M
miguel
Guest
The fact that the principal didn’t fire the slimey pro-abort on her own, but only after the Bishop forced her to, speaks volumes.
Student Who Exposed Catholic Teacher's Abortion Work Expelled
- Status
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
and therein lies the problem…this is a presumption, it is not established fact.
M
miguel
Guest
Why did the Bishop have to force the principal to fire the pro-abort? A Catholic principal would have been more than happy to fire a person who escorts mothers into places where their babies are dismembered? A Catholic principal would have shown appreciation to the person who brought that to her attention. A Catholic principal would have brought that to the attention of the other students as behavior worthy of the highest praise, as an example of the fight that must be waged. Instead, the student was expelled and the opposite message was sent.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
We don’t know why…yet…and we may never know.
Eveything you’ve posted here is conjecture on your part.
Were you there?
Have you spoken with the bishop?
Have you spoken with the principal?
Have you spoken with the teacher?
M
miguel
Guest
Why did the Bishop have to force the principal to fire the pro-abort? That is not conjecture. And it speaks volumes. Following it up with an expulsion for the whistle-blower, and not even with the guts to do it face-to-face, also speaks volumes. If you want to play ostrich, go ahead.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Do we even know he **forced **to principal to fire the teacher?
Or is that from heresay and speculation?
Did the principal say she was forced?
Did the bishop say he had to force the principal to fire the teacher?
If he did force her to do that then his reasons for having to do so have not been disclosed by the Bishop, if it had then you wouldn’t be asking the question now would you?
You are transferring your own take on the matter based on bits and pieces of the puzzle. You have no confirmation for your interpretation of reported facts and yet you say those reported facts speak volumes? They are only statements published in newspapers and blogs. We don’t even know how accurate those statements are. They raise a lot of questions and so far there have been no answers released by the parties involved (just friends of friends and so on). THAT is conjecture.
Since you repeated your question to me, allow me to do the same:
Were you there?
Have you spoken to the principal?
Have you spoken to the teacher?
Have you spoken to the bishop?
Not only am I not playing Ostrich, I am **not **playing judge and jury as you seem comfortable doing.
M
miguel
Guest
From the following link:
catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=24&art_id=30654
Rev. Charles S. McDermott, S.T.D., Chancellor and Vicar Episcopal for Theological Affairs for the Diocese of Sacramento…did however provide key information shedding light on the disagreement between the family and the school. He told LifeSiteNews.com that “The mother approached Loretto High School about it quite quietly, as far as I understand, and asked them to respond to the situation.” The school failed to act, and the matter was “eventually” brought to the attention of Bishop Weigand.
Rev. McDermott notes that when the Bishop raised the issue with Sr. Timothy and Principal Sr. Barbara Nelson, they "did not agree entirely with our position."
From another link:
catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=26&art_id=30643
The Bishop’s October 5 letter to the school stated, “I am directing you, under the provisions of Code of Canon Law… to dismiss Ms. Bain with all deliberate speed.”
All this speaks volumes to me. And just in case there were any lingering doubts, the expulsion of the pro-life whistle-blower put an exclamation point on it.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Thank you for the links.
First and foremost, remember this is an article written by a reporter and it obviously shows his slant toward his take on the situation.
Next, regarding the first link, that certainly confirms the Bishop ordered the principal to fire the teacher. It does not confirm he was forced to do so (the article in the Sacramento paper suggested he caved into fundamentalist pressure - an example of a reporter writing with his particular slant as well and why one always has to consider the source of any news article, whether in print or on television).
It does not show the principal never considered firing the teacher, or was ‘forced’ to do so. What is says is that Srs. Timothy and Nelson did not agree entirely with the position. It could be they preferred other disciplinary measures to be taken which would have been harsh but not extreme. We don’t know that, though, it is a possibility. The Rev. goes on to say even though they didn’t agree entirely, they did respectfully comply. This does not scream of reluctant, defiant compliance at all. Just that there was a differing of opinion on how best to handle the case of the teacher, and that the Rev. succeeded in getting the Srs to do what was best for the diocese.
Regarding the second link, again, written by an author with his particular slant. The real problem with the article is both sides are asserting allegations, none of which have been supported by evidence. The principal says she cannot respond. We have the ‘blog’ of the girl summarizing the ‘accusations’ and claiming their falsehood, but we don’t know yet whether they are false.
What I don’t get is the bishop had the right under the faith and morals clause to interfere enough to get the sisters to agree to firing the teacher, but has not been able exercise the same right with regard to the expulsion.
If there is evidence the expulsion was retaliatory only and there was no evidence supporting the allegations given for the expulsion then I see no reason why the bishop couldn’t step in again to correct the situation. The actions of the principal would be the same as the actions of the teacher - both reflect behaviors, attitudes, positions contrary to church teaching on faith and morals. That is what has me wondering about the claims of the student that all ‘charges’ were false.
I still prefer to see what comes of this before making a judgement. I truly hope it goes to court. I would be more likely to take the students’ position on this particular claim that she was expelled unjustifiably if they’d force the principal to prove the charges in a court of law. Unless, they can’t, in which case we could no longer claim this was in retaliation only and entirely vindictive on the part of the principal.
S
slackernerd
Guest
St. Francis is a nearby diocesan girls’ high school. As far as I know, she has not been offered a position at St. Francis. If the St. Francis administration and the bishop felt that Katelyn had been unjustly expelled, they could have offered her admission. I’m sure the bishop knows more about the situation than we do.
M
miguel
Guest
I never said anything about the Bishop himself being forced. My conjecture on his action, is that he simply did the right thing. If he was forced in any way, it was not by any “fundamentalist pressure.” It was by his own conscience, his knowledge that failure to act appropriately in this matter would come back to haunt him at judgement time. But then again, he could have been more than happy to fire the pro-abort and send out a clear pro-life message to his people.
I think it clearly shows the principal was forced to do the firing. To knowingly tolerate this type of person on the premises, let alone the faculty, for one second past the point of discovery, is an outrage. It reflects very poorly on the principal’s judgement.
The firing was not extreme. The presence of a “deathscort” on the faculty of a Catholic girls school, that was extreme.
My take on this is the Rev. was being diplomatic. Look, I would be inclined to give you this one, if it wasn’t for the expulsion. They showed their true colors with that. And they didn’t have the guts to do it in person.
I don’t get that either.
YinYangMom said:
All this says to me is there might have been some friction going on when the parent was trying to get the school to act. And they used that as an excuse for the expulsion. It doesn’t change anything about them knowingly keeping the pro-abort employed.
S
smartblkchick
Guest
Not necessarily…
From the posts on the other board it seems the girl’s mother was a huge pain in the rear end. No school probably wants to deal with her. Some Catholic schools in the area are probably happy the student was not enrolled in their school in the first place (so they would not have to deal with the mom).
Inviting that family into the school community is potentially asking for trouble every time the mother disagrees with a school policy. No school is going to invite that kind of trouble. Unfortunately, with respect to the Catholic schools in the area, the Sills family has likely been labeled “damaged goods.”
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
I never said you did. I specifically noted that the Sacramento Bee journalist made that inference - showing how one has to take into consideration the author of any news article and whatever slant they choose to present on a particular news story.
And that is your opinion. To you it shows all that, to me, it does not.
Again, your take. Not mine. Perhaps not others. The fact remains neither of us knows for certain.
It certainly suggests that there may have been friction going on but we may never know for certain. As for them ‘knowingly keeping the pro-abort employed’, again you don’t know if there were other disciplinary measures taken once the teacher was outed. None of us knows what really happened - and that’s my point. Until we do we cannot go around saying with certainty this meant that and she/he was right/wrong/whatever.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
And that, too, would be an awful shame and a disgrace to Catholics everywhere because such a branding would be the result of hearsay and innuendo.
M
miguel
Guest
Actions speak louder than words. To knowingly keep a “deathscort” employed on the faculty of a Catholic school, and that is certain, says it all.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
But you don’t know all the actions which took place.
Your opinion is based on incomplete information.
That says it all.
B
beckyann2597
Guest
I know someone very involved in the school and it seems to be her opinion that the Principal didn’t immediatly fire the teacher because 1. It would cause the already sued diocese another lawsuit and it might be easier just not to extend the invitation to teach next year (not renew her contract after 1 year agreement was fulfilled). 2. She wanted to try to make her realize her mistake. The school is very active in prolife in Sacramento and Maybe she wanted educate the woman on the facts that she was really helping to kill babies.
As mad as I would have been that I had mistakenly hired a pro-abortion person, I would hope that I would have a level head would have probably done both of those things. I know you are all going to blast me for this opinion, but I wanted to bring it up as another possibility.
As mad as I would have been that I had mistakenly hired a pro-abortion person, I would hope that I would have a level head would have probably done both of those things. I know you are all going to blast me for this opinion, but I wanted to bring it up as another possibility.
B
beckyann2597
Guest
I agree completely and I want to make clear that my statements are just another opinion passed onto you all.
M
miguel
Guest
Please. They keep telling us it’s an independent school. If the principal would have done the firing on her own, the diocese couldn’t be dragged in to any potential lawsuit. The Catholic thing to do is what the Bishop did…not waste any time getting rid of her (“with all deliberate speed”). Waiting for the Bishop to get involved, made it more likely for the diocese to be sued, not less.
Mistake is not the word I would use. This person is obviously a cold-blooded abettor to the dismembering of babies.
You don’t think the woman already knows that? Come on. People are not that stupid. Unless she just fell off the turnip truck, she knows exactly what she’s doing. And she knows it’s absolutely contrary to the Catholic faith. Everyone knows that.
B
beckyann2597
Guest
You would be surprised at what pro-abortionists believe, they honestly (but wrongly) think they are doing something to better humanity…I am thinking of that famous saying "The rode to hell is paved with good intentions. That teacher was a human being and we mustn’t give up hope that everyone who beliefs in abortion will come around to seeing the truth of what is happenning and be able to repent for any aid they might have given. I think this approach is charitable, if not always realistic.
K
kmktexas
Guest
This would assume that there is not a “morals clause” in the teaching contract. I have never heard of a Catholic school (or a non-Catholic private school) that did not have such a clause. Firing someone who clearly violates a clause in their contract is not an invitation to a lawsuit. However, if she had worked there for years and the school had known about her activities previously, that’s another story. In that case, the school would have been giving tacit approval to her actions and to fire her now might be something she could fight.
If you know someone at the school, perhaps you could find out some of what is contained in a typical teaching contract there.
This is true but they usually don’t delude themselves into thinking that the Church is ok with this position. Even if she thought that she was doing the right thing, she had to know that she was acting against Church teaching. She can’t even claim to be uncatechized in this regard. She was working in a Catholic school for goodness sakes.
- Status