone who has sinned. The schools need to be purged just like the seminaries have been.Thanks for typing all that, I didn’t feel like typing it all. But yea, that’s it. What’s worse is how those people pull the ‘sexist’ thing saying the rule can only be enforced on a woman. well, clearly. men don’t get pregnant. If a man did get pregnant, they should fire him as well, because he is probably really a she who got some kind of against-the-church surgery or something.
I read about this case awhile ago and it completely soured me on the group “Feminists for Life.” I was not overly fond of them before this, but now their opinions and positions hold no interest for me.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1641467&page=1
I think its ridiculous for “Feminists for Life” to say that by firing this woman it drives her to have an abortion.
it is obvious they don’t understand Catholic morality and how it is applied in the school systems. In addition, the fact that they are proceeding with a bogus law suit, deflecting attention from the real issue, speaks for itself."The appropriate response for the employer when they found out she was pregnant, is to say, ‘Congratulations,’ and, ‘How can I help?’ "
So then you recommend closing all Catholic schools?I don’t see what it is that is sexist about this at all. If a person commits adultery, masturbates, has purchased pornography or happens to have same-sex attractions, the verdict is the same. Fire them, expel them, get rid of them. None of these issues is constricted by gender. The thing is that Catholic education is becoming a morass of relativism. The formation of those who seek an education from the faith is of utmost importance and neither students nor the rest of the faculty should be exposed to someone who has sinned. The schools need to be purged just like the seminaries have been.
Yeah, I was not commenting on this specific case so much as the whole question of these kind of situations.To the poster who commented on repentence: clearly the woman in question is not repentent. If you read her comments, and the comments made by Serrin Foster
it is obvious they don’t understand Catholic morality and how it is applied in the school systems. In addition, the fact that they are proceeding with a bogus law suit, deflecting attention from the real issue, speaks for itself.
Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments. Sometimes the love of Christ demands we show people to the street. This is a spiritual work of mercy.So then you recommend closing all Catholic schools?
Your statement would leave no alternative.
You do not believe that all people sin?Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments. Sometimes the love of Christ demands we show people to the street. This is a spiritual work of mercy.
This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve read here in a long time. This is surprising, even coming from you.Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments.
Jim,I seem to recall the words of Jesus, " let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
Firing this woman tells me that the school has no concept of the gospel message, according to Jesus Christ.
The Church would probably be better served, if this school closed down. They present a poor example of how to be forgiving and compassionate.
Jim