This is a matter of the natural moral law not Church discipline. Where did Jesus say scandal is only a problem for people of certain groups?
Scripture must be reconciled with all of Scripture and with the teaching of the Church. You cannot pull out one verse and set it in opposition to all else to make your point.
Would you feel the same if the teacher that was fired was a male that drove a van with a pot leaf and the words “flying high” or “weedwolf” on the side? In my state it’s legal to smoke pot so he would not be doing anything illegal.
The Church views her actions as sinful. It’s how we treat sinners that’s at play here.
I’m not sure why this analogy is relevant, but yes, I would feel the same. (And also, “weedwolf” made me laugh out loud.
)This isn’t about charity. This is about her purposefully breaching her contract due to her own selfishness. She had a duty to uphold Catholic teaching in her word and deed as representative of the Church.
If I close my eyes, I can almost imagine Christ making this statement.
I was just trying to understand if you were simply incensed that a single pregnant woman was terminated or if you felt that anything that is legal, but immoral should be allowed to let slide. Some think it’s unfair to terminate a pregnant woman, but not say a single man also doing something that the Church teaches against. In both instances the school would likely terminate the teacher for not being a good example for the children.I’m not sure why this analogy is relevant, but yes, I would feel the same. (And also, “weedwolf” made me laugh out loud.
You mean when he said, “Go forth and sin no more.”? Do you think that the fired teacher is repentant of her actions? What if she was retained and then gets IVF again? Should the Church just continue to look the other way?
Haha! My husband and I were placing bets on whether you’d witnessed this specific phrase somewhere – I guessed right.I was just trying to understand if you were simply incensed that a single pregnant woman was terminated or if you felt that anything that is legal, but immoral should be allowed to let slide. Some think it’s unfair to terminate a pregnant woman, but not say a single man also doing something that the Church teaches against. In both instances the school would likely terminate the teacher for not being a good example for the children.
The “weedwolf” and “flying high” are two bits of graffiti on an old farm house I pass most mornings.I like my hypotheticals to have real world roots
Let me use an example. I know plenty of Catholics who won’t attend a baby shower for an unwed mother. This never makes sense to me. If the Church and I are teaching its catechism well enough, my daughters should pray for the mother, recognize her moral failings, and recognize that the miracle of God’s love is that it still exists for those who fail. Our world is full of those who reject the Church’s teachings. Attempting to avoid them, I think, isn’t the way to teach children that this rejection is wrong. If anything, I think children learn this lesson best when they’re exposed to single motherhood and can recognize how far off from ideal it is.
I totally agree with Monica…I am a strong believer that only Catholics should be teaching at Catholic schools. The faith should permeate all aspects of a Catholic education, not just religion class.
He didn’t seem to have too much charity and compassion for the money changers in the temple now did he? He drove them out at the end of a whip.If I close my eyes, I can almost imagine Christ making this statement.
Sorry, that was snarky. But remember Christ’s actions regarding adulterers, for example. They don’t remotely sound like the actions encouraged here.
And she was treated fairly.
Exactly. Like the old killing your parents and then pleading you are an orphan to the court asking for mercy.
I do not know why you think that? He never endorsed sin or said their are no consequences.If I close my eyes, I can almost imagine Christ making this statement.
Sorry, that was snarky. But remember Christ’s actions regarding adulterers, for example. They don’t remotely sound like the actions encouraged here.
If the mother was in need of assistance for her child, I’m sure the Church (not the school) would be happy to help as they do with anyone who needs assistance.
There’s a clear difference between moneychangers in the temple and a pregnant woman.
He spent most of His time speaking about love for all, including sinners. Not consequences. It’s not “endorsing sin” to love one another equally.
That’s weird – the Church should fire her and then give her assistance because she has no income?
Of course there is. The money changers were minding their own business and didn’t have a signed contract that they violated. All those poor children who had to go without food because Jesus disrupted their parent’s sole source of income.
Baloney. His entire mission was about consequences. Or did you miss that part about ending up in Hell for miss behaving? Sounds like a consequence to me.
Not weird at all. A school is not a charity.
We have very different readings of Christ’s actions, Dawnia. Your Christ sounds punitive and ugly, frankly. I’d have a hard time worshiping that Christ.Of course there is. The money changers were minding their own business and didn’t have a signed contract that they violated. All those poor children who had to go without food because Jesus disrupted their parent’s sole source of income.
Baloney. His entire mission was about consequences. Or did you miss that part about ending up in Hell for miss behaving? Sounds like a consequence to me.
Not weird at all. A school is not a charity.
Yes. Since she was hired, I’m going to give her a little more credit than other posters have, and assume she’s not an idiot; she can find the information that she knows she’s supposed to comply with anywhere. She SHOULD have brushed up on it before she started the job.
Yes, provided they know that they must uphold a Catholic example, as this woman’s contract stated she must.