Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher

[mlchance]

This case is an example of the degradation of our culture.

Reminds me of a book I’m thinking about getting: In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas by Theodore Dalrymple. From a short book review in First Things (Feb 08):Good predjudices, Dalrymple writes, come before metaphysics and reflection. It is good, for example, that some men and women examine the reasons for not having children outside of marriage. But, regardless of their desire for ratiocination, potential parents need to acquire the social prejudice that it is better for a child to have a mother and father who are married.

Furthermore, he argues, “We can rid ourselves of any particular attitude to any given question, no doubt, but we cannot give up having any attitude whatsoever to it.” Indeed, “to overturn a prejudice is not to destroy prejudice as such. It is rather to inculcate another prejudice.”

In his career as a physician and a psychiatrist, woking regularly with patients in an English prison, Dalrymple witnessed the pernicious effects of bad prejudices on sexual mores, chiefly in the form of increases in domestic abuse and children born out of wedlock. When modern society demolished the prejudice in favor of the traditional family, the result was not a lack of prejudice but a new prejudice in favor of boundary-free social relations.

Looking at the lives of his patients, Dalrymple writes that the results have been disastrous: "What I saw was human conduct as it becomes when the requirement to conform to inherited social restraints no longer exists, when it is left to the whim of individuals how to behave. The result is urban hell."Just food for thought.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

Reminds me of a book I’m thinking about getting: In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas by Theodore Dalrymple. From a short book review in First Things (Feb 08):Good predjudices, Dalrymple writes, come before metaphysics and reflection. It is good, for example, that some men and women examine the reasons for not having children outside of marriage. But, regardless of their desire for ratiocination, potential parents need to acquire the social prejudice that it is better for a child to have a mother and father who are married.Furthermore, he argues, “We can rid ourselves of any particular attitude to any given question, no doubt, but we cannot give up having any attitude whatsoever to it.” Indeed, "to overturn a prejudice is not to destroy prejudice as such. It is rather to inculcate another prejudice."In his career as a physician and a psychiatrist, woking regularly with patients in an English prison, Dalrymple witnessed the pernicious effects of bad prejudices on sexual mores, chiefly in the form of increases in domestic abuse and children born out of wedlock. When modern society demolished the prejudice in favor of the traditional family, the result was not a lack of prejudice but a new prejudice in favor of boundary-free social relations.Looking at the lives of his patients, Dalrymple writes that the results have been disastrous: "What I saw was human conduct as it becomes when the requirement to conform to inherited social restraints no longer exists, when it is left to the whim of individuals how to behave. The result is urban hell."Just food for thought.

– Mark L. Chance.

I am a fan of Darlymple also . And ancedotes he passes on about the people he counseled in prison are chilling indeed.

 

[He_Man]

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.

The school exists to serve the students, not the teachers. The students are the first priority. The major issue is the effect an unmarried, pregnant teacher could have on impressionable Catholic students… The mortality of the sin is of less consequence, since private mortal sins would likely never be discussed.

But if those sins began to have an impact on the students in the classroom, they need to be addressed.

 

[surfinpure]

Reminds me of a book I’m thinking about getting: In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas by Theodore Dalrymple. From a short book review in First Things (Feb 08):Good predjudices, Dalrymple writes, come before metaphysics and reflection. It is good, for example, that some men and women examine the reasons for not having children outside of marriage. But, regardless of their desire for ratiocination, potential parents need to acquire the social prejudice that it is better for a child to have a mother and father who are married.

Furthermore, he argues, “We can rid ourselves of any particular attitude to any given question, no doubt, but we cannot give up having any attitude whatsoever to it.” Indeed, “to overturn a prejudice is not to destroy prejudice as such. It is rather to inculcate another prejudice.”

In his career as a physician and a psychiatrist, woking regularly with patients in an English prison, Dalrymple witnessed the pernicious effects of bad prejudices on sexual mores, chiefly in the form of increases in domestic abuse and children born out of wedlock. When modern society demolished the prejudice in favor of the traditional family, the result was not a lack of prejudice but a new prejudice in favor of boundary-free social relations.

Looking at the lives of his patients, Dalrymple writes that the results have been disastrous: "What I saw was human conduct as it becomes when the requirement to conform to inherited social restraints no longer exists, when it is left to the whim of individuals how to behave. The result is urban hell."Just food for thought.

– Mark L. Chance.

A very worthwhile quotation. I was recently reading thoughts along similar lines in The Abolition of Man, by the great Mr. C.S. Lewis. In short, we cannot pretend to rid ourselves of all values without instead merely exchanging the standing set of values for different ones. In the end, what we have to decide is which values are good, and which are not – not whether or not we will have them at all, for that is impossible.

 

[estesbob]

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.

You ought to go to the thread on" are fallen away Catholics more at risk" where he seems to be in contending everybody’s going to heaven.

When I started reading his posts in this thread I thought maybe there were two other Eric’s!

 

[He_Man]

Thanks to Catharina again, and to RWMorris, for searching and posting the rest of the story. It becomes clear that this woman must have already been pregnant out of wedlock when signing her contract, and in doing so she signed in bad faith. Any sympathy I held for her before has just flown out the window.

A conscientious person would, knowing they had made the mistake of getting pregnant, not compound that mistake by trying to pull one over on the trusting organization that hired her. Upon learning the terms of the contract and the code of teacher conduct, she should have excused herself from the process and begun looking for employment elsewhere.

Agreed. now not only did she get pregnant out of wedlock (which was being debated nicely on both sides as a fireable offense), but now it is obvious she is a decitful, disingenuous liar.

Where are her defenders now that it is obvious she was well along in her pregnancy when she signed her contract??

Try defending that.

 

[He_Man]

I believe Vladimir Ilich Lenin said the same thing.

Jim

But HE got it from Spock.

 

[Christine_Blake]

You ought to go to the thread on" are fallen away Catholics more at risk" where he seems to be in contending everybody’s going to heaven.

When I started reading his posts in this thread I thought maybe there were two other Eric’s!

Perhaps he just likes to argue, or perhaps that thread’s argument is because he refers to himself as somewhat of a “fallen away Catholic”…

 

[surfinpure]

But HE got it from Spock.

Thanks for the much-needed laugh.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps he just likes to argue, or perhaps that thread’s argument is because he refers to himself as somewhat of a “fallen away Catholic”…

I didn’t know that. That explains a lot. Thanks!

 

[childofmary1143]

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

ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

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.

Like I said earlier. Fornication falls under the 6th Commandment like Adultery.

Hope this helps you

 

[whatevergirl]

Knowing the details now that she was aleady pregnant to someone out of wedlock–and basically lied when signing on with the school–my thoughts are that she shouldn’t be shocked that she was let go. I had a totally different mindset when I thought she had the job, and THEN became pregnant…but, seeing the details are more that she lied…then the Church did the right thing. If we change Truth, then it’s not truth anymore. Truth never changes, and if people want to live in a non Catholic way–they cannot teach at a Catholic school. Just my thoughts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

catharina

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

Earlier, you said she was 4 months pregnant in October, when she was fired, which would mean she hid the fact, prior to being hired. Such is not the case from what you have presented. She was only 4.5 months pregnant Dec 3rd, which is long after she was fired.

In October, she was only 2.5 months, 6 weeks in September, and these are estimates at best, according to the writer.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Knowing the details now that she was aleady pregnant to someone out of wedlock–and basically lied when signing on with the school–my thoughts are that she shouldn’t be shocked that she was let go. I had a totally different mindset when I thought she had the job, and THEN became pregnant…but, seeing the details are more that she lied…then the Church did the right thing. If we change Truth, then it’s not truth anymore. Truth never changes, and if people want to live in a non Catholic way–they cannot teach at a Catholic school. Just my thoughts.

There has been no proof provided, that I have seen, that she knew she was pregnant when she applied for the job.

Jim

 

[blessedtoo]

Second, that Feminists for Life took up her case. WHY this case???

This group is NOT Catholic. I suggest that anyone interested in the principles of this organization go to their website. It is truly eye-opening.

It’s not a coincidence that they call themselves “Feminists” for they are primarily concerned with the political agenda of advancing the feminist cause. Certainly their pro-life stance is to be applauded but they have a flawed understanding of the inherent evil of abortion if they would support a case which seeks to “prove” that job discrimination or gender discrimination LEADS to abortion.

In addition, the idea that because this woman chose to have her baby she should be exonerated of responsibility for her immoral behavior is a new construct. It should be understood (although I realize it’s not) that a Catholic woman who teaches in a Catholic school would ABSOLUTELY keep her baby. This is not a “good” choice. It is the only choice.

The fact that the woman is choosing NOT to marry the father is also a factor. Without any information about the nature of their relationship it is hard to comment on this but we should remember that just a mere few decades ago it would be understood and assumed that a pregnant woman would marry the father. In such a case, the woman may have been able to keep her job as she would have been publicly alligning her lifestyle with Catholic teaching.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Agreed. now not only did she get pregnant out of wedlock (which was being debated nicely on both sides as a fireable offense), but now it is obvious she is a decitful, disingenuous liar.

Where are her defenders now that it is obvious she was well along in her pregnancy when she signed her contract??

Try defending that.

You’ll have to prove that she knew she was pregnant prior to signing the contract with the school, before you can call her a liar.

Jim

 

[catharina]

catharina

Earlier, you said she was 4 months pregnant in October, when she was fired, which would mean she hid the fact, prior to being hired. Such is not the case from what you have presented. She was only 4.5 months pregnant Dec 3rd, which is long after she was fired.

In October, she was only 2.5 months, 6 weeks in September, and these are estimates at best, according to the writer.

Jim

Congratulations on your becoming truly annoying.

You said you didn’t accept Post 93 or claimed I’d invented it or insisted you couldn’t find it. So I offered a new source.

Here’s the old one AGAIN.

"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."

If you can’t figure out that she was pregnant (and knew it) when she began teaching in September, you need Remedial Math.

Teachers, especially of the very young, must prove they are trustworthy. She failed in that attempt and it was a blatant failure.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Congratulations on your becoming truly annoying.

You said you didn’t accept Post 93 or claimed I’d invented it or insisted you couldn’t find it. So I offered a new source.

Here’s the old one AGAIN.

"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."

If you can’t figure out that she was pregnant (and knew it) when she began teaching in September, you need Remedial Math.

Teachers, especially of the very young, must prove they are trustworthy. She failed in that attempt and it was a blatant failure.

In September, when she would’ve only been 6 months pregnant, again, according to the article you’re citing. This however doesn’t mean she actually knew she was pregnant, when she applied for the job or immediately after starting the job. She could’ve only been 4 to 6 weeks in September. Would she have known she was pregnant when she applied for the job and signed the contract? Probably not.

However, lets look at it on a human level for a minute. This is her first pregnancy and she’s not married. Many girls in such a situation, do not accept the fact that the reason they missed their period, is because they’re pregnant. So in September, she started working, and hasn’t started her period. She’s hoping that she’s not pregnant, but come the end of September, she still hasn’t started her period, and does a pregnancy test and its positive. Now, what does she do? Probably waits to see if she’ll carry and not miscarry, which happens in many first time pregnancies.There has to some level of anxiety for her at this point, but in October, she finally decides, its real, I’m pregnant and so goes and tells her employer.

People in here have been calling her a liar, because it was implied that she was 4.5 months pregnant, when she was fired in October. Such is not the case. She wasn’t 4.5 pregnant until December.

I would think a female would know more about the issue of pregnancy than me.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You have to say one thing as far as following Catholic teaching goes, at least this woman wasn’t using artificial birth control.

I wonder how many in this forum would be able to admit this, never mind the people who fired her.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

You have to say one thing as far as following Catholic teaching goes, at least this woman wasn’t using artificial birth control.

I wonder how many in this forum would be able to admit this, never mind the people who fired her.

Jim

\

So having been proved wrong rather than graciously admitting it you choose to slime ,with innuendo, all those that disagree with you. What a class act.