Controversy over Catholic high school firing teacher for cohabitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter lakme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lakme

Guest
This is actually the high school I attended and it’s kind of the topic of debate right now, so I thought I’d see what this forum thought of this “local news” item, since I know most of you tend to be pretty conservative Catholics.
Prill, 34, is a physical education teacher, baseball coach and associate athletic director at Xavier. Students said he will not be brought back next year because he spent the night at his girlfriend’s house in Green Bay after having a few drinks. His contract requires him to live by Catholic teachings, including no cohabitation without marriage.
Click to expand...
Full Story

Really, it’s a PR nightmare; I’m siding mostly with the school and even I thought they looked really badly in the news reports on it. A lot of people are upset that A) The students aren’t getting punished for essentially stalking him and B) The school has no proof that he actually slept even in the same bed as the woman. Where does cohabitation begin and end?

They had a similar situation a few years ago when a teacher was fired for undergoing invetro feritilization (sp?) and decided to sue. She recently settled with them, actually.

If this is in the wrong forum, my apologies and please feel free to move it. I would consider this Catholic news, but I’m not sure how local this forum usually goes.
 
I’m guessing that they felt they had to do it since they were sued by the other teacher for firing her over the IVF visit. They don’t want her coming back and suing for “sex discrimination” if they let the male gym teacher off after firing her. This way, they can say they treated both parties equally.

I’m wholly in favor of expecting Catholic teachers to live public lives that are decent, but it seems like he’s collateral damage from the other suit.
 
So this guy got fired for sinning?

Wow. Kind of makes you glad we no longer live in Christendom. No one would have a job.
 
Yeah, it’s supposedly a violation of the morality clause.

Interestingly, some of the students protesting were holding up signs citing John 8:7
 
*Firing him, just based on the article here, seems rash. Either something is missing to the story, or the board acted irrationally. It sounds like the school will be losing a good teacher. So, the school does nothing to the students who plastic wrapped his car, but the teacher does the right thing, and he is fired. Great, sending more kids out into the world who think they are entitled to do anything they please…including ruining someone’s career based on suspicion. :mad: *
 
lakme said:
Yeah, it’s supposedly a violation of the morality clause.

Interestingly, some of the students protesting were holding up signs citing John 8:7
Click to expand...
There doesn’t seem to be enough information about this incident. Was the teacher defiant? Did he say, “screw you and your morals clause”? Was he remorseful? Did he ask for leniency/mercy? Is it a zero tolerance policy? Did anyone try to intervene?

The information provided makes it seem ridiculous and draconian. Which is why I posited that perhaps the previous lawsuit has forced their hand on this.
 
:eek:
Really?
At my high school, the football coach, who also taught history was fired; however, he had a child out of wedlock… it’s definitely a different situation altogether.

The problem with the whole morality clause thing is that its not very well defined in a lot of cases. There are so many instances of going against church teaching, but somehow relationships come to the foreground in these types of discussion.
I’ve seen plenty of teachers who should have been removed based on how uncharitable they were towards their students. Sure, they probably weren’t sleeping over a boy/girlfriends house, but where is the line drawn?
 
tm30 said:
There doesn’t seem to be enough information about this incident. Was the teacher defiant? Did he say, “screw you and your morals clause”? Was he remorseful? Did he ask for leniency/mercy? Is it a zero tolerance policy? Did anyone try to intervene?

The information provided makes it seem ridiculous and draconian. Which is why I posited that perhaps the previous lawsuit has forced their hand on this.
Click to expand...
It sounds like he was accepting of it; he said he is seeking jobs elsewhere but would come back if allowed.

My question is how the students knew he stayed overnight–he could have said that he didn’t leave until after they had gone. Unless they stayed and watched his car, which would make the whole “following him there” thing even sketchier.

Re: The previous lawsuit, it’s quite possible. I also know the principal (like I said, I used to go there) and he tends to cowtail to the parents. Also, both he and the district president are about as conservative Catholic as you can get. Not that it’s a bad thing, of course, but I definitely think it’s a factor.
 
tm30 said:
There doesn’t seem to be enough information about this incident. Was the teacher defiant? Did he say, “screw you and your morals clause”? Was he remorseful? Did he ask for leniency/mercy? Is it a zero tolerance policy? Did anyone try to intervene?

The information provided makes it seem ridiculous and draconian. Which is why I posited that perhaps the previous lawsuit has forced their hand on this.
Click to expand...
It does…although, if he did nothing wrong, why would he be remorseful? Are Catholics not permitted to stay the night at a person’s house of the opposite sex unless married? That seems a little much. Without hardcore facts, the teacher shouldn’t have been fired on supposition of a few teens…who plastic wrapped his car…yeah, they sound reliable. I agree with you though…something seems to be missing…and I feel badly for this teacher. Normally, I would be like…well, the rules are the rules, but just going with what is written here, doesn’t seem like ‘enough’ to fire him. I understand the rule to not be cohabitating with someone you’re not married to as a Catholic, but there is no solid proof he did anything. Guilty by suspicion, I guess. :o
 
I agree that there is not enough information to determine if Xavier’s action went to far. Also there is not enough information to determine if the students who pulled the prank were punished. If students at the Catholic high school I worked at pulled this prank they would receive anywhere from hours of JUG (Justice Under God aka detention) to suspension. Expulsion would also be an option, but unlikely. If the students are seniors they potentially could be excluded from the Bacalouriate Mass and commencement cerimony and have their transcripts withheld until the completed JUG (even if it means summer detention) or their suspension.

I have seen what happens to a Catholic high school that does not effectively deal with a teacher that does not live by Catholic teachings and does not intend to live by Catholic teachings. A Catholic high school in our area did not fire a teacher that was found to be escourting women into an abortion clinic and was unwilling to change her position on abortion when confronted. The bishop finally had to intervene to get the teacher fired. The year that this happened the school had their largest freshman class in their history. Every year after that the freshman class shrunk until this year when only 80 girls applied for the freshman class. Needless to say the school is closing. They have blamed it on the economy, but I believe the school lost it’s Catholic identity. In our area where there are many high quality public and charter high schools, Catholic identity is critical to differentiating a Catholic high school from other high schools, esp high schools without tuition.
 
*This reminds me of the movie, Doubt…anyone see that? Like not enough information either way! Huh, that just struck me reading your post Cobbfmly. *
 
The problem I’m having with this incident is the school’s apparent assumption that the teacher slept with his girlfriend. Charity requires us to assume the best of our fellow Christians, not the worst. I can easily see how an upstanding teacher would say to his students, especially at a high school containing students learning to drive, “I had had a few glasses of wine, and I didn’t dare drive a car. So I slept on the couch.” That would be a perfectly proper example to set.

Now, it’s entirely possible that there are other things going on here: maybe the teacher confessed to the school that he did sleep with his girlfriend that night. Worse, maybe he confessed to the students that he slept with her. Perhaps he refused to specify whether he slept with her (in which case, why are they making the assumption?). It may be that the school isn’t publicizing such information. But it sure sounds like the school is in the wrong here.

I don’t see the big deal with the plastic-wrapping of the teacher’s car. He sounds like the “cool” kind of teacher that we would do such things to when I was in high school – the kind who would laugh at it and not give it a second thought (or perhaps even tell it to other teachers as a funny thing that happened to him).

I certainly don’t think the school had to fire him because of the teacher who had IVF a few years back; she publicly admitted she had done so, whereas this teacher has apparently done nothing more than not drink and drive (accompanied by the school apparently making unfounded assumptions of immoral conduct as a result). So any lawsuit alleging discrimination would be met by the very clear defense of “We had your admission against you; what proof do you have that this teacher also broke the morals clause?”

Edit: Actually, it would be “What proof do you have that, prior to you filing suit against us, we had proof that this teacher also broke the morals clause?”
 
Godfollower said:
I don’t see the big deal with the plastic-wrapping of the teacher’s car. He sounds like the “cool” kind of teacher that we would do such things to when I was in high school – the kind who would laugh at it and not give it a second thought (or perhaps even tell it to other teachers as a funny thing that happened to him).
Click to expand...
Unlike public schools, many Catholic schools have off campus conduct rules. The school I work at can suspend or dismiss for any off campus conduct that is detrimental to the reputation of the school or that hinders the advancement of the common good. Basically, the same behavior is expected when they are not on campus and not at an off campus school event (i.e. sporting event) as when they are on campus or at an off campus school event.
 
Cobbfmly said:
Unlike public schools, many Catholic schools have off campus conduct rules. The school I work at can suspend or dismiss for any off campus conduct that is detrimental to the reputation of the school or that hinders the advancement of the common good. Basically, the same behavior is expected when they are not on campus and not at an off campus school event (i.e. sporting event) as when they are on campus or at an off campus school event.
Click to expand...
I understand that, and I don’t have a problem with it. What I’m saying is that it sounds like this teacher is okay with this practical joke. So I probably wouldn’t “prosecute” this violation (assuming that it is a violation).

Now, if they did it to a different teacher who was reduced to tears as a result, then they’d be in trouble. That’s the risk you take when you perform a practical joke. But it’s still a fair standard, I think, because of the principle involved. Playing a joke on this guy is done out of a sense of fun. Playing the same joke on the prim & proper type is done out of meanness. So one warrants punishment; the other doesn’t.
 
There’s almost always “more to the story” and in this case I certainly hope so. If the story is simply he had a few too many and slept it off then the school seems to be telling its teachers that it would rather they drove home drunk.
This isn’t to condone drunkenness, but many good people have made the mistake of drinking too much on an occasion or two.
 
Godfollower: I would agree that the plastic wrapping was just a fun prank. However, I’m not sure how familiar you are with this area, but Green Bay is at least half an hour away from Appleton. I find it questionable that they would follow him for such a long distance.

To clarify: when I mean that I’m somewhat on the school’s side, I mean that I can see their reasons for it and the teacher was the one who signed the contract with the moral clause. I do agree though that they haven’t proven that he actually slept with her, so it’s super questionable. I’m kind of stuck in the middle, especially since, like people have pointed out, we don’t know a lot of the details.

Hopefully I’ll find out more throughout the next few days.
 
Cobbfmly said:
Unlike public schools, many Catholic schools have off campus conduct rules. The school I work at can suspend or dismiss for any off campus conduct that is detrimental to the reputation of the school or that hinders the advancement of the common good. Basically, the same behavior is expected when they are not on campus and not at an off campus school event (i.e. sporting event) as when they are on campus or at an off campus school event.
Click to expand...
This local incident serves well to illustrate why Notre Dame is such a scandal. Here, we have a lay teacher who has violated a morals clause and loses his career, at least for now.

At Notre Dame, there’s a university administration that violates an official directive of the USCCB - arguably much more scandalous and in violation of morals - and they not only skate, but their positions are even more solidified. This is why it scandalizes the consciences of Catholics. Now I look at the teacher getting fired and think - why should he be punished for violating a morals clause when prominent Notre Dame officials receive congratulations and esteem for defying the USCCB?
 
NewEnglandPries said:
There’s almost always “more to the story” and in this case I certainly hope so. If the story is simply he had a few too many and slept it off then the school seems to be telling its teachers that it would rather they drove home drunk.
This isn’t to condone drunkenness, but many good people have made the mistake of drinking too much on an occasion or two.
Click to expand...
There are other options to driving drunk: he could have caught a cab home, or to a local hotel, or slept in his car.

For a man to sleep over at a woman’s house gives scandal: it gives the appearance of evil. He did the wrong thing; he accepts that he did the wrong thing. It’s too bad that he did the wrong thing, but he did, thus setting a bad example for the students (consider that when a student is told to stay the night at someone’s house, *parents *are assumed to be at that house).

And the students weren’t too bright either.
 
St_Francis said:
There are other options to driving drunk: he could have caught a cab home, or to a local hotel, or slept in his car.

For a man to sleep over at a woman’s house gives scandal: it gives the appearance of evil. He did the wrong thing; he accepts that he did the wrong thing. It’s too bad that he did the wrong thing, but he did, thus setting a bad example for the students (consider that when a student is told to stay the night at someone’s house, *parents *are assumed to be at that house).

And the students weren’t too bright either.
Click to expand...
He can’t sleep in his car, the police will possibly arrest him for dui. Its happened and courts have upheld it. If you’re in your car and not on private property then you are subject to dui arrest.

A cab is not always an option. In New England atleast you can’t get a cab in under an hour outside of Boston and be prepared to pay out the nose to go around the block.

Same thing with a hotel. Outside of a major city (and I wouldn’t qualify Green Bay as a major city), most hotels are either complete dumps or don’t have a front desk after 11pm. And once again, be prepared to overpay.

The man may not have had many viable options, and he is entitled to a certain level of expectation of privacy and nonjudgment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top