Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher

[Neil_Anthony]

There are 2 ways for a woman to get pregnant: Consensual sex or rape. Now we can REASONABLY deduce that rape didn’t occur because:

1. Never mentioned by anyone at all.
2. No police being involved.

Therefore it must be consensual sex.

To say its a sin to HAVE GOTTEN pregnant does in NO WAY suggest she should get an abortion. Do you honestly think that having an abortion will get rid of the sin of pre-marital sex?

She may indeed be living with her bf. That is another reason why she should get fired.

I think you’re misunderstanding my motives, I’m not trying to argue that she should continue teaching.

First, I think it’s important to emphasize that being pregnant is not a sin. As you point out, getting pregnant usually is a sin if you aren’t married. Why is it important? Because a pregnancy is always a good thing, because it is a new life created by God. So we shouldn’t say that being pregnant is a sin, or fire people for being pregnant. We have to be clear that they are being fired for some immoral action that led to the pregnancy.

I only think its important because I see people here making pregnancy look like an evil, and I think it’s playing into the hands of the culture of death. And that article accepts the slant that this woman is using, that she “got fired for being pregnant” when really, she should say that** her lifestyle got found out** because she was pregnant.

 

[dixieagle]

If a person sins mortally, it is better that they never again teach. Having committed a mortal sin even once damages the soul and predisposes that individual to committing the same act again. While this may not render the individual reprobate, and there is still just cause to hope for the individual’s repentance, the likelihood of a second occurrence makes for too great a risk to trust such a person around educational establishments.

It is true that some of the saints may have lifted their own lives up from deplorable wickedness but, since they are dead, they have no further tests upon their virtue for the rest of us to contend with. This is not the case for a sinner we meet on the street. Such a person has already demonstrated their weakness in one area and it would constitute a sin against prudence to allow such a person among those who are still receiving their own formation in the faith.

I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous.

What about those whose primary sin is colossal arrogance?

 

[dixieagle]

I don’t think she should have been fired…considering that priests who have struggled with sin were not let go from their vocations, I’m confused as to why this young woman was fired. She should have been sent out on a leave of absence…that would have been compassionate, and if she seemed unrepentant (we can only say seemed because we don’t know her heart for sure) then perhaps, letting her go would have been the best recourse.

It’s not that easy for someone to just get a new job at a snap–she will also lose her benefits and she will need these to be able to get good prenatal care for her baby. I understand the sentiments, but all I’m saying is that we should hold everyone to the same standards. If priests are in mortal sin and are ‘found out’, should they be let go too?

Excellent points here, though somewhat uncomfortable for many to ponder, I imagine. I know of several priests who should have gotten the boot, but were instead given new parishes. But I digress…

 

[childofmary1143]

I think you’re misunderstanding my motives, I’m not trying to argue that she should continue teaching.

First, I think it’s important to emphasize that being pregnant is not a sin. As you point out, getting pregnant usually is a sin if you aren’t married. Why is it important? Because a pregnancy is always a good thing, because it is a new life created by God. So we shouldn’t say that being pregnant is a sin, or fire people for being pregnant. We have to be clear that they are being fired for some immoral action that led to the pregnancy.

I only think its important because I see people here making pregnancy look like an evil, and I think it’s playing into the hands of the culture of death. And that article accepts the slant that this woman is using, that she “got fired for being pregnant” when really, she should say that** her lifestyle got found out** because she was pregnant.

I apologise for misunderstanding what you are saying.

 

[surfinpure]

Well, then, I imagine just about everybody would have to be fired, as we are ALL sinners in one way or another.

Considering she could have had an abortion, but didn’t, I think that the pro-life message trumps anything else here. I think this makes the school, and therefore the Church, look very hypocritical. What good does it do the unborn child if the mother cannot make a living? Good heavens, people.

I’m sorry, but I cannot abide by the modern philosphy that we all ought to be rewarded for being sorry for our wrongs. Maybe that’s good enough for Oprah, but I hold myself and my own children to a much higher standard. Being sorry is wonderful, and not adding one mortal sin to another is certainly a grace, but since when are we taught to expect that we should be rewarded for our remorse by a breech of the rules?

I also think we all ought to be very, VERY careful anytime we are tempted to second-guess the decisions of Church authority. Clearly, from the quote Catharina has been thoughtful enough to supply, we can deduce that the diocese was responsible for developing, overseeing, and enforcing the policy. I respect their authority as our religious superiors, acting in the name of the Church, to make the decision here. If they erred at all, then at least it was on the conservative side – protecting the students from scandal.

This teacher, in sinning and violating her agreement, did not leave the school or the diocese any happy choices; indeed, sin rarely does. It is so easy for us to sit here in the comfort of our homes and with limited information and make a judgment about how they decided. But let us not forget that **they are the ones who had to make the tough decision, and they are the ones who are taking the heat for it now. ** And what is their crime? They – the school and the diocese – came down on the side of protecting the students and upholding their policy. Bravo!!!

 

[Other_Eric]

I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous.

What about those whose primary sin is colossal arrogance?

Simply calling something ridiculous does not make it so. Perhaps it might help your side of the argument if, instead of composing one-off lines more suited for a bumper sticker than a discussion forum, you took some time to write a well-reasoned response to my position.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I apologise for misunderstanding what you are saying.

It’s okay, I wasn’t very clear about what I was getting at.

 

[whatevergirl]

Excellent points here, though somewhat uncomfortable for many to ponder, I imagine. I know of several priests who should have gotten the boot, but were instead given new parishes. But I digress…

Yes–I immediately thought of that, and don’t understand how the Church made concessions for those priests, but this woman is found having premarital sex (at least that is legal) and she is terminated. I am not only speaking of the sex scandals with the priests, but also priests who are addicted to gambling or alcohol–yet they are asked to take a leave of absence. Why not the same given to someone in this woman’s situation? I absolutely don’t think she should be permitted to stay and teach while pregnant, but the standards should be even–across the board. Just my thoughts.

 

[childofmary1143]

Yes–I immediately thought of that, and don’t understand how the Church made concessions for those priests, but this woman is found having premarital sex (at least that is legal) and she is terminated. I am not only speaking of the sex scandals with the priests, but also priests who are addicted to gambling or alcohol–yet they are asked to take a leave of absence. Why not the same given to someone in this woman’s situation? I absolutely don’t think she should be permitted to stay and teach while pregnant, but the standards should be even–across the board. Just my thoughts.

I can see what you are saying Sharon and I understand that. I would say that we are talking about 2 different situations. First off a Priest is bound by Canon Law and obedience to his Bishop.

This school is independent of Catholic Hierarchy (directly).

 

[catharina]

It’s my understanding that the Church will “never again” bounce sexually-troubled priests from one parish to another in this country anyway. As for other problems of thievery, addiction, etc., priests are ordained, consecrated and subject to Canon Law. The teacher in question, new to teaching, made a free-will contract with her employers and then knowingly violated the contract. What’s unusual about asking for her departure? Nothing.

 

[whatevergirl]

I can see what you are saying Sharon and I understand that. I would say that we are talking about 2 different situations. First off a Priest is bound by Canon Law and obedience to his Bishop.

This school is independent of Catholic Hierarchy (directly).

Well–the caviat to it all is this…if she signed something that explicitly stated that she would be fired if she did not adhere to Church teaching in her personal life, then…really, she doesn’t have much to say about the firing. But, the media will talk about such things–and the Church being under a micrscope with the sex scandals–it just “looks” like a double standard. It really isn’t, because it sounds like she had a contract contingent upon her behavior in and out of school–as it relates to Catholic teaching and morals. So–for that, I doubt she has a case…but, just from a compassionate standpoint–a leave of absence could have worked, also.

 

[surfinpure]

Yes–I immediately thought of that, and don’t understand how the Church made concessions for those priests, but this woman is found having premarital sex (at least that is legal) and she is terminated. I am not only speaking of the sex scandals with the priests, but also priests who are addicted to gambling or alcohol–yet they are asked to take a leave of absence. Why not the same given to someone in this woman’s situation? I absolutely don’t think she should be permitted to stay and teach while pregnant, but the standards should be even–across the board. Just my thoughts.

Just a consideration (not saying I disagree), but Catholic schools usually have very tight budgets, and I doubt they could justify giving this woman a paid sabbatical while also having to hire another teacher.

Also, as far as the situations with priests go, I understand that it is not uncommon for a parish priest who is struggling with a serious problem of sin to be moved out of the parish life altogether and placed into a different venue, where he can continue to receive help in overcoming his sin, but where there is no risk of scandalizing the laity.

 

[catharina]

Another result from google searching. This writer works for U.S News and World Report and is also published by townhall.com. I’ve never heard of him but I clearly understand his point of view.

The case of Michelle McCusker
By John Leo

The case of Michelle McCusker, the unmarried and pregnant teacher fired by a Catholic school, may turn out to be an important one, with heavy impact on our understanding of religious liberty. The New York Civil Liberties Union is handling her suit, and if the school and the local diocese don’t fold their cards and settle, the NYCLU will lose in court And it deserves to.

McCusker, 26, is suing the Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Rose of Lima school in Queens for dismissing her as a pre-kindergarten teacher last fall. That was two days after McCusker told her principal that she was three months pregnant and had no intention of marrying the father. The school praised her work and expressed sympathy, but said she had to leave because an unmarried pregnant woman is an inappropriate role model and authority figure in a Catholic school. Besides, the teachers’ personnel handbook says “a teacher is required to convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions, demonstrating an acceptance of Gospel values and the Christian tradition.” McCusker signed a contract accepting that rule.

Along with her supporters, McCusker thinks the church should be a little more understanding and pleased that she didn’t abort. Secularists, and many religious people, take an instrumentalist view: so long as an employee plays by the rules at work, his or her private life doesn’t matter. 

The NYCLU complaint goes much further. It says the church and the school violated a federal law banning discrimination against pregnant women. To avoid gender discrimination, the NYCLU says, the school should have to show it is willing to move against unmarried male teachers who impregnate their lovers. This is an odd argument for a civil liberties union to make-that to justify firing a pregnant  and single employee, a school should make some effort to monitor the sex lives of  its male teachers.

…

In this case, the church didn’t fire McCusker because she is a sinner. It believes we are all sinners. It fired her because a visibly pregnant and unmarried authority figure dealing with young children is conveying a message-this is all right-that the church does not want to send. So McCusker has to lose. Neither the state nor the courts can control the religious message.

* In 1987, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, went beyond the protection of the ministerial function and ruled that nonprofit religious organizations may legally discriminate on religious grounds in hiring, even if the job involved is a secular one (Presiding Bishop of  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v Amos). I’m not sure a Baptist church should be allowed to fire a janitor for converting to Methodism, but that’s the law.

There’s a broader problem: many institutions are now using anti-bias laws and regulations to trample the ministerial function. More than a dozen universities have punished their campus evangelical groups, either cutting off funds or withdrawing recognition, because these groups do not allow declared homosexuals to become officers. The universities (or their student tribunals) do this because their regulations say that campus groups must allow all students to join and run for office.  The Evangelicals usually say that gay membership is fine, but a gay officer is not acceptable because the group must be able to control its core religious message-in this case that homosexual sex is forbidden by the Bible. I first noticed this problem at Tufts in 2000 when a bisexual woman in the campus Christian Fellowship, who had said she accepted church teaching on sex, changed her mind and announced that she thought homosexuality is compatible with Scripture. She wanted a leadership position. The Fellowship said no and was then “de-recognized”  by student authorities. University officials let it happen, saying it was not the administration’s concern.

 Some campuses elevate anti-discrimination rules over religious freedom in large part because gays are very powerful on campus and Christians are not. In effect, Evangelicals are being punished for failing to have the views of the dominant campus culture. Someone should explain to the campuses  (and to McCusker’s supporters) what religious freedom means.

John Leo is a columnist and editor for U.S. News & World Report and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.*

(shortened to fit forum space)

link to full article: townhall.com/columnists/JohnLeo/2005/12/05/the_case_of_michelle_mccusker

 

[RWMorris]

If a person sins mortally, it is better that they never again teach. Having committed a mortal sin even once damages the soul and predisposes that individual to committing the same act again…Such a person has already demonstrated their weakness in one area and it would constitute a sin against prudence to allow such a person among those who are still receiving their own formation in the faith.

On my first reading of your post, I thought your position was ridiculous. Then I read it again, thought about it, and read it again.

Are you saying that the vast, extreme vast majority of Christians don’t sin mortally on a fairly regularly basis? What is the Sacrament of Confession for? Why are we, Catholic Christians, required to confess at least annually, and encouraged to confess much more often? I thought confession was only mandatory for mortal sins. Are you saying that you rarely, if ever, commit mortal sin?

I am just trying to understand your post and your argument against this teacher. While I agree that she should be fired for violation of her contract, I certainly don’t feel that her sin precludes her from ever teaching in a Catholic school again. After she has her baby, and convinces the parish Priest and the school headmaster the she is truly sorry for her sin and is not likely to repeat it, why couldn’t she teach again? We usually learn from our mistakes; in fact true wisdom comes from making mistakes and learning from them. Show me a person who has never made mistakes and lived through hard times and you’re looking at a person without much wisdom.

 

[catharina]

Has anyone else noticed that this “news” is almost three years old? All of this began in the Fall of 2005. Why did FFL decide to get behind this case in early 2006? What is the current status of this woman’s lawsuit? Was it resolved? When/where/how, etc.?

 

[childofmary1143]

Has anyone else noticed that this “news” is almost three years old? All of this began in the Fall of 2005. Why did FFL decide to get behind this case in early 2006? What is the current status of this woman’s lawsuit? Was it resolved? When/where/how, etc.?

Oops I guess its not news anymore. Let me search out any new updates.

 

[RWMorris]

The case of Michelle McCusker
By John Leo

The case of Michelle McCusker, the unmarried and pregnant teacher fired by a Catholic school, may turn out to be an important one, with heavy impact on our understanding of religious liberty…

John Leo has been writing a conservative column for US New for many years. If what he is saying is true, this case now is about religious liberty and is no longer about a sin committed by the teacher. In my mind she has burned her bridge.

 

[catharina]

I don’t think that I’m terribly cynical but it sounds like maybe this teacher attempted emotional blackmail of a Catholic school and it didn’t work. If she was already four months pregnant when she announced it, didn’t she agree to her “contract” while in knowing violation of it?

 

[RWMorris]

I don’t think that I’m terribly cynical but it sounds like maybe this teacher attempted emotional blackmail of a Catholic school and it didn’t work. If she was already four months pregnant when she announced it, didn’t she agree to her “contract” while in knowing violation of it?

Unfortunately, it may have worked:

In re McClusker v. St. Rose of Lima Parish School, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn

Status
Closed

Issue text
EEOC (direct).
This case involves a private Catholic school’s decision to fire a teacher because she was pregnant.
On November 21, 2005, RRP filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Michelle McCusker. Ms. McCusker, who is single, was formerly employed as a pre-kindergarten teacher at St. Rose of Lima Parish School in Queens. She was fired by the private Catholic school when she told her employer that she was pregnant and intended to carry the pregnancy to term. The complaint alleges that St. Rose of Lima and the Brooklyn Diocese illegally discriminated against Ms. McCusker on the basis of sex and pregnancy when it fired her.
On December 13, 2005, RRP and client Michelle McCusker met with an attorney and an investigator with the EEOC as part of the EEOC’s preliminary investigation of the complaint. The defendants have filed papers resisting the EEOC’s jurisdiction over the case because the school is a religious entity. On July 19, 2006, RRP filed a reply, arguing that the EEOC clearly has jurisdiction over charges of pregnancy discrimination by a school against a lay teacher, even if the school is religious.
The EEOC has since issued a Letter of Determination, finding probable cause that discrimination had occurred. As of July 2007, the NYCLU is in conciliation discussions with the respondents.
Attorneys involved in this case inlcude Galen Sherwin, director of the NYCLU Reproductive Rights Project.

Source URL:
nyclu.org/node/1204

 

[Steeltemplar]

Although I believe that in some cases a repentant woman should be allowed come back to teaching, that does not mean I support FFL’s stance or this particular woman. Along with what I have already said in this thread, I would add the following:

1. A person who violates the code does not have a right to keep their job. If they are retained, it should be clear that it is an exception and that it is a kindness. Part of a contrite attitude would be the willingness to accept what the school chooses to do.
2. The law should not be getting involved in these matters.

Given the facts, it does sound like in this case the woman in question should have been fired. That may not be so with every case of this kind.