Catholic Church Found Liable for firing single, pregnant teacher

[fix]

Sacking a woman who is about to have a kid. I am sure Jesus would love that.

Uh huh. Because once you are pregnant the law suddenly no longer matters.

 

[CarolNoel]

I hope it is overturned, but won’t bet on it.

 

[fix]

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?

The issue is we have a teacher who signs a contract, violates it, and then demands she not be required to live up to her word. This is no example for anyone yet alone Catholic children.

 

[gracepoole]

The issue is we have a teacher who signs a contract, violates it, and then demands she not be required to live up to her word. This is no example for anyone yet alone Catholic children.

Maybe the contract itself is problematic. Can anyone here really imagine Christ firing a single pregnant woman?

 

[Wampa]

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…

This case looks to have a fact pattern that falls outside of the Supreme Court ruling you cite. As noted by the lawyer for the winning Lutheran school in the article you cited:

“The decision will not cover every teacher in a Catholic school. But it will probably cover all teachers for whom teaching religion is a substantial part of their responsibilities. The court disclaims any attempt to draw a line that will govern all future cases; it holds only that this teacher was a minister. She taught religion daily, and held an ecclesiastical office in her church, but also taught the whole fourth-grade curriculum.”

If the woman in the new case only “taught computer classes” (as the LA Times said) and had no religious instruction component to her job, then I doubt Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC will come into play.

 

[fix]

Maybe the contract itself is problematic. Can anyone here really imagine Christ firing a single pregnant woman?

I cannot see why it would be a problem? Is being asked to lead a moral life now a problem?
Why would He not fire one? If justice demands it He would. Does being pregnant now mean the world stops and the law no longer applies? His own Mother endured much more.

 

[Monica02]

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.”/quot

I too find it difficult to accept that this was the only way to demonstrate Church moral teaching. I also never said that this was the ONLY way. I was speaking to evangelization involving both compassion and truth. The support for my statement is that if I were a student and saw my Catholic school allowing this teacher to continue in her position I would take this as a seal of approval regarding her life choices and that Church teaching is not to be taken seriously. Perhaps not all kids would view it this way but I would. By firing this teacher the school did send a good message regarding Church teaching - the Church needs to do more of this.

 

[gracepoole]

I cannot see why it would be a problem? Is being asked to lead a moral life now a problem?
Why would He not fire one? If justice demands it He would. Does being pregnant now mean the world stops and the law no longer applies? His own Mother endured much more.

Is there an emoticon for stunned silence?

 

[fix]

Is there an emoticon for stunned silence?

You have a single woman who became pregnant through immoral means. She paid for it? Not exactly cheap. She signs a contract. Breaks it. Demands her employer not honor it. Sues them when she is wrong. Then you ask if Jesus would fire her? Is Jesus just?

Is there an icon for utter disbelief?

 

[fix]

I too find it difficult to accept that this was the only way to demonstrate Church moral teaching. I also never said that this was the ONLY way. I was speaking to evangelization involving both compassion and truth. The support for my statement is that if I were a student and saw my Catholic school allowing this teacher to continue in her position I would take this as a seal of approval regarding her life choices and that Church teaching is not to be taken seriously. Perhaps not all kids would view it this way but I would. By firing this teacher the school did send a good message regarding Church teaching - the Church needs to do more of this.

In another thread I wrote about this idea of character that people, including Catholics, no longer embrace. Basically one may act immorally as long as one does their job. This is not a biblical notion or one consistent with any moral norm but it is embraced by our culture of relativism. Anything goes as long as no direct physical harm is discerned and as long as you are polite.

 

[gracepoole]

You have a single woman who became pregnant through immoral means. She paid for it? Not exactly cheap. She signs a contract. Breaks it. Demands her employer not honor it. Sues them when she is wrong. Then you ask if Jesus would fire her? Is Jesus just?

Is there an icon for utter disbelief?

I’m doubtful that Jesus is interested in punishing a woman once she’s pregnant (no matter the method of conception). If I thought differently, I’d have no interest in worshiping Him.

To each his own, I suppose.

 

[poker10]

I cannot see why it would be a problem? Is being asked to lead a moral life now a problem?
Why would He not fire one? If justice demands it He would. Does being pregnant now mean the world stops and the law no longer applies? His own Mother endured much more.

It’s a problem because U.S. law says you can’t fire a woman for being pregnant, no matter the circumstances. U.S. law supercedes contract law. Just because you put something in a contract and it is signed doesn’t make it legal. (i.e. you can sign a contract to become someone’s slave, because slavery is illegal.)

 

[Dawnia]

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.”

It’s not like she fell down and got pregnant accidentally. She purposefully violated the terms of her contract in a very public way.

 

[fix]

I’m doubtful that Jesus is interested in punishing a woman once she’s pregnant (no matter the method of conception). If I thought differently, I’d have no interest in worshiping Him.

To each his own, I suppose.

She is not being punished. She brought this on herself. The school has an obligation to the Children. If you read the Gospels you will see Jesus said some strong things against those who cause scandal, no exceptions for IVF pregnant lesbians.

God is who He is regardless of your emotional appeal.

 

[fix]

It’s a problem because U.S. law says you can’t fire a woman for being pregnant, no matter the circumstances. U.S. law supercedes contract law. Just because you put something in a contract and it is signed doesn’t make it legal. (i.e. you can sign a contract to become someone’s slave, because slavery is illegal.)

That is a legal issue and from what I have read that is an incorrect position on the law.

 

[gracepoole]

It’s not like she fell down and got pregnant accidentally. She purposefully violated the terms of her contract in a very public way.

I don’t think charity is dependent on how one got herself into this position.

She is not being punished. She brought this on herself. The school has an obligation to the Children. If you read the Gospels you will see Jesus said some strong things against those who cause scandal, no exceptions for IVF pregnant lesbians.

God is who He is regardless of your emotional appeal.

This is no emotional appeal – it’s logical. I would absolutely reject God via pathos and logos if He said to sinners, “Hey, you brought this on yourselves. Sorry, can’t help you now.” He gave me a conscience and a brain for a reason.

 

[fix]

I don’t think charity is dependent on how one got herself into this position.

This is no emotional appeal – it’s logical. I would absolutely reject God via pathos and logos if He said to sinners, “Hey, you brought this on yourselves. Sorry, can’t help you now.” He gave me a conscience and a brain for a reason.

That is not the issue. God is not rejecting the sinner. The sinner is rejecting God’s law. No one has said the woman cannot work or should be denied housing. What she cannot do is cause others to stumble. That is what our Lord said specifically.

 

[gracepoole]

That is not the issue. God is not rejecting the sinner. The sinner is rejecting God’s law. No one has the the woman cannot work or should be denied housing. What she cannot do is cause others to stumble. That is what our Lord said specifically.

As I said earlier, there isn’t any evidence that being around a single pregnant woman ignites a passion in children to do the same. But I daresay that treating her like a leper will send a clear message.

 

[fix]

As I said earlier, there isn’t any evidence that being around a single pregnant woman ignites a passion in children to do the same. But I daresay that treating her like a leper will send a clear message.

There is evidence of bad character and disregard for basic moral truth. Her example is terrible and a scandal. Perhaps your problem is that you do not think her acts are really evil?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

There is evidence of bad character and disregard for basic moral truth. Her example is terrible and a scandal…

We’re not talking about Pharisees and Saducees here. We’re talking about a non-believer. When does Jesus speak of the scandalous behavior of non-believers?

I’m serious about this. Please point to me in the teachings of Christ from Scripture where Jesus talks of the scandalous behavior of non-believers and how to treat them.

This is an honest question. I think I recall Christ speaking of treating someone ‘like the tax collectors’ or something to that effect, but the Scripture passage is alluding me right now. Scriptural support for your position would be helpful in your position.