C
catharina
Guest
You have no case - but if you’re going to stop posting in this thread (a thread you likely haven’t read in its totality as you just implied), then for that, I applaud you. GREAT decision.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
Many people are too proud to admit when they are wrong. It is a humbling experience-I just went through it myself in another thread.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Impossible! I refuse to believe it!
R
RWMorris
Guest
So adultry is not fornication; I’ve learned something.
I’m still waiting for an answer Jim.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It depends on whether it was done with full knowledge and consent.
In the case of this woman, its between God, herself and her confessor.
Jim
R
RWMorris
Guest
Isn’t that true with most, if not all sin?
Didn’t this woman sign a contract with the school? If she did, shouldn’t the school be included in your equation?
I taught in a Catholic school for a short time and I always thought signing my name on a contract was the same thing as giving my word of honor. Apparently, you don’t seem to think so. Am I correct? Is that how you feel?
Forgive my questions; I’m just trying to understand your moral code of conduct.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Violating the terms of the contract isn’t a mortal sin.
Whether she sinned or not isn’t the point of my argument, and I never argued that she didn’t violate the terms of the contract. My disagreement is with the school’s decision to fire her. I think an approach of compassion and forgiveness would’ve been the Christian response and it would’ve served all involved, directly or indirectly, far better than firing her has.
I also vehemently disagree with those poster’s in this forum, who called the woman a liar.
Jim
E
estesbob
Guest
The all-purpose get out of jail free card. This sounds eerily familiar to the old “abortions is between God, the woman and her doctor.”
Let’s see if we can sum up your position:
- She didn’t know she was pregnant
- Even if she did know it doesn’t matter.
- She didn’t sign a contract
- Even as he did sign a contract it didn’t matter
- She didn’t commit fornication
- Even as she did commit fornication it doesn’t matter
- The Church is wrong-as always
E
estesbob
Guest
If a teacher was caught masturbating in the classroom would that be grounds for dismissal? Shouldn’t the Christian response be compassion and forgiveness.
R
RWMorris
Guest
I didn’t ask if violating the terms of her contract was a mortal sin, I asked if fornication is a mortal sin. You said, “It depends on whether it was done with full knowledge and consent.” And I asked, “Isn’t that true with most, if not all sin?” I’m still waiting for your answer.
My question to you was, “Didn’t this woman sign a contract with the school? If she did, shouldn’t the school be included in your equation?”, after you said, “In the case of this woman, its between God, herself and her confessor”. My question to you now is, what, if any, consequences should a person face for violation of such contracts?
Should we always be totally forgiving? And what do we do with people who have a sense of honor and actually quit their jobs when they can’t live up their contractual obligations? Shouldn’t we do even more for these people? Maybe give them a huge cash settlement? Promote them? Give them higher paying jobs? Grant them Sainthood?
C
catharina
Guest
Jim, is that you? You’re back? What a surprise.
I think the school acted with great Christian compassion in this situation. Their number one concern was directing such compassion toward the prescoolers who were in her class and the parents who were paying tuition for that privileged education.
Goodness knows, they also acted with great virtue (prudence, wisdom and more come to mind) by standing with their contract.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
estesbob
Please stop misrepresenting my position.
Jim
This is your idea, I never said anything your posting here.
Please stop misrepresenting my position.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Come on, is this the level you have to reach for, when you can’t provide any substance in the conversation?
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
RWMorris
I
But thats really besides the point. The argument is whether this Catholic school, operated in a Christian manor toward this woman. My opinion is, they did not, and they were not wise in their decision.
Jim
I
I’m not going to continue to answer questions with another question which is obvious. Full knowledge and consent is required for all mortal sins. Its obvious, I didn’t think I needed to answer the question.
The school has nothing to do with whether the woman committed mortal sin or not. Its between God, herself and her confessor. I thought I was clear with this answer.
The question should be, is the contract understood correctly, by both parties. We don’t have the contract in front of us, so we really don’t know, and its most likely, the woman did not have a lawyer negotiating the contract for her, so, it could be null, if, the terms were too vague for a lay person to understand.
But thats really besides the point. The argument is whether this Catholic school, operated in a Christian manor toward this woman. My opinion is, they did not, and they were not wise in their decision.
Yes, 70 times 7, I believe Jesus said, which I believe implies, always.
Thats their decision.
Now you’re getting nutty.
Jim
E
estesbob
Guest
You said that people who publicly manifest their sin should be treated with compassion and forgiveness. You said said they should not be terminated from their job even if they are teaching children. ? Why the double standard?
E
estesbob
Guest
Unless they masturbate?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Please stop twisting what I have said.
This particular woman, should have been treated with compassion and forgiveness. What problem do you have with this? This is a Christian forum, is it not?
I said, she should not have been terminated, because compassion and forgiveness would’ve served the school, her and the Church, better.
I know you don’t agree with me, but stop trying to twist what I have said, into your own ideas.
Jim
D
dixieagle
Guest
I’ve been away from this thread for a bit, thinking through the posts and researching the outcome (last I saw the EEOC had ruled against the school/diocese - haven’t seen anything further.)
I am a longtime pro-lifer, in the trenches from the earliest days, even pre-Roe v. Wade. I also have two daughters in their twenties, and have always communicated our, and the Church’s, position on pre-marital sex, theology of the body, etc. Thank heavens, they have absorbed it.
If this young teacher signed a contract, as she did, agreeing to uphold the teachings of the Church, then I think the school/diocese had grounds to do something. I understand about “scandal”, etc., and the possibility of communicating a negative message to schoolchildren (more likely to the older schoolchildren in the school, I would think.)
We have had a long, hard row to hoe in the process of trying to change minds and hearts with regard to abortion. I see progress being made (as evidenced by the many thousands of young people marching today in D.C. at the March for Life.) I cannot help but feel that, in this case, perhaps suspension until after the baby’s birth, with referral to support agencies, would have far better served the Church in spreading its pro-life message. Granted, she would likely have been able to find a job in the public schools.
To someone on the outside looking in, and who doesn’t share the Catholic view of sin, proper use of sexuality, etc., firing a teacher who becomes pregnant out of wedlock, and who could have terminated the pregnancy but kept her job, looks heartless and hypocritcal. Given that, among social issues I believe that the pro-life movement trumps all others, I think that the Church and the pro-life movement would have been much better served if the long view had been taken. Just my 2 cents.
I am a longtime pro-lifer, in the trenches from the earliest days, even pre-Roe v. Wade. I also have two daughters in their twenties, and have always communicated our, and the Church’s, position on pre-marital sex, theology of the body, etc. Thank heavens, they have absorbed it.
If this young teacher signed a contract, as she did, agreeing to uphold the teachings of the Church, then I think the school/diocese had grounds to do something. I understand about “scandal”, etc., and the possibility of communicating a negative message to schoolchildren (more likely to the older schoolchildren in the school, I would think.)
We have had a long, hard row to hoe in the process of trying to change minds and hearts with regard to abortion. I see progress being made (as evidenced by the many thousands of young people marching today in D.C. at the March for Life.) I cannot help but feel that, in this case, perhaps suspension until after the baby’s birth, with referral to support agencies, would have far better served the Church in spreading its pro-life message. Granted, she would likely have been able to find a job in the public schools.
To someone on the outside looking in, and who doesn’t share the Catholic view of sin, proper use of sexuality, etc., firing a teacher who becomes pregnant out of wedlock, and who could have terminated the pregnancy but kept her job, looks heartless and hypocritcal. Given that, among social issues I believe that the pro-life movement trumps all others, I think that the Church and the pro-life movement would have been much better served if the long view had been taken. Just my 2 cents.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
I was reviewing again the thread and the article I initially posted. When re-reading it, I discovered that there was no mention of how many months she was pregnant and I wondered where it was mentioned as several people tried to determine at what point she got pregnant and/or knew.
The first news article I will cite is this one:
townhall.com/columnists/JohnLeo/2005/12/05/the_case_of_michelle_mccusker
In it, the article states: * 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.*
From that article we can say that she told the school when she was 3 months pregnant.
Also this article from USA Today:
usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-22-pregnant-teacher_x.htm
**
Posted 11/22/2005 6:53 AM**
Fired teacher, unwed and pregnant, sues Catholic school
NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal discrimination complaint against a Catholic school, charging that it unjustly fired an unmarried teacher for being pregnant.
“I don’t understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I’m pregnant and choosing to have this baby,” Michelle McCusker said Monday at a news conference to announce the suit.
The 26-year-old preschool teacher was fired last month from St. Rose of Lima in Queens, according to published reports. The Diocese of Brooklyn also was named in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint.
The USATODAY’s article is dated November 22 and that means she was 3 months pregnant in October.
But the thing is this, it doesn’t matter whether she got pregnant before or after the contract because if she got pregnant before then she entered into a contract that she had already broken or she broke the contract she agreed to after it. Does it realy make any difference if it happens before or after?
If this woman and/or her baby encounter any hardships as a result of her termination then perhaps an honest look of herself in the mirror may be in order.
Abstinence, while hard, isn’t impossible.
The first news article I will cite is this one:
townhall.com/columnists/JohnLeo/2005/12/05/the_case_of_michelle_mccusker
In it, the article states: * 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.*
From that article we can say that she told the school when she was 3 months pregnant.
Also this article from USA Today:
usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-22-pregnant-teacher_x.htm
**
Posted 11/22/2005 6:53 AM**
Fired teacher, unwed and pregnant, sues Catholic school
NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal discrimination complaint against a Catholic school, charging that it unjustly fired an unmarried teacher for being pregnant.
“I don’t understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I’m pregnant and choosing to have this baby,” Michelle McCusker said Monday at a news conference to announce the suit.
The 26-year-old preschool teacher was fired last month from St. Rose of Lima in Queens, according to published reports. The Diocese of Brooklyn also was named in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint.
The USATODAY’s article is dated November 22 and that means she was 3 months pregnant in October.
But the thing is this, it doesn’t matter whether she got pregnant before or after the contract because if she got pregnant before then she entered into a contract that she had already broken or she broke the contract she agreed to after it. Does it realy make any difference if it happens before or after?
If this woman and/or her baby encounter any hardships as a result of her termination then perhaps an honest look of herself in the mirror may be in order.
Abstinence, while hard, isn’t impossible.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
I wonder why it is that some on here feel the need to question either the quality of my faith or my sincerity rather than address the arguments I make. It seems that even on issues where we agree there exist those who cannot help themselves from engaging in such public speculation. Let us directly address the question of whether the position that I argue in this thread is somehow incompatible with my position here. I contend that they are fully compatible.
The first thread asks a question that is ultimately about the risk of eternal damnation faced by those who, having been exposed to the Catholic faith, fall away from it. I argued in that thread that the risk involved can only be assessed based on information we can never know, such as the individual’s level of understanding, personal intentions and other potentially mitigating factors. Given the wealth of information we are simply not privy to in order to make that sort of assessment, I argued that to hold that there exists greater risk simply by being a fallen-away Catholic as opposed to, say, a Protestant is judgmental in the extreme.
In this thread, we are discussing the proper way in which to handle a teacher who has sinned mortally. I argue that such a teacher or even a student sinning in this fashion merits removal from the teaching establishment in order to both preserve the Christian character of the school and to safeguard those newly forming their faith. The education and proper formation of our youth is a grave responsibility that we ought to take great pains to defend.
The problem, it seems, stems from the idea that I argue against judgment in the former thread and endorse it in the latter. This is not the case and to see why it may be that some need a primer on exactly what judgment is and what it is not.
In forbidding judgment, Christ did not command us to fail to recognize evil for what it is. In that sense, we make judgments every day. We know it is wrong to do certain things and we know that it is wrong for others to do certain things as well. Some of these things that others do compel us to apply consequences to the wrongdoer as a form of admonishment. We do this in the hope that the individual will see the error and repent of it. This is exactly what is being done here in firing the teacher.
The judgment that Christ did forbid is one in which we essentially dethrone God so that we may decide for ourselves who merits damnation and who does not. One may notice that I have not said anything about this teacher’s state of grace or the likelihood that she will face final damnation as a result of her sin. In that other thread, this was most definitely not the case as there were some comfortably consigning large quantities of individuals to perdition based on a flawed aesthetic.
In talking of sins and the consequences that are due for them, it is extraordinarily important that we be exacting in our use of language. We must maintain a clear distinction to the consequences that one must apply to one’s brother in prudence and admonishment and the eternal consequences that are God’s alone to decide on.
- Status