Controversy over Catholic high school firing teacher for cohabitation

[Godfollower]

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.

Only if the people knowing about it assume sin on the part of both the man staying over and the woman hosting him. The problem lies in their malicious assumptions, not in his staying on the couch.

Just how much money is he required to spend on a hotel room or round-trip cab fare (remember, he has to come back for his car) on the off-chance that someone will see his car the night before, see it again the next day, recognize it, assume he spent the night, and assume they had sex? By all appearances, the problem here is that the school officials can’t get their minds out of the gutter.

 

[St_Francis]

Only if the people knowing about it assume sin on the part of both the man staying over and the woman hosting him. The problem lies in their malicious assumptions, not in his staying on the couch.

Just how much money is he required to spend on a hotel room or round-trip cab fare (remember, he has to come back for his car) on the off-chance that someone will see his car the night before, see it again the next day, recognize it, assume he spent the night, and assume they had sex? By all appearances, the problem here is that the school officials can’t get their minds out of the gutter.

Let’s get real, people. An unmarried couple spending the night in the same house or apartment has always been considered “giving scandal.” It is not because of evil-minded judgementalism, but because the appearance of evil is there. It’s an occasion of sin. A Catholic teacher doing this is setting a hugely bad example, and his contract said that he shouldn’t be doing stuff like that.

And hey, if he can’t afford to take a cab and stay in a hotel room, then maybe, just maybe, *he shouldn’t drink!!! *Wow, what a concept! Thinking ahead! considering the possible ramifications of one’s actions like a mature individual!!!

 

[Godfollower]

Let’s get real, people. An unmarried couple spending the night in the same house or apartment has always been considered “giving scandal.” It is not because of evil-minded judgementalism, but because the appearance of evil is there. It’s an occasion of sin. A Catholic teacher doing this is setting a hugely bad example, and his contract said that he shouldn’t be doing stuff like that.

And hey, if he can’t afford to take a cab and stay in a hotel room, then maybe, just maybe, *he shouldn’t drink!!! *Wow, what a concept! Thinking ahead! considering the possible ramifications of one’s actions like a mature individual!!!

Sorry, but it is most definitely not an occasion of sin. Men are perfectly capable of sleeping on a couch in a house that contains a woman without having sex with her. Conversely, women are also perfectly capable of sleeping in a bed in a house that contains a man without having sex with him.

(That’s true even if they’re married to each other, by the way. Ask anyone who practices NFP).

We all have self-control. To assume that a man who’s worried about driving home because of alcohol will throw all caution to the wind and jump his girlfriend – and that she will therefore jump him back – is to attribute evil intent to another human without cause.

And I disagree that poor schoolteachers should have to abstain from alcohol. That’s just silly. He’s allowed to have a drink or two. But, once he realized that he had had too much, he was obligated not to drive.

And I say he was free to spend the night on her couch (assuming she gave permission, of course) whether or not he could afford to take a cab home or to a hotel. The only way anyone will think it’s okay to have premarital sex because of his example is if they assume that he had premarital sex – which requires an assumption we have no right to make.

 

[St_Francis]

Sorry, but it is most definitely not an occasion of sin. Men are perfectly capable of sleeping on a couch in a house that contains a woman without having sex with her. Conversely, women are also perfectly capable of sleeping in a bed in a house that contains a man without having sex with him.

I meant a near occasion of sin, I apologize for that.

I am not assuming that they slept together. The act of spending the night at her place is a near occasion of sin, causes scandal, violates his agreement…

We all have self-control. To assume that a man who’s worried about driving home because of alcohol will throw all caution to the wind and jump his girlfriend – and that she will therefore jump him back – is to attribute evil intent to another human without cause.

As I said, they do not need to have slept *together *to make this a bad thing to do.

And I disagree that poor schoolteachers should have to abstain from alcohol. That’s just silly. He’s allowed to have a drink or two. But, once he realized that he had had too much, he was obligated not to drive.

I did not say that he had to abstain from alcohol, only that in a situation like this, he needed to abstain from drinking. If you are in a place where your only options are to spend the night at your girlfriend’s place, then you need to not drink. It’s not that difficult.

Remember that he is a teacher and a coach, *and *has signed an agreement saying that he will live by Catholic moral principles.

And I say he was free to spend the night on her couch (assuming she gave permission, of course) whether or not he could afford to take a cab home or to a hotel. The only way anyone will think it’s okay to have premarital sex because of his example is if they assume that he had premarital sex – which requires an assumption we have no right to make.

We are physically free to do anything, but there are certain things we are not morally free to do. He was not morally free to do what he did; he shouldn’t have done it. There’s no getting around that point.

From what I can tell from the article, you are fighting this much more than he is.

 

[IronHammer]

I wish we did live in Christendom.

More and more I feel that we, as a society, are incapable of handling true freedom. Just look at the stupid stuff people are doing in the name of freedom in America today. As Tommy Lee Jones said, “The person is smart but people are stupid.”

We should all be living in a Roman Catholic Theocracy. I, for one, trust the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[Godfollower]

I meant a near occasion of sin, I apologize for that.

I am not assuming that they slept together. The act of spending the night at her place is a near occasion of sin, causes scandal, violates his agreement…

As I said, they do not need to have slept *together *to make this a bad thing to do.

I did not say that he had to abstain from alcohol, only that in a situation like this, he needed to abstain from drinking. If you are in a place where your only options are to spend the night at your girlfriend’s place, then you need to not drink. It’s not that difficult.

Remember that he is a teacher and a coach, *and *has signed an agreement saying that he will live by Catholic moral principles.

We are physically free to do anything, but there are certain things we are not morally free to do. He was not morally free to do what he did; he shouldn’t have done it. There’s no getting around that point.

From what I can tell from the article, you are fighting this much more than he is.

That is the very point I’m challenging. I’m saying that it was perfectly okay under Catholic teaching for him to spend the night there. It’s not an occasion of sin, it’s not a near occasion of sin, it’s not anything wrong or immoral at all. I’m saying that it is perfectly consistent with Catholic theology for a man to spend the night at his girlfriend’s house if he had too much to drink. Such an act violates no moral principles at all.

 

[St_Francis]

That is the very point I’m challenging. I’m saying that it was perfectly okay under Catholic teaching for him to spend the night there. It’s not an occasion of sin, it’s not a near occasion of sin, it’s not anything wrong or immoral at all. I’m saying that it is perfectly consistent with Catholic theology for a man to spend the night at his girlfriend’s house if he had too much to drink. Such an act violates no moral principles at all.

Obviously, you think that near occasions of sin and giving scandal and violating agreements are *all right. *Fine. But don’t put that on the Church.

 

[Godfollower]

Obviously, you think that near occasions of sin and giving scandal and violating agreements are *all right. *Fine. But don’t put that on the Church.

He only violated his agreement if he violated the teachings of the Church. He only committed the sin of scandal if he led another to do evil. He only engaged in a near occasion of sin if he created a situation in which most men would commit the sin, or in which past experience on his part indicates that he likely would commit the sin.

The only teachings of the Church you have identified are (A) scandal and (B) near occasion of sin. So, if he didn’t do either of those, then he didn’t violate his contract.

Scandal is an attitude or behavior that leads another to do evil, in that the scandal-maker becomes a tempter. We have been given no information – none – that would suggest that this teacher led anyone to do evil. All we know is that he spent the night at his girlfriend’s house, and that at some point during that night he was asleep.

A near occasion of sin is a situation that would incite most moral people to commit the sin in question – or one that he knows from past experience is likely to lead him to commit that sin. Unless you’re arguing that being in the same vicinity of his girlfriend inherently entices him to have sex with her, we have no such information.

In short, there’s no evidence at all that he committed the sin of scandal or indulged himself in a near occasion of sin. This also means that there’s no evidence that he violated his contract.

So, no: I do not agree that “near occasions of sin and giving scandal and violating agreements are all right.” I simply disagree that sleeping off a spell of tipsiness on a couch is any of those things.

 

[St_Francis]

He only violated his agreement if he violated the teachings of the Church. He only committed the sin of scandal if he led another to do evil. He only engaged in a near occasion of sin if he created a situation in which most men would commit the sin, or in which past experience on his part indicates that he likely would commit the sin.

The only teachings of the Church you have identified are (A) scandal and (B) near occasion of sin. So, if he didn’t do either of those, then he didn’t violate his contract.

Scandal is an attitude or behavior that leads another to do evil, in that the scandal-maker becomes a tempter. We have been given no information – none – that would suggest that this teacher led anyone to do evil. All we know is that he spent the night at his girlfriend’s house, and that at some point during that night he was asleep.

Scandal: For scandal to exist it is therefore essential and sufficient, with regard to the nature of the act and the circumstances under which it takes place, that it be of a nature to induce sin in another; consequently it is not necessary that the neighbour should actually fall into sin;

You need to remember that this man is a teacher. He was apparently *so drunk *that he had to stay the *whole night *at his girlfriend’s house.

Now think about this: generally if one drinks about 1 drink per hour, one will not have so much alcohol in his system that he cannot drive. It takes about an hour for the alcoholic content of the drink to wear off or be absorbed by the body. So, here you have a teacher who has been drinking *so much *that he has to spend *the entire night *at his girlfriend’s house because there is just *no way *that he can spend the night at someone else’s house, take a cab, stay at a hotel, or anything else.

At the same time, you postulate that he will not cause scandal by spending the night while this drunk at his girlfriend’s apartment. (And how did they get to the girlfriend’s apartment, anyway?)

A near occasion of sin is a situation that would incite most moral people to commit the sin in question – or one that he knows from past experience is likely to lead him to commit that sin. Unless you’re arguing that being in the same vicinity of his girlfriend inherently entices him to have sex with her, we have no such information.

Objectively it is a near occasion of sin. Occasions of Sin are external circumstances–whether of things or persons–which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

Now, what he did was to set the example to the students at the school that it is all right to go out and get so drunk that you have to spend the night at your girlfriend’s house, which is a really bad example to set for your students. This was not an unavoidable situation! It’s not like an unforeseen blizzard came in while he was visiting his girlfriend or something like that.

In short, there’s no evidence at all that he committed the sin of scandal or indulged himself in a near occasion of sin. This also means that there’s no evidence that he violated his contract.

From an objective point of view rather than a subjective point of view, he did, and that is what counts in his contract. He is supposed to be setting an example of how Catholics live for the students. He failed rather miserably at that aspect of his job.

So, no: I do not agree that “near occasions of sin and giving scandal and violating agreements are all right.” I simply disagree that sleeping off a spell of tipsiness on a couch is any of those things.

The problem is that the couch was in the girlfriend’s apartment, changing the nature of the situation.

 

[wapsi]

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.

I’m not sure the two situations are comparable because in the teachers case it appears to be a momentary lapse of judgment and given the opportunity he presumably wouldn’t sin again.

In the Notre Dame case, the decision was made to commit an act, but weeks went by before the action was actually taken. There was plenty of time to alter course, but they refused to change.

Of course, perhaps the teacher in question truly decided that he didn’t want to live according to Catholic teaching on chastity and marriage. He may have decided that it was simpler to just get a secular job and live as he and his girlfriend wish.

A similar case took place a couple years ago in a Catholic high school in Iowa. The very popular football, who had been teaching there for 30 years, divorced and remarried without getting an annulment. School officials, citing his contract, asked for his resignation. Surprised, the coach filed for an annulment, but was turned down. He then submitted his resignation, but the school board voted not to accept it. So the archbishop had to get personally involved, to whom the school board acquiesced.

An attempt by the coach to get the contract overturned in the courts failed when the District judge refused to hear the case.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10078

I think that teachers have to decide whether or not they want to publicly live by Catholic teachings. Certainly they have the choice whether or not they will teach in a Catholic school, as opposed to a secular school.

 

[Godfollower]

Scandal: For scandal to exist it is therefore essential and sufficient, with regard to the nature of the act and the circumstances under which it takes place, that it be of a nature to induce sin in another; consequently it is not necessary that the neighbour should actually fall into sin;

You need to remember that this man is a teacher. He was apparently *so drunk *that he had to stay the *whole night *at his girlfriend’s house.

Now think about this: generally if one drinks about 1 drink per hour, one will not have so much alcohol in his system that he cannot drive. It takes about an hour for the alcoholic content of the drink to wear off or be absorbed by the body. So, here you have a teacher who has been drinking *so much *that he has to spend *the entire night *at his girlfriend’s house because there is just *no way *that he can spend the night at someone else’s house, take a cab, stay at a hotel, or anything else.

At the same time, you postulate that he will not cause scandal by spending the night while this drunk at his girlfriend’s apartment. (And how did they get to the girlfriend’s apartment, anyway?)

Objectively it is a near occasion of sin. Occasions of Sin are external circumstances–whether of things or persons–which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

Now, what he did was to set the example to the students at the school that it is all right to go out and get so drunk that you have to spend the night at your girlfriend’s house, which is a really bad example to set for your students. This was not an unavoidable situation! It’s not like an unforeseen blizzard came in while he was visiting his girlfriend or something like that.

From an objective point of view rather than a subjective point of view, he did, and that is what counts in his contract. He is supposed to be setting an example of how Catholics live for the students. He failed rather miserably at that aspect of his job.

The problem is that the couch was in the girlfriend’s apartment, changing the nature of the situation.

You keep assuming that any man spending the night in his girlfriend’s apartment is automatically “incited or enticed to sin” – as if we are all inherently slaves to our sexuality. Contrary to popular opinion (especially as portrayed in the media), we are capable of resisting our passions. And, with respect to third parties, as Christians we are required to assume the best, not the worst. So we are supposed to assume that he did the right thing and stayed on the couch.

You seem to admit that it would not be a near occasion of sin if he were, say, trapped by a blizzard. What if he weren’t trapped, but he spent the night there awake the whole time for some other reason? What if he was painting a room in the evening and it took all night? What if they were studying together all night? What if they just watched movies together all night? What if he accidentally dozed off watching Monday Night Football, she threw a blanket over him and went to bed herself, and he woke up the next day? What if he tried to leave but his engine wouldn’t start, and he decided to wait until the next morning to call a tow truck on a regular call instead of an emergency call? Which of these scenarios constitute near occasions of sin as opposed to perfectly acceptable conduct?

As for the alcohol, we don’t know that he was “so drunk” (your italics) that he had to spend the night; all we know is that he had enough that he didn’t want to drive home. That might’ve been six bottles of wine, but it might’ve been only one glass. Personally, in light of the ongoing tragedies caused by drunk driving, I support people erring on the side of caution and avoiding driving even if their tipsiness is merely questionable.

As for the students, I challenge the assumption that he was setting an example for impressionable students. A previous post made the point that he was a half-hour drive away from the school; according to other posts, the students were secretly following him to play a practical joke on him. Under those circumstances, he couldn’t possibly know that any students would see him. To all outward appearances, he’s just entering a house – might be his, might be someone else’s – and leaving the next day (assuming the students spent the night in the yard, watching). To say that whether one’s actions are sinful depends on the existence of a secret observer is to overturn 2,000 years of Catholic theology.

Let me ask you this: you assert that he committed the sin of scandal. For that to happen, he had to engage in behavior that leads another to do evil. True, the other doesn’t have to actually succumb, but to be guilty this teacher had to be tempting someone else to sin. So, since you’re saying he commited scandal, whom did he tempt?

Is he guilty of tempting his girlfriend to have sex with him (even if he only spent the night on the couch, since we don’t know of any other behavior)? Is he guilty of tempting his students to have sex with their boyfriends and girlfriends (even though he didn’t even know they were there)?

If he tempted someone to sin, who was that person, and what was the sin that person was tempted to commit?

 

[DrivingReport]

No offense but what does the Catholic High School want?

Would they whether of had the teacher Drink and Drive then kill someone possibly?

If you ask me, we’re not getting the whole story.

And if we are getting the whole story, well arn’t there bigger problems happening in the Catholic High School’s right now?

 

[canadianguy1143]

‘St Francis’ does mention something interesting in his posts. How did the drunk teacher, get to his girlfriends place from the bar? Logically it would assume that she drove him there. We don’t know and can anyone here tell me why, if she did drive him to her place, why she couldn’t have driven him to his place and have her drive home.

How did the teacher know that the students were following him? Did they phone his gf’s place to the point where he explained what happened?

 

[gardenswithkids]

Let’s get real, people. An unmarried couple spending the night in the same house or apartment has always been considered “giving scandal.” It is not because of evil-minded judgementalism, but because the appearance of evil is there. It’s an occasion of sin. A Catholic teacher doing this is setting a hugely bad example, and his contract said that he shouldn’t be doing stuff like that.

And hey, if he can’t afford to take a cab and stay in a hotel room, then **maybe, just maybe, **he shouldn’t drink!!! Wow, what a concept! Thinking ahead! considering the possible ramifications of one’s actions like a mature individual!!!

That’s part of the scandal that too few are noticing. Beside the scandal spending night with his girlfriend, a physical education teacher who drinks to excess sets a bad example for alcohol use.

Both teacher and school are saying very little so we don’t really know the whole story. But I am glad to see Catholic school teachers being held to some type of moral standards. Teaches have a tremendous influence on the students they teach.

 

[Godfollower]

‘St Francis’ does mention something interesting in his posts. How did the drunk teacher, get to his girlfriends place from the bar? Logically it would assume that she drove him there. We don’t know and can anyone here tell me why, if she did drive him to her place, why she couldn’t have driven him to his place and have her drive home.

According to the article, the baseball players followed him to her house. When I read the article, I assumed that meant that they followed him from the school; there’s no mention of a bar in the story. All along I’ve been assuming that they had dinner at her place, with wine or beer; then, when it was time to leave, he thought it would be better to stay.

How did the teacher know that the students were following him? Did they phone his gf’s place to the point where he explained what happened?

He didn’t. Remember, they were playing a joke on him (wrapping his car in plastic); they couldn’t’ve done that if he had known they were there. So, I’ve been assuming that either (A) he caught them; or (more likely) (B) he found it the next day.

 

[canadianguy1143]

NEWS UPDATE

“The basis of our action simply had nothing to do with any allegation that the morals clause of his contract had been violated,” Abts wrote in the letter to parents that he released exclusively to The Post-Crescent.

postcrescent.com/article/20090521/APC0101/90521105/1979

Also he is fighting back!

 

[wapsi]

Also he is fighting back!

Good luck on that. My understanding is that employers hold all the cards when it comes to choosing not to renew a contract. They can use any reason they want because they don’t have to justify their choice. I’m not sure that a judge would even accept the case.

On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to be going to the courts.

Prill does not want to speak on camera but in a phone call today he said there is a procedure in the Xavier handbook that allows him to fight the termination.

wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=10397484

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Before World War II, many public schools put such restrictions on the personal lives of teachers. The same was true on college campuses.

 

[Godfollower]

NEWS UPDATE

“The basis of our action simply had nothing to do with any allegation that the morals clause of his contract had been violated,” Abts wrote in the letter to parents that he released exclusively to The Post-Crescent.

Wouldn’t that be funny? If the whole thing was just a budget decision?



(Sad for him, of course; no one likes losing his job. But funny from the perspective of this thread).

 

[peary]

Cohabitation means living together under the same roof without the benefit of marriage. Is this the case here? Doesn’t appear to be. One-night stands are not in the category of cohabitation.