Why is that? Why shouldn’t a PRIVATE institution be allowed to make and follow what it believes to be sound moral decisions? Are you for government control of Catholic schools?
No you cannot, however you might be able to prevent some from happening again… but not if you refuse to hold people accountable for their actions. God bless.
I am very sure that the administration would not find pleasure in expelling a student. How exactly should the school “aid” this student at this time in her life? I’m curious as to what you expect a Catholic school to do extra in order to “aid” those who refuse to live chaste lives.
She can. No one would suggest that she not be allowed to finish her education. Why do you seem to think that this girl’s entire future is in jeopardy if she doesn’t graduate from THIS school?
Yeap, so get thee to the local public high school and begin the enrollment paperwork. Seriously, your last statement seems to suggest that she be allowed to not only finish her education at the Catholic school, but since “she needs it (education) more” perhaps the Catholic school should then put her through college as well. She did go out and get pregnant after all… she is entitled.
I really don’t see a school that expels a student for immoral behavior as snubbing the student. If anything, I see the girl as snubbing morality and the school is in fact attempting to educate not only THAT individual girl but the entire student body by saying that it will not tolerate immoral behavior. That’s just me though and I respect that you have a differing opinion.
… thus crippling them from having to ever learn responsibility. It’s no wonder that teen pregnancy is higher today than it was when my parents were in school. Even Catholics are all for doing away with teaching responsibility to teens. I’m glad my kids are done with high school, but I suppose that I will still have to worry about any grandchildren that may end up attending a non-accountability teaching institution.
I’m just going to respond to this last part of your post because I am a bit at a loss concerning abortion and how it is tied to this scenario. Are you suggesting that the school would be pushing pregnant teens toward abortion if expulsion was a possibility in cases where it was discovered that students were participating in pre-marital sex? In other words, the school would be helping to facilitate abortion?! Wow… okay, how about this then. Since we don’t want the girl to have an abortion, we allow her to continue being a student. While we’re at it, we get with her to see what she would like the cafeteria to make for lunch each day. We make sure that she gets a passing grade for each of her classes. We provide transportation to and from the OBGYN and or anywhere else she may wish to go because we don’t want to give her any excuse to become stressed out and possibly seek an abortion. Because then it would be the school’s fault right?!
This was presented as a possiblility by another poster a few days ago. That poster suggested that the student be allowed to get her assignments and work on them at home (instead of coming to school) until after the birth of her baby. That, to me, would be an acceptable compromise; but, I bet there would be many here who would say that too is overly harsh.
Agreed.
I almost agree. Where I have a slight problem is with the statement, “…there would have to be a way to concretely identify the father and punish him equally…” It’s not that I disagree that the father should receive the same punishment as the young woman, it’s that it sounds like you are saying that if the father can’t be identified and punished, that the young woman should not be held accountable either. IF that is what you are suggesting, then I must disagree. As in the example I gave earlier where there were two masked bank robbers. One lost his mask during the robbery and one did not. The police were able to identify the one that lost his mask and make an arrest. However, if the DA used the same logic as you may have concerning this situation, the DA would simply not prosecute the robber which was in custody because it wouldn’t be fair that one of the robbers was held accountable and the other got away scott-free. God bless.
I don’t think that is the case. Today’s society would be against a school that expelled a pregnant student. Even many of the Catholics here are opposed to holding the girl (and guy if known) accountable by means up to and including expulsion. My theory is… that pre-martial sex is viewed by many (Catholics included as proven within this thread) as not being that bad of a sin. Society accepts it and let’s face it, the Church is full of the same people that make up society. So, if the school were in fact worried about perserving an image, I would think that they would be on the other side of the issue.
Again, the wider world would certainly be against expulsion. However, the school cannot allow the moral standards of the world invade the classrooms. Just as the Church cannot allow society to dictate dogma.
The school’s primary purpose is to educate, so I do not believe that they have any moral obligation to provide “some sort of support” that may fall outside of the support that they show all of the student body. If the young woman needs financial, medical, etc. kinds of support, she can and should turn to organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Church itself, her family (obviously). Spiritual support can certainly be found within the Church. She is not alone despite what some here may think should she be expelled. The Church does not excommunicate students who are expelled simply over the fact that they no longer attend Catholic school. Besides all this, I can say with a fairly accurate amount of certainty that many public high schools have all kinds of support services in place for this situation. When my children were in high school (public) several years ago, the school had day care on campus for student mothers. I’m sorry… I just don’t see most Catholic schools accepting pre-marital sex to the point that they will make accommodations such as this; nor do I think that they should be required to.
And here we hit the key difference. You see a student who refuses to lead a chaste life, and needs to be punished. I see a student who slipped up, and now needs the support of a Catholic community. I also see a new life coming into the world; that’s a serious responsibility and a joyful occasion.
As someone who changed schools between fifth and sixth grades, its difficult to adjust to a new place with new people. In all likelihood, this girl is either a junior or a senior in high school, and going to a new school in the later years of high school is the hardest of all…for a normal student who is changing schools because she moved. But this is more than that! You’re asking a pregnant girl, who has just been told that she’s unworthy to be part of her old community, to press forward with her education in a public school that’s likely larger.
Again, we are looking at it in two very different ways. You seem to think that nobody should get anything more than they are entitled to. If Heaven operated on that standard, the New Testament wouldn’t even exist; its about what we can do to help others, not what others deserve.
How is it teaching non-responsibility to teens when a school steps up to help a student prepare for perhaps the greatest responsibility that anybody can take on? By allowing the student to stay in school, and helping to prepare the young woman for being a mother, the school is emphasizing the responsibility that she’s about to take on.
So not my problem is the attitude. This was the attitude of the aposltes before Jesus fed the multitudes. they wanted to send the multitueds away since it was to much money, to many people, they just didn’t have the resources. Jesus tells us to find a way and this is what the school needs to do.
I don’t even need to respond to this. LOL, thank you for disqualifying your own thoughts on the subject. 
FAB;5732969:
, nor do they even consider that she just might be the catalyst that brings her school mates & to commit the same sin.
I don’t think you know high school girls very well. I do. Several…older than that (18-23yrs. old) worked for me before I retired. There are some who will look at this pregnant girl & think how cute she looks in her “pregnant clothes” & how much attention she is getting. Hmmmm?? There will be cries of, “The baby just moved, come feel”, there will be FUN baby showers & all of those darling little clothes & giggles & balloons. We should be very proud that Catholic schools don’t see pregnancy outside of marriage as “no big deal”. It IS a big deal to the child who will be born to a young girl who has no clue what she’s doing. It IS a big deal that this highschooler’s soul is in danger. It IS a big deal that this child may not even have a Father who is married to his/her’s Mother.
This just isn’t true. The Catholic Church, through both Catholic Charities & Catholic Services provide FREE housing for unwed pregnant women. They help find either FREE health insurance…or…insurance based on income for both the Mother & the child. Usually, it’s the first option. I’m a volunteer for Right To Life & 75% of my fellow volunteers are Catholic. RTL., helps with adoptions if that’s what the girl wants. We find her a place to live during her pregnancy if she needs that. We connect her to government offices that will help her with everything from utitility bills to a layette for the baby. I challenge anyone to prove that the Catholic Church doesn’t stand at the head of the list for providing help for a pregnant teenager.
#1. The “Church” is not “pushing her away”. The school is standing for the gospel of Christ. HE has to come first. They are standing tall for the souls of her classmates.
#2.Tolerance of sin & Moral indifference are not a loving postures. Jesus, for example, was not morally indifferent. There is a great deal in the New Testament that he did not approve of. In this light, we could argue that Jesus was pretty “intolerant”. He did not accept the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, for example, nor did he tolerate adultery by forgiving the woman caught in adultery. On the contrary, he said to her "sin no more".
Jesus was “intolerant” toward sin because he loved perfectly, and there is much that love refuses to tolerate. Whatever He did tolerate, it is clear from the context of His words that His tolerance did not amount to approval: “Oh faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I be with you? How much longer must I put up with you?” (Mt 17, 17). Many people are tolerant today not because they have big hearts full of great charity, but because they are far more concerned about how the object of their tolerance feels** today **than they are about whether the soul of the one they tolerate goes to heaven or hell.
AMEN!
Actually I was being facetious. I figured you would get a laugh out of that.