Catholic Church Found Liable for firing single, pregnant teacher

  • Thread starter Thread starter tjones80
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope it gets overturned on appeal but what I would really hope is that all Catholics could support the Archdiocese of Cincinnati in this legal matter.
 
Dias, who is not Catholic, testified that she didn’t know artificial insemination violated church doctrine or the employment pact. She said she thought the contract clause about abiding by church teachings meant she should be a Christian and follow the Bible.
Click to expand...
This is the part that I can see the woman’s point. The Church (IMO) should not require non-Catholics to live as Catholics. I am of the opinion that if she had applied under the premise that she was a practicing Catholic, it would be an entirely different story. I’m not certain if a Catholic institution can discriminate based on religion in this case or not.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
This is the part that I can see the woman’s point. The Church (IMO) should not require non-Catholics to live as Catholics. I am of the opinion that if she had applied under the premise that she was a practicing Catholic, it would be an entirely different story. I’m not certain if a Catholic institution can discriminate based on religion in this case or not.
Click to expand...
I know what you are saying but I think the School should still stick to its guns on it but perhaps not hire non-Catholics. If you modify the rules of conduct to the teacher’s religion, then what do you do if you hire a straight Episcopalian who then discovers he/she is gay and gets married to their same sex lover?

As a potential parent I would want Catholics teaching Catholicism to the kids.
 
Supreme Court has already ruled in this type case…in favor of the Religious Freedom of the Church…this court’s decision will probably get overturned at the Appeals Court…
Pax Christi
Supreme Court Unanimously Backs Hosanna Tabor Church, Decides in Favor of Religious Liberty
Click to expand...
BY JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND 01/11/2012
NCR ONLINE
Click to expand...
In the case, the justices were asked to decide whether a Lutheran church in Michigan, which fired a teacher at a church school, should be subject to federal anti-discrimination laws protecting disabled employees. The church argued that the constitutional doctrine of “ministerial exception” protected religious institutions from any such intrusion by the courts in the appointment of a church minister.
Click to expand...
During the oral arguments before the high court last October, advocates for religious liberty were heartened by the justices’ initial response to statements by Leondra Kruger, the U.S. solicitor general’s assistant who represented the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Kruger was asked whether a ruling should accommodate even a limited ministerial exception, and she replied that in anti-discrimination cases no distinction should be made between secular or religious employers.
Click to expand...
“**That is extraordinary,” Justice Antonin Scalia responded. “We are talking here about the Free-Exercise Clause and about the Establishment Clause, and you say they have no special application?”
Click to expand...
Justice Elena Kagan expressed her own surprise: “I, too, find that amazing,” she remarked.
Click to expand...
Today, Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling affirmed the court’s unanimous judgment that the courts had no right to intrude into appointments by church institutions: “A long line of cases makes it clear that it violates both the separation of church and state and the freedom of religious believers and communities for the government to assume the right to decide whether a minister was appropriately hired or fired.”**
Click to expand...
ncregister.com/daily-news/supreme-court-unanimously-backs-hosanna-tabor-church-decides-in-favor-of-re/
Click to expand...
 
JMJSHJ said:
As a potential parent I would want Catholics teaching Catholicism to the kids.
Click to expand...
That isn’t always easy to do. Not everyone is Catholic and not every Catholic wants to teach. I don’t think a non-catholic should be teaching theology, but English, Math, Science, etc? Go for it. I teach at a privately owned pre-school academy and most of my students aren’t Catholic. I think I do a very good job teaching and nurturing my non-Catholic students. I don’t talk about religion because that isn’t my place.
What if the non-catholic teacher is more qualified than the Catholic teacher? I would want the most qualified teacher teaching my children, no matter what their religion is.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
This is the part that I can see the woman’s point. The Church (IMO) should not require non-Catholics to live as Catholics. I am of the opinion that if she had applied under the premise that she was a practicing Catholic, it would be an entirely different story. I’m not certain if a Catholic institution can discriminate based on religion in this case or not.
Click to expand...
The Church would say that forbidding artificial insemination isn’t a Catholic teaching, but upholding a teaching about a violation of natural law. We are all subject to natural law. Just like ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse I think that ignorance of Church teaching shouldn’t be an excuse when you work for a Catholic institution.

When you are in a place outside of your normal experience (i.e. an outsider) it is your responsibility to make sure you learn and follow the norms of that group. When I was going to go to Singapore I knew they had tough laws so i made sure I knew what was allowed and what wasn’t. Just because I wasn’t Singaporean didn’t mean I should have been exempt from their laws. Most people know that the Church runs countercultural so they should be more cognizant and ask questions.
 
A Catholic school student should see their faith expressed in all aspects of their Catholic education. If they see only their religion teachers as faithful Catholics then they receive a strong message that any expression of faith or lack of one is acceptable and the Catholic faith is only one true faith among many true faiths.

How can we expect our Catholic students to live a Catholic life when they see their Catholic school not expecting a Catholic life out of the teachers?
 
Monica02 said:
A Catholic school student should see their faith expressed in all aspects of their Catholic education. If they see only their religion teachers as faithful Catholics then they receive a strong message that any expression of faith or lack of one is acceptable and the Catholic faith is only one true faith among many true faiths.

How can we expect our Catholic students to live a Catholic life when they see their Catholic school not expecting a Catholic life out of the teachers?
Click to expand...
👍
 
Dias, who is not Catholic, testified that she didn’t know artificial insemination violated church doctrine or the employment pact. She said she thought the contract clause about abiding by church teachings meant she should be a Christian and follow the Bible.
Click to expand...
Stylteralmaldo said:
This is the part that I can see the woman’s point. The Church (IMO) should not require non-Catholics to live as Catholics. I am of the opinion that if she had applied under the premise that she was a practicing Catholic, it would be an entirely different story. I’m not certain if a Catholic institution can discriminate based on religion in this case or not.
Click to expand...
Basically it boils down to the old “ignorance is no excuse…” sayings. If she was uncertain, she should have thoroughly read the employment pact and studied up on the teachings of the Catholic church. The Church isn’t requiring non-Catholics to live as Catholics per-say as she did not have to accept the job. It seems to be more a case of her not wanting to put in the effort it required to learn Church teachings, which resulted in her making an uninformed decision (self-inflicted), then doing what she wanted which was in opposition to Church teaching. So in a nutshell, it is more along the lines of a non-Catholic trying to force the Church to accept her non-Catholic choices/lifestyle.

I have spent a fair amount of time in the military, and it would be like me getting bounced for doing drugs and then saying that I wasn’t aware that smoking pot would violate the terms of my enlistment contract; and that I thought following rules and regulations meant that I only had to obey direct orders and be at formation on time…

We can only hope that her actions were completely benign and uninformed, but it is possible that she purposely took the job knowing what it entailed and planned on artificial insemination just for the attention. Kind of like when a young man enlisted for a combat-arms job (not open to female soldiers) and after graduating from advanced training underwent a sex change operation prior to showing up at his first assignment for the sole purpose of crying “discrimination” when the Army booted him. (True story by the way). Just sayin…

pax vobiscum
 
I think it’s part of the morality clause. And non-Catholics should read the Catechism or the school needs to tell what the Church teaches so they don’t set a bad example (mortal sin according to the Church) for the kids.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
This is the part that I can see the woman’s point. The Church (IMO) should not require non-Catholics to live as Catholics. I am of the opinion that if she had applied under the premise that she was a practicing Catholic, it would be an entirely different story. I’m not certain if a Catholic institution can discriminate based on religion in this case or not.
Click to expand...
Christa Diaz signed a contract that said she must
comply and act consistently with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1434.html
 
40.png
Usige:
The Church would say that forbidding artificial insemination isn’t a Catholic teaching, but upholding a teaching about a violation of natural law. We are all subject to natural law. Just like ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse I think that ignorance of Church teaching shouldn’t be an excuse when you work for a Catholic institution.

When you are in a place outside of your normal experience (i.e. an outsider) it is your responsibility to make sure you learn and follow the norms of that group. When I was going to go to Singapore I knew they had tough laws so i made sure I knew what was allowed and what wasn’t. Just because I wasn’t Singaporean didn’t mean I should have been exempt from their laws. Most people know that the Church runs countercultural so they should be more cognizant and ask questions.
Click to expand...
Both of your paragraphs can illustrate the point of what the dilemma is here. In your first paragraph you illustrate natural law, and in the second you illustrate Singapore law. In this case there is a conflict between natural law and US law. It could be argued that the archdiocese didn’t adhere to the “tough” US laws in the regard.
40.png
Buzzard_86:
…We can only hope that her actions were completely benign and uninformed, but it is possible that she purposely took the job knowing what it entailed and planned on artificial insemination just for the attention. Kind of like when a young man enlisted for a combat-arms job (not open to female soldiers) and after graduating from advanced training underwent a sex change operation prior to showing up at his first assignment for the sole purpose of crying “discrimination” when the Army booted him. (True story by the way). Just sayin…
Click to expand...
This is a fair point. The problem is that the archdiocese has to provide the burden of proof that she should have known. If the archdiocese can prove that she understood that what she did was a violation of her contract, then the archdiocese would be in the right here.
40.png
_Abyssinia:
Christa Diaz signed a contract that said she must
comply and act consistently with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Was she provided a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and told if she had questions about the morality clause to obtain clarification? If so, then I agree with the archdiocese. If in her contract it stipulates that she will be provided a copy or access to the CCC, I think the archdiocese has a solid case. If not, it seems to be undue burden on someone who may see Catholicism as just another Christian religion that believes in Jesus but has more rituals (for example) than other Christian faiths.
 
If only the religion teachers uphold Catholic teaching at a “Catholic” school, then it is by no means a Catholic school. Might as well call it a public school with comparative religions courses, deep-six the comparative part.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Both of your paragraphs can illustrate the point of what the dilemma is here. In your first paragraph you illustrate natural law, and in the second you illustrate Singapore law. In this case there is a conflict between natural law and US law. It could be argued that the archdiocese didn’t adhere to the “tough” US laws in the regard.

This is a fair point. The problem is that the archdiocese has to provide the burden of proof that she should have known. If the archdiocese can prove that she understood that what she did was a violation of her contract, then the archdiocese would be in the right here.

Was she provided a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and told if she had questions about the morality clause to obtain clarification? If so, then I agree with the archdiocese. If in her contract it stipulates that she will be provided a copy or access to the CCC, I think the archdiocese has a solid case. If not, it seems to be undue burden on someone who may see Catholicism as just another Christian religion that believes in Jesus but has more rituals (for example) than other Christian faiths.
Click to expand...
I am not sure, but she chose to sign a contract, therefore isn’t it up to her to find out Catholic teaching?

I think this case raises another question - should non Catholics be teaching in Catholic schools.
 
Sacking a woman who is about to have a kid. I am sure Jesus would love that.
 
hank3fan said:
Sacking a woman who is about to have a kid. I am sure Jesus would love that.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s the point. We have to have the whole picture about a situation before we render judgement.
 
I find that more and more Catholics want to place their children inside a cultural bubble that only contains Catholic teachings. When issues pop up that are not in line with Catholicism, voices rise up to advocate homeschooling (which I highly respect but firmly believe it shouldn’t be used to shield children from the larger community and its problems) or firing pregnant women. Christ didn’t instruct His disciples to stay away from the “riffraff” – He did the opposite. No one can or should mandate that non-Catholics live according to Catholic expectations, but we can all live the faith in a way that witnesses to non-Catholics – and that’s far more powerful evangelization work, if you ask me. My children are raised around homosexuals, unmarried pregnant women, and a variety of others who are often marginalized. How are they supposed to develop compassion for such folks when they never encounter them?
 
gracepoole said:
I find that more and more Catholics want to place their children inside a cultural bubble that only contains Catholic teachings. When issues pop up that are not in line with Catholicism, voices rise up to advocate homeschooling (which I highly respect but firmly believe it shouldn’t be used to shield children from the larger community and its problems) or firing pregnant women. Christ didn’t instruct His disciples to stay away from the “riffraff” – He did the opposite. No one can or should mandate that non-Catholics live according to Catholic expectations, but we can all live the faith in a way that witnesses to non-Catholics – and that’s far more powerful evangelization work, if you ask me. My children are raised around homosexuals, unmarried pregnant women, and a variety of others who are often marginalized. How are they supposed to develop compassion for such folks when they never encounter them?
Click to expand...
Catholic organizations are obligated to maintain Catholic teaching. Allowing this teacher to continue in her position sends a message to students that the Church supports her lifestyle and choices. The diocese did not mandate that this non-Catholic woman live by Catholic expectations. They did expect her to do so if she wished to teach at a Catholic school and she signed a contract to that effect. Evangelization involves compassion and TRUTH. How will allowing this teacher to remain in her lifestyle help her to understand that IVF is sinful? At least by firing her she (and many more people due to the publicity of this case) now knows that the Church teaches that IVF is immoral.
 
Monica02 said:
Catholic organizations are obligated to maintain Catholic teaching. Allowing this teacher to continue in her position sends a message to students that the Church supports her lifestyle and choices. The diocese did not mandate that this non-Catholic woman live by Catholic expectations. They did expect her to do so if she wished to teach at a Catholic school and she signed a contract to that effect. Evangelization involves compassion and TRUTH. How will allowing this teacher to remain in her lifestyle help her to understand that IVF is sinful? At least by firing her she (and many more people due to the publicity of this case) now knows that the Church teaches that IVF is immoral.
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to accept that the only way the Church can demonstrate its moral teachings is by firing a single pregnant woman. I also think that this kind of claim needs evidence or it’s an assumption that might not be accurate: “Allowing this teacher to continue in her position sends a message to students that the Church supports her lifestyle and choices.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top