J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
No it doesn’t.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The woman was not married, so therefore, did not commit adultery.
Hope this helps.
Jim
- Status
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Hope this helps.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
catharina
Jim
Where did you get that? My understanding is that she was hired in September, but announced that she was pregnant in October. I didn’t see where she said she was four months pregnant in October.
Jim
C
catharina
Guest
Guess you’ll need to read the thread and the links.
C
Christine_Blake
Guest
By this reasoning we need to cut out many of the Saints…it is by their redemption that we learn, however, if they are “at risk” to sin again, how did they ever reach sainthood? Mary Magdalene, St. Peter, St. Francis of Assis, St. Paul - he persecuted Christians, leading to many deaths…are these teachers to be expelled from the Church?
I also worry about you and your harshness…do you really believe your inability to genuflect correctly is your only sin? I am not suggesting that you have more, but St. Ignatius did a daily examen of conscious and he was “pretty” good…there is a beauty in the human spirit and its struggling with the worldly temptations…
I have worked in a Catholic school with a woman who was fired for getting pregnant - she had worked in a middle school and she agreed it was not appropriate for her to continue…HOWEVER, once the baby was born and she went to confession, did her penance, she returned to teaching at a Catholic school and was a wonderful teacher. I can see the need for this teacher to be removed presently, but I would not slam the door to ANY sinner (prodigal son) for fear that THAT is the lesson the children learn - that the Church will abandon them if they error…and they will…and they will need mercy and forgiveness to be redeemed, I hope they never learn that it is not possible or that we fear they will not stick with their redemption!
S
surfinpure
Guest
Jim,
We all understand by now that you view mercy under any circumstance as superior to justice, but I would hardly call that a ‘Gospel value’. I seem to recall a scene in the Gospels in which Jesus encountered some moneychangers in the Temple. Did he forgive them on the spot and let them stay? No, as I recall, he didn’t just fire them, he physically threw them out (talk about getting the boot!). ** Too bad the ACLU wasn’t around to sue Our Lord and the Temple and half of Jerusalem.** After all, those poor guys were only trying to make a living, and they probably had to look pretty hard to find another place to scam … I mean do business with … the good people. Jesus should have at least given them a second chance, yes?
We all understand by now that you view mercy under any circumstance as superior to justice, but I would hardly call that a ‘Gospel value’. I seem to recall a scene in the Gospels in which Jesus encountered some moneychangers in the Temple. Did he forgive them on the spot and let them stay? No, as I recall, he didn’t just fire them, he physically threw them out (talk about getting the boot!). ** Too bad the ACLU wasn’t around to sue Our Lord and the Temple and half of Jerusalem.** After all, those poor guys were only trying to make a living, and they probably had to look pretty hard to find another place to scam … I mean do business with … the good people. Jesus should have at least given them a second chance, yes?
C
catharina
Guest
Also listed as an offense against the Sixth Commandment:No it doesn’t.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The woman was not married, so therefore, did not commit adultery.
Hope this helps.
Jim
“2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.”
E
estesbob
Guest
Agreed.And it would seem on the face of it that adultery is a much more serious sin than the premarital sex.In the case of adultery you are not only having sex outside of marriage but you are betraying your spouse. I would hope that this school would terminate a teacher who was caught engaging an adulterous affair also. I believe, by the way,that the school acted correctly in this instance but they need to be consistentNo it doesn’t.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The woman was not married, so therefore, did not commit adultery.
Hope this helps.
Jim
S
surfinpure
Guest
Good grief!!!No it doesn’t.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The woman was not married, so therefore, did not commit adultery.
Hope this helps.
Jim
Can you not see that perhaps the man she committed the sin with was married??? And if not, then she at the very least was guilty of fornication.
I have not seen a case of hair-splitting like this since I quit using those do-it-yourself hi-lighting kits!!
uch:
E
estesbob
Guest
This case is an example of the degradation of our culture. 30 years ago no one would have given a second thought to terminating this teacher, now it is greeted with cries of outrage-a large segment of our society believing she had not even done anything wrong.
S
surfinpure
Guest
Thank you, geezerbob. Very well put.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
I just did, but the only one mentioning that she was 4 months pregnant, was you.
Please provide the piece that states she was four months pregnant, in October of that school year. If this were the case, then she knew she was pregnant when she was hired in September.
Jim
C
Christine_Blake
Guest
I worked with a woman in a similar situation…she was fired, but she agreed that continuing at a middle school was not appropriate. She left, had the baby, went home to her parents with the child, worked on redemption with her priest and then returned to teaching at a Catholic school a few years later. I have been quite saddened by the responses that would kick her out indefinately…
However, you thought that it’s “ridiculous” is naive as well…having taught high school for 12 years, I’ve seen girls who had abortions because they feared the social condemnation and at their age, mom and dad and the Church here on earth condeming them is much more real than the afterlife- Unfortunately, it is the aftermath, the depression, the health issues, the guilt that we discover the trouble… Do we value the life or the virtue?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Mercy and justice go hand in hand, you can not have one without the other.
This woman did not cause injustice to anyone, other than herself, and of course her child, but that can be remedied through mercy. She made a mistake, for which her punishment will be beyond the scope of the school.
Jim
C
catharina
Guest
re “I have been quite saddened by the responses that would kick her out indefinately…” Me too but I think only one man has said that and he would kick all of us out (of the Church?) for being sinners.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Correct definition for fornication, not adultery.
Also, keep in mind, neither are not unforgivable offenses. As far as fornication, My guess is that more people in that school committed fornication in their life, than not. Heck, its probable that its the case for people in this thread as well, especially those giving her a proverbial stoning. They just didn’t end up pregnant while working for a Catholic School.
Jim
R
RWMorris
Guest
Isn’t fornication a mortal sin? This question is actually directed at:
I know some people who will be jumping for joy if it isn’t.
S
surfinpure
Guest
Yes, mercy and justice are equal parts of the law. That was my point. You cannot raise mercy above justice, as you have attempted to do.
She caused no injustice? I beg to differ! She violated the moral law. She also entered into a contract and then violated it (or, as it would appear from reading *all *the information, she entered it in bad faith!).
Justice on the part of the school is simply following their principles as laid out in the teacher’s contract. Mercy would be allowing her to return after the baby is born. But mercy usurps justice the moment the school decides to throw out the code and the contract and allow her to stay.
You have not answered my argument about Christ and the moneychangers. Where do mercy and justice find their place in that event, Jim?
C
catharina
Guest
“the piece” (one of the many, the first of many to responses to my google today (you don’t have google abilities?):
Law, Ethics, and the Pregnant Teacher
(12/3/2005)
Here are some facts that need to be stated before the Scoreboard examines the case of the pregnant pre-K teacher:
Teachers are powerful role models whose conduct is crucial in determining which values are learned and accepted by their students.
Catholic schools teach the values and tenets of the Catholic Church, including its position that sexual relations out of wedlock is a sin.
Unwed motherhood, especially for teenagers, is a potentially destructive behavior that parents, schools and teachers have an obligation to discourage.
The law prevents employers, including schools, from taking any adverse action against an employee because of pregnancy.
Michelle McCusker teaches pre-K at the St. Rose of Lima School in Rockaway Beach, New York, a Catholic school. She is now 18 weeks pregnant, and informed the principal that she hoped to carry the baby to term, but that her plans did not include marrying the baby’s father. Two days later, the principal fired McCusker for violating the school’s policy prohibiting pre-marital sex. The teacher contacted the New York Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a complaint on her behalf with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Its argument? The school’s policy is discriminatory, since it is far easier to tell when female teachers have broken the “no sex while single” rule and thus the effect of the policy is to punish women for conduct that men can engage in virtually without fear of reprisal.
The Diocese of Brooklyn, which is named in the lawsuit, has pointed out that all teachers are “required to convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions.” Its position is fair and reasonable, but I suspect that a court will find otherwise. The ACLU is indeed correct that the effect of the policy is to penalize women who become pregnant out of marriage without penalizing the male employees who may have been responsible for making them that way. But the legal issue, however fascinating, isn’t the question here, which is, “Who’s right?”
Ethically, the school would be completely justified in firing McCusker for being pregnant. The law won’t permit it, because there is no teacher exception to what is generally an excellent principle. But McCusker simply cannot perform her key function as a role model and conveyer of values to her very young charges while being visibly pregnant. She is, in this state, a walking, talking promotion for unwed motherhood. Ironically, she is probably not promoting sexual relations out of wedlock in class, since (one hopes) three and four year olds do not connect pregnancy to sexual activity. And for that same reason there is good reason to suspect that the St. Rose principal is using the no pre-marital sex policy to accomplish what is really a “no unwed pregnancy for teachers” policy. Unfortunately, neither is likely to work if teachers won’t cooperate to make it work.
continued …
C
catharina
Guest
continued …
Law, Ethics, and the Pregnant Teacher
(12/3/2005)
The unethical party here is McCusker. Being a teacher, like belonging to any profession, carries certain special responsibilities. Judges can’t show up at masquerade parties dressed as Buckwheat. Baseball players can’t bet on baseball games. New York Times reporters can’t attend rallies for Hillary Clinton on their free time, no matter how much they’d like to. And teachers at Catholic schools…indeed, teachers at any school…have a professional obligation not to encourage pre-marital sex and especially unmarried pregnancy by showing up in class, well, showing.
Would even the ACLU challenge a school that fired a teacher for wearing a T-shirt reading “Unwed Moms Are Cool!”? No, unless that organization has gone completely around the bend. But that is the message that the law allows Michelle McCusker to send to her students, loud and clear. Thus it is up to McCusker, on her own, to be responsible, since the law allows her to be irresponsible. She shouldn’t get pregnant, and if she does, she shouldn’t continue to teach. Her actions harm the school and the church, undermining the values she agreed to support by agreeing to take the job in the first place. Her conduct places her students at risk; it doesn’t matter how much risk, because any amount is unnecessary. And it betrays her students’ parents. Would they have been willing to send their children to McCusker’s class if they had known that she was going to teach it “in the family way,” though without a family? If they object now, what are their options? Probably to remove their child and find another school, which may be difficult. The parent and child have to suffer, but not McCusker, who is the one responsible, or rather, irresponsible.
That is because, in all likelihood, the law is one her side. Ethical principles, however, are not. Just because the law won’t permit others to make you do the right thing is no excuse not to do it.
Four and a half months pregnant on Dec 3rd. Three-and a-half months in Nov, two and a-half in Oct, 6 weeks in Sept when she started the job. Baby due in mid-April Find a new hobby, Jim?
Law, Ethics, and the Pregnant Teacher
(12/3/2005)
The unethical party here is McCusker. Being a teacher, like belonging to any profession, carries certain special responsibilities. Judges can’t show up at masquerade parties dressed as Buckwheat. Baseball players can’t bet on baseball games. New York Times reporters can’t attend rallies for Hillary Clinton on their free time, no matter how much they’d like to. And teachers at Catholic schools…indeed, teachers at any school…have a professional obligation not to encourage pre-marital sex and especially unmarried pregnancy by showing up in class, well, showing.
Would even the ACLU challenge a school that fired a teacher for wearing a T-shirt reading “Unwed Moms Are Cool!”? No, unless that organization has gone completely around the bend. But that is the message that the law allows Michelle McCusker to send to her students, loud and clear. Thus it is up to McCusker, on her own, to be responsible, since the law allows her to be irresponsible. She shouldn’t get pregnant, and if she does, she shouldn’t continue to teach. Her actions harm the school and the church, undermining the values she agreed to support by agreeing to take the job in the first place. Her conduct places her students at risk; it doesn’t matter how much risk, because any amount is unnecessary. And it betrays her students’ parents. Would they have been willing to send their children to McCusker’s class if they had known that she was going to teach it “in the family way,” though without a family? If they object now, what are their options? Probably to remove their child and find another school, which may be difficult. The parent and child have to suffer, but not McCusker, who is the one responsible, or rather, irresponsible.
That is because, in all likelihood, the law is one her side. Ethical principles, however, are not. Just because the law won’t permit others to make you do the right thing is no excuse not to do it.
Four and a half months pregnant on Dec 3rd. Three-and a-half months in Nov, two and a-half in Oct, 6 weeks in Sept when she started the job. Baby due in mid-April Find a new hobby, Jim?
C
Christine_Blake
Guest
You’re right, but he’s so insistant, I worry for him and I worry about who taught him Christianity…I guess it weighed so heavy with me after I read several of his responses…but it was just one.
- Status