Student Who Exposed Catholic Teacher's Abortion Work Expelled

[YinYangMom]

Lurch104:

While you are waiting, a young girl has been expelled. Her life has been disupted. How long should she have to wait for justice?? How would the plain clothes nun be harmed by defending her position to expell the student? People should be made to answer. Waiting years for a liberal California corut to decide the matter is not acceptable. She should be in a Catholic school while this is resolved.

How long should she have to wait?
as long as it takes for her parents to file a lawsuit to challenge the reasons stated for her expulsion

For justice?
that depends on whether or not those allegations are true. This is what is bothering me…if none of those charges are valid why is the family not challenging it forthright with every legal avenue available to them instead of denying the allegations via the internet and reporters?

The nun - makes no difference if she’s plain clothed or not - would certainly not be harmed to defend her position. The sooner the better, imo.

Until we know whether or not the reasons for her expulsion are valid she will have to wait, period. There are other Catholic schools, there are public schools who cannot deny her admission, there is homeschoolling as an option as well.

I agree people should be made to answer but only the girl’s parents have control over that. Write to them on the blog - ask them why they are waiting.

 

[YinYangMom]

Traditional:

I was upset when the Bee identified a lot of the students they were talking to as “Pro-Choice”.

It’s quite possible the author of the article interviewed several students but chose to emphasize the pro-choice camp for the purpose of his article. Remember that authors present their views on the matters and support their views with the evidence they select to do so, disregarding evidence which does not support it. Happens all the time.

believe that may have been a source of conflict between the Sills and the Admin, Staff and Students if only some of the students were hearing the “Gospel of Life”, and Sister Helen had knowingly hired a teacher who was Pro-Abortion and had most recently worked as a “deathscort”.

This is the first time I have read anything to say outright she knew in advance this teacher’s position. On what do you base this apparent “fact”?

I would hate to find I lost a job or was expelled from school via Registered Mail. I can’t why Sister Helen wouldn’t beg Kathylen to “cool it” if she was being a problem or to at least bring her into the office and tell her she was being expelled.

Try finding out with a phone call from the principal after you’ve dropped your child off at school that you weren’t supposed to bring him/her back since he/she had been expelled. That’s what happened to my son in 2nd grade when the Catholic school did not want to deal with his ADHD and I had refused to put him on medication. For a full week I had to enroll him in a public school, get doctor appointments lined up, then prove to the Catholic school he was on medication. That was the condition for his readmittance. We did it so that he could go through his First Communion with his classmates (this was right before Easter break) then moved out of state that summer. Talk about a leaving a bad taste in one’s mouth!

The fact is that Sister Helen did none of these things. Why? Why did she make the decision to expel Kathylen without talking to her about it? Why didn’t she care enough to talk to this girl before “Kicking her to the curb”? and, Why expel her via Express Mail, which is the least loving, least decent way to do it, and how one sends, “Dear John letters”?

Excellent questions. I hope we get the answers once the family files suit so all of this can be presented with facts and evidence instead of hearsay and innuendo.

I don’t despise Sister Helen, but i do believe that she displayed an appalling lack of charity and then used these accusations of intimidation to try to divert attention from what she did. She’d do a lot better if she apologized and tried to take Kathylen back or to find a place for her in another Catholic School

I don’t know if it was appalling, but I do agree there were better ways to do this. However, I also know from the legal perspective that the express mail was probably upon advice of lawyers before the fact or per policy.

Having been on the management side of the fence, hiring and firing, I’ll tell you, for legal reasons, charity and kindness are not to be taken into consideration. It’s really a sad statement of our society and the result of numerous lawsuits, but the liability insurance carriers insist that notifications for dismissal are done a specific way, and believe me, it’s very cold and clear cut. Their reasoning is that if we engage in conversation trying to express compassion and sympathy the fired person can use everything we say and do in court to show the supervisor was forced by a higher up to do this, or that his/her compassion indicated it really wasn’t about the employee’s actions but something political. It sends a mixed message, we’re told. By trying to make the moment more bearable we end up making the company more vulnerable to lawsuits which we might lose. It’s one of the reasons I took a huge paycut to step away from management to go back to the ‘worker’ level.

 

[cathologos]

#3. The School has already made public statements in the form of allegations of intimidation first of Mrs. Sills, and then of the Kathylen Sills. This was all done when it became clear they were taking a public relations beating for expelling Kathylen and for expelling her via Registered Mail.

The expulsion letter was sent with no notice and after no attempt seems to have been made to counsel or warn Kathylen of any problem behavior. Is that how you would want to be treated? How does that reflect the love and mercy of Christ?

This is at a School that did not seem to be accurately or completely representing the Church’s stand on Abortion - Students interviewed by the Bee were “Pro-Choice” and the “Popular Teacher” was hired IMMEDIATELY AFTER her time at Planned parenthood!

Sister’s Helen’s friends said she didn’t like being forced to do anything - Well she was forced to do something here by Bishop Wiegand after she refused to listen to buth Kathylen and Mrs. Sills.

Lots of assertions of apparent fact here, TA. Your sources for all this?

#4 & 5. In the light of St. Paul’s admonition in I Cor 6:1-9 to NOT take this to Court, why are you saying that Kathylen and Mrs. Sills should be forcxed to take this to court rather than to be treated as you and I would wish to be treated, with respect and the love and mercy of Christ.

Is the answer to everything in our Church now to force people who are unhappy or who feel they have been wronged to force them to take the issue before UNBELIEVERS rather than to deal with them as BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST?

Heavens! I was responding to a poster who wrote: “People should be made to answer,” and “Waiting for a liberal court is not acceptable.” My question – to which you provided no response, notwithstanding your long statement – was, "OK – HOW should people “be made to answer”? Care to address this? We have processes that are intended to get to the bottom of such disputes – but the previous poster categorically rejected those. Fine. But what is that poster’s alternative? What is your alternative? I was a bit flippant in suggesting some nasty alternative methods of “making people answer,” I concede – but what civilized alternatives do you suggest?

[quoteI thought the Canons of the Church REQUIRED Catholics to “Denounce” wrongdoing such as **knowingly hiring Someone who was explicit “Pro-Choice” and whose last position was at Planned Parenthood to the Church Authorities. I had no idea they allowed the institutions to then expell the students by Registered mail citing “Intimidation” as the reason when they took a PR beating for doing what they did how they did it.

More assertions of fact. Again…your sources for all this?

I see no reason, except for human arrogance, why the Sills should be forced to go to Court.

Forced? Nobody is forcing the Sills to file suit. That’s a choice they may make. Frankly, the only reference I’ve seen to force in this discussion was “People should be made to answer.” It was the reference to force, without any sense that the writer had a clue as to how to do this in a Christian way, that offended me.

People screw up all the time… I think we should confess the wrongdoing, fix whatever damage can be fixed, and then move on.

Absolutely.

In this case, though, I really don’t think we know who screwed up, and how, in any complete way. I don’t think it’s helpful, or frankly very Christian, to get highly judgmental – especially on the basis of very limited, and largely biased, information. I don’t object to righteous indignation, when that’s warranted – but I see an awful lot of folks getting worked up without much real information, without really understanding the facts of the incidents that have them in an uproar. Folks latch on to one tidbit of information, get really angry, say, “What else do I need to know?” – and completely close their minds.

 

[cathologos]

#3. The School has already made public statements in the form of allegations of intimidation first of Mrs. Sills, and then of the Kathylen Sills. This was all done when it became clear they were taking a public relations beating for expelling Kathylen and for expelling her via Registered Mail.

The expulsion letter was sent with no notice and after no attempt seems to have been made to counsel or warn Kathylen of any problem behavior. Is that how you would want to be treated? How does that reflect the love and mercy of Christ?

This is at a School that did not seem to be accurately or completely representing the Church’s stand on Abortion - Students interviewed by the Bee were “Pro-Choice” and the “Popular Teacher” was hired IMMEDIATELY AFTER her time at Planned parenthood!

Sister’s Helen’s friends said she didn’t like being forced to do anything - Well she was forced to do something here by Bishop Wiegand after she refused to listen to buth Kathylen and Mrs. Sills.

Lots of assertions of apparent fact here, TA. Your sources for all this?

#4 & 5. In the light of St. Paul’s admonition in I Cor 6:1-9 to NOT take this to Court, why are you saying that Kathylen and Mrs. Sills should be forcxed to take this to court rather than to be treated as you and I would wish to be treated, with respect and the love and mercy of Christ.

Is the answer to everything in our Church now to force people who are unhappy or who feel they have been wronged to force them to take the issue before UNBELIEVERS rather than to deal with them as BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST?

Heavens! I was responding to a poster who wrote: “People should be made to answer,” and “Waiting for a liberal court is not acceptable.” My question – to which you provided no response, notwithstanding your long statement – was, "OK – HOW should people “be made to answer”? Care to address this? We have processes that are intended to get to the bottom of such disputes – but the previous poster categorically rejected those. Fine. But what is that poster’s alternative? What is your alternative? I was a bit flippant in suggesting some nasty alternative methods of “making people answer,” I concede – but what civilized alternatives do you suggest?

I thought the Canons of the Church REQUIRED Catholics to “Denounce” wrongdoing such as knowingly hiring Someone who was explicit “Pro-Choice” and whose last position was at Planned Parenthood to the Church Authorities. I had no idea they allowed the institutions to then expell the students by Registered mail citing “Intimidation” as the reason when they took a PR beating for doing what they did how they did it.

More assertions of fact. Again…your sources for all this?

I see no reason, except for human arrogance, why the Sills should be forced to go to Court.

Forced? Nobody is forcing the Sills to file suit. That’s a choice they may make. Frankly, the only reference I’ve seen to force in this discussion was “People should be made to answer.” It was the reference to force, without any sense that the writer had a clue as to how to do this in a Christian way, that offended me.

People screw up all the time… I think we should confess the wrongdoing, fix whatever damage can be fixed, and then move on.

Absolutely.

In this case, though, I really don’t think we know who screwed up, and how, in any complete way. I don’t think it’s helpful, or frankly very Christian, to get highly judgmental – especially on the basis of very limited, and largely biased, information. I don’t object to righteous indignation, when that’s warranted – but I see an awful lot of folks getting worked up without much real information, without really understanding the facts of the incidents that have them in an uproar. Folks latch on to one tidbit of information, get really angry, say, “What else do I need to know?” – and completely close their minds.

 

[gomer_tree]

beckyann2597:

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.

While I agree that as a person we can’t give up hope, and outreach and additional chances are undoubtedly Christian, there are also times in which decisive action is necessary. If I run into a pro-abortion person, I can be pastoral and try to move them along slowly. But when that person is teaching my children and is a representative of a Catholic school, it completely changes the matter. This creates a scandal that potentially damages youths’ perceptions of what the Church accepts, and provides for potential confusion among the faithful.

If the sister held this viewpoint, it may well have been with good intentions, but in this situation those intentions are seriously misguided.

 

[gomer_tree]

YinYangMom:

Still, that approach should not result in the disdain you would have shown had that been the case, since you don’t seem to want to be bothered with converting others, just removing them from your presence and any other Catholic’s.

I wouldn’t look at these intentions with disdain, but I would recognize them as flawed, considering the situation. But on the flip side, I do not think it is fair to consider those who feel the Bishop was absolutely correct in requiring the teacher’s dismissal, regardless of the Principal’s intentions, as not wishing to see the conversion of others.

 

[gomer_tree]

Is this school run by the Loretto sisters that accepted Sister Gramick, the founder of New Ways Ministry? I saw a documentary was being made on here. I did a search on her and ran across a 2002 article from World Net Daily.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26848

New Ways Ministry was founded in 1977 by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Rev. Robert Nugent. It was the subject of a 20-year Vatican investigation until 1999, when the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith permanently banned Gramick and Nugent from “any pastoral work involving homosexual persons.” However, New Ways claims that the censure does not apply to the ministry itself.

Nugent is now doing parish and adult education work. Sister Gramick transferred to the Sisters of Loretto and continues to speak and write about homosexuality and church reform.

And here is a bio from the point of view of the GBLT crowd:
lgbtran.org/Profile.asp?A=G&ID=65

If this is the same order, then nothing surprises me.

 

[miguel]

2) There is at least some indication that this family’s life was disrupted by the consequences of their own bad behavior. We don’t know this – but that allegation has as much merit at this time as any allegation of “reprisal” against the girl.

Why? We know the school failed to act when it was brought to their attention that a “deathscort” was on their staff. Only after the matter was brought to the Bishop’s attention, did the school act, by order of the Bishop. The act of going over the principal’s head would not endear her to the parent. The firing itself, could not have been pleasant. We also know the Bishop used this as a teaching moment for the whole diocese, which brought the flap out in the open. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that the principal was embarrassed by this. Then on the heels of all this embarrassment, the pro-life daughter is booted. The allegation of reprisal has merit, and plenty of it. And the school’s allegation of bad behavior is suspicious to say the least.

catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=26&art_id=30643

 

[miguel]

Correction:

miguel:

Then on the heels of all this embarrassment, the pro-life daughter is booted, displaying once again, the bad judgement she already displayed by keeping the “deathscort” on her staff.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

YinYangMom:

The article in the Bee and in Pro-Life news have both stated the teacher was volunteering as a “Deathscort” at the most picketed Abortion clinic in Sacramento for several months where her picture was taken on several occasions by Mrs. Sills.

Sacramento isn’t exactly a large city, and the Pro-Life community in Sacramento is not all that large. Sister Helen has been said by her defenders to have been active in that community.

YinYangMom:

This is the first time I have read anything to say outright she knew in advance this teacher’s position. On what do you base this apparent “fact”?

Some of the posters here have stated they were sure they knew. I’d say with what I just summarized, it would be pretty hard for her not to know.

I’m sorry you went through that with that school. I also believe they were wrong, too, because if you could manage your son’s ADHD without medication, and his doctor felt that was medically indicated, I believe the school should have found a way to deal with it.

YinYangMom:

Try finding out with a phone call from the principal after you’ve dropped your child off at school that you weren’t supposed to bring him/her back since he/she had been expelled. That’s what happened to my son in 2nd grade when the Catholic school did not want to deal with his ADHD and I had refused to put him on medication. For a full week I had to enroll him in a public school, get doctor appointments lined up, then prove to the Catholic school he was on medication. That was the condition for his readmittance. We did it so that he could go through his First Communion with his classmates (this was right before Easter break) then moved out of state that summer. Talk about a leaving a bad taste in one’s mouth!

I would suspect that school had little, if any, experience dealing with physically or mentally disabled children, and had no idea how to deal with your son.

I think they should have picked up a few manuals and did some reading or watched a few videos from people like UCP/SCF. Instead, they took the lazy way out and suspended your son until your drugged him into semi-consciousness, after promising you they could deal with him as is.

I’m sorry you ran into those people who had such a poor understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please, don’t let that cause you to let the people at Loretto get away with such shameful behavior as they have done.

Again, I remind you of St. Paul’s injunction in I Cor 6: 1-9. I don’t understand this insistance on forcing this to go to Courts which are run by unbelievers when we’ve been specifically commanded not to do that.

YinYangMom:

Excellent questions. I hope we get the answers once the family files suit so all of this can be presented with facts and evidence instead of hearsay and innuendo.

I don’t know about everyone else here, but I have tried to make sure that everything I say is based on the facts reported in some artcle or other. If those are innuendo, then that’s not going to change by forcing this to go to Courts contrary to the command of Scripture.

The only question is how you would want to be treated… Jesus says that we are to treat others as we ourselves want to be treated. How many people do you know who want to be dismissed or expelled from work or school via Express Mail and without any warning or counseling beforehand?

If Catholic Schools are going to be worried about being sued by CATHOLICS for demonstrating compassion, then we might as well close them down, because they aren’t obeying the mandate of Scripture and of the Gospel, which has to supercede whatever any lawyer might say.

And, last time I looked, a display of common decency during the process of laying off or dismissing someone has tended to have the effect of preventing the ill-feelings that lead to lawsuits.

YinYangMom:

See YinYangMom Post #98!.

Again, as St. John said, If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. I John 4:20-21 NAB

This has to supercede any legal considerations; otherwise, we might as well stop printing the Bibles it comes in because we aren’t willing to live by it.

Unbelievers aren’t going to believe the Gospel because of our wonderful liturgies or our beautiful vestments or even powerful preachers. They’re going to believe by how we LIVE the Gospels and how we love each other.

That’s my challenge. Do the people at Loretto want to live the Gospel or to let Lawyers sort it out?

Goodnight.

In Christ, Michael

 

[cathologos]

miguel:

1. There is at least some indication that this family’s life was disrupted by the consequences of their own bad behavior. We don’t know this – but that allegation has as much merit at this time as any allegation of “reprisal” against the girl.

Why?

Why? Because both of these allegations are based on hearsay and speculation. Rational people don’t evaluate allegations of misconduct on the basis of newspaper articles and website postings. Jumping to negative conclusions about people – and assuming that all decisions a person makes must be wrong and malicious, because one decison was wrong – is not Christian, not very nice, and not very intelligent.

There is a presumption of guilt that permeates discussions on this forum. Any person or organization that has ever done or said anything that has “crossed” the prevailing ethos of this forum is permanently and presumptively assumed by many here to be wrong, all the time. Such individuals and organizations are routinely condemned on the basis of hearsay and speculation – and the burden of proof is clearly and completely on the accused, not the accusers.

At the same time, individuals and organizations that have supported certain vital interests of this community tend to get carte blanche, with objectively non-Christian behavior overlooked.

I find this offensive. I believe that one should withhold judgment until one has real evidence. But that’s generaly not what I see here – instead, I see, “Joe Blow was reported to have done . Now Jane Smith is saying he did . If he did the first thing, he could have done the second. What more evidence do we need?”

The end result, a distressing percentage of the time, is little more than malicious gossip.

 

[smartblkchick]

The school and the teacher have entered into a settlement to avoid a lawsuit. My guess is that the school’s insurance will pay off the settlement.

sacbee.com/content/news/religion/story/13849129p-14689003c.html

 

[YinYangMom]

smartblkchick:

The school and the teacher have entered into a settlement to avoid a lawsuit. My guess is that the school’s insurance will pay off the settlement.

sacbee.com/content/news/religion/story/13849129p-14689003c.html

And the insurance company wins again (sigh)…This prohibits the family from clearing their name. It prohibits the principal from clearing hers. It leaves loads of speculation floating about by which many will draw one conclusion or another - with neither being supported in fact.

At least I was right about why the principal/school was being so silent on the matter - the liability insurance company.

 

[Karin]

YinYangMom:

And the insurance company wins again (sigh)…This prohibits the family from clearing their name. It prohibits the principal from clearing hers. It leaves loads of speculation floating about by which many will draw one conclusion or another - with neither being supported in fact.

At least I was right about why the principal/school was being so silent on the matter - the liability insurance company.

This article is about the SCHOOL and the TEACHER

 

[miguel]

cathologos:

Why? Because both of these allegations are based on hearsay and speculation. Rational people don’t evaluate allegations of misconduct on the basis of newspaper articles and website postings. Jumping to negative conclusions about people – and assuming that all decisions a person makes must be wrong and malicious, because one decison was wrong – is not Christian, not very nice, and not very intelligent.

There is a presumption of guilt that permeates discussions on this forum. Any person or organization that has ever done or said anything that has “crossed” the prevailing ethos of this forum is permanently and presumptively assumed by many here to be wrong, all the time. Such individuals and organizations are routinely condemned on the basis of hearsay and speculation – and the burden of proof is clearly and completely on the accused, not the accusers.

At the same time, individuals and organizations that have supported certain vital interests of this community tend to get carte blanche, with objectively non-Christian behavior overlooked.

I find this offensive. I believe that one should withhold judgment until one has real evidence. But that’s generaly not what I see here – instead, I see, “Joe Blow was reported to have done . Now Jane Smith is saying he did . If he did the first thing, he could have done the second. What more evidence do we need?”

The end result, a distressing percentage of the time, is little more than malicious gossip.

Resorting to insults is typical of those who don’t have an arguement. I gave my reasons, based on specific facts, for why I think the allegation of reprisal has more merit than the allegation of misbehavior. Instead of calling me un-Christian, mean, unintelligent, and a malicious gossiper, how about dealing with the specifics of what I said, and giving some of your own. Rational people deal with specifics, not generalities. Nothing you said convinces me to agree with you that the allegation of misbehavior has equal merit compared to the allegation of reprisal. You didn’t address this at all, other than to just assert that they’re both based on hearsay and speculation. If you want to convince me, you need to tell me why you think that.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Ease up a little, folks. You can have different opinions without attacking each other.

 

[cathologos]

miguel:

I gave my reasons, based on specific facts, for why I think the allegation of reprisal has more merit than the allegation of misbehavior. Instead of calling me un-Christian, mean, unintelligent, and a malicious gossiper, how about dealing with the specifics of what I said, and giving some of your own.

Fair enough.

You provided one link in your post, to an article on Catholic Exchange. According to that article:

Katelyn Sills… noted an uncanny resemblance between one of the escorts at the abortion center and a teacher…she mentioned it to her mother Wynette Sills. Her mother took photos of Bain escorting women into the abortion center and sent them in an email to Bishop Weigand September 19.

This article indicates that Bain was working as an escort after she took the job at Loretto (e.g., daughter ID’s teacher, tells mom. Mom takes pictures). Yet, another source, the Sacramento Bee, states:

The teacher, Marie Bain of Sacramento, who ceased volunteering before taking the Loretto job, was fired Oct. 14.

Right off, we have discrepancies about the facts of the case.

It has been stated in this thread that Bain was a last-minute replacement hire. Loretto’s fall semester started August 26th. Within about three weeks of the opening of the semester, according to the article you linked, Katelyn had recognized Bain as somebody she had seen escorting women at a clinic, and reported this to her mother. Wynette Sills obtained photographs of Bain in action (curious, given that Bain was reportedly not doing this at the time. I suspect that W. Sills had photos from an earlier time – but that has not been reported, much less documented, to my knowledge.), and forwarded these to Bishop Wiegand. All in three weeks, at the start of the semester.

There’s not a lot of time here for investigation by the school. I don’t know when Wynette Sills brought her concerns to the school’s attention – but the timeline here is so short that iI don’t get the impression of a stonewalling principal who needed to be forced to do something.

Much of your post is not “factual” at all. You wrote:

Why? We know the school failed to act when it was brought to their attention that a “deathscort” was on their staff. Only after the matter was brought to the Bishop’s attention, did the school act, by order of the Bishop.

We know that the schood did not take action before Wynette Sills e-mailed the Bishop on September 19th. But given the timeline, we don’t know that Mrs. Sills gave the school time to act. How many days elapsed between the time Mrs. Sills brought the matter to the attention of the school and September 19?

The act of going over the principal’s head would not endear her to the parent. The firing itself, could not have been pleasant.

These statements are opinion - not factual.

We also know the Bishop used this as a teaching moment for the whole diocese, which brought the flap out in the open.

Yes he did. This is a factual statement

It’s not unreasonable to conclude that the principal was embarrassed by this.

Again, opinion. Your conclusion, but based on arguments that are largely non-factual.

Then on the heels of all this embarrassment, the pro-life daughter is booted.

Partially factual; Katelyn was expelled, but the “embarrassment” is something you posited, not something you documented as fact.

The allegation of reprisal has merit, and plenty of it. And the school’s allegation of bad behavior is suspicious to say the least.

Again, your conclusions – but most of your arguments in support of the conclusion are themselves suppositions, not facts.

I disagree that it is appropriate to draw a negative conclusion, and to publicly condemn somebody, based on a string of suppositions and “reasonable conclusions.” More facts and fewer suppositions are needed, in my opinion – because public condemnations of people are serious matters in themselves.

As for my broader comments about the tendency of folks here to engage in such weakly-supported condemnations (which, by the way, was not really directed at you, miguel, but rather something that had been building up as I spend time reading on these forums), well, I stand by that. Even when we feel strongly about something, we all need to try to remember to be charitable, and not to project our views onto events when our real knowledge is very limited. That’s not easy – giving somebody who is most likely a philosophical and moral adversary the benefit of the doubt – but I think it’s something we’re called to do, nonetheless, in charity.

 

[Vincent1560]

Interesting item I picked up in the comments section in Katelyn’s blog. standupandspeakout.blogspot.com/2005/10/expulsion-from-loretto.html

“Did they say why you were expelled”

Yes. They will be published as soon as the lawyers give the OK, but it has nothing to do with misbehavior or low academic performance on Katelyn’s part.
Conservative Schooler | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 10:26 pm | #

If this person indeed has the inside knowledge he/she implies, then the school does not appear to have a reasonable reason for expulsion. Truly sad.

 

[miguel]

cathologos:

You provided one link in your post, to an article on Catholic Exchange. According to that article: This article indicates that Bain was working as an escort after she took the job at Loretto (e.g., daughter ID’s teacher, tells mom. Mom takes pictures). Yet, another source, the Sacramento Bee, states:Right off, we have discrepancies about the facts of the case.

Where does the Catholic Exchange article say that she continued to be an escort after she took the teaching position? It really doesn’t indicate that, at least not explicitly. But even if that was the case, it doesn’t matter.

“She [Bain]* volunteered weekly for about nine months for Planned Parenthood, greeting patients and ushering them past anti-abortion protesters who frequently demonstrate outside clinics, said Katharyn McLearan, director of public affairs for the local Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.”* from the October 15 Sacramento Bee article.

The fact that she had been a weekly escort is not in dispute. And the Bishop (in his Oct 5 letter to the school) thought that sufficient grounds for her to be fired:

"'Obviously, the very public nature of Ms. Bain’s previous volunteer activity at a Planned Parenthood Clinic is inconsistent with her position as a teacher at a Catholic high school and her role as a collaborator in the formation of Catholic women’ Weigand wrote." also from the October 15 Sacramento Bee article.

 

[miguel]

cathologos:

It has been stated in this thread that Bain was a last-minute replacement hire. Loretto’s fall semester started August 26th. Within about three weeks of the opening of the semester, according to the article you linked, Katelyn had recognized Bain as somebody she had seen escorting women at a clinic, and reported this to her mother. Wynette Sills obtained photographs of Bain in action (curious, given that Bain was reportedly not doing this at the time. I suspect that W. Sills had photos from an earlier time – but that has not been reported, much less documented, to my knowledge.), and forwarded these to Bishop Wiegand.

Just to clarify about the pictures, Katelyn on her blog (standupandspeakout.blogspot.com/) said the following:

“I have gone to the Planned Parenthood mentioned in this article and have seen this individual as an escort there. I know that many people do not know what exactly an escort does, but a blogger named"Naaman the Ex-leper" was formerly an abortion clinic escort and explains it here. When I started school and saw Ms. Bain, I just thought that they looked very similar. I mentioned this to my mom and she could not believe it. Others who go to abortion clinics with us document their time there with pictures, not of the “clients” but of the long term employees and escort activity in general just so any falsehood that the abortion clinic decides to tell can be easily disproved.”

cathologos:

All in three weeks, at the start of the semester. There’s not a lot of time here for investigation by the school. I don’t know when Wynette Sills brought her concerns to the school’s attention – but the timeline here is so short that I don’t get the impression of a stonewalling principal who needed to be forced to do something. You wrote:We know that the schood did not take action before Wynette Sills e-mailed the Bishop on September 19th But given the timeline, we don’t know that Mrs. Sills gave the school time to act. How many days elapsed between the time Mrs. Sills brought the matter to the attention of the school and September 19?

We don’t know the exact details of the timeline. But the following link provides the chronology in the words of the Bishop’s representative:

catholicexchange.com/vm/…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**.’**”

To summarize, the mother went to the school first. They did not take action. The mother went to the Bishop next. He did take action (“with all deliberate speed”). How much time should it take the school to fire the teacher when presented with incontrovertible proof (pictures) that one of their teachers was a volunteer at an abortion clinic? Long enough for the Bishop to have to get involved? Anything less than decisive action opens the door to questions being raised about the administration’s judgement. Obviously, the Bishop sided with the parent’s judgement on this one. So do I.

cathologos:

Katelyn was expelled, but the “embarrassment” is something you posited, not something you documented as fact.

I never represented the school’s embarrassment as anything other than my reasonable conclusion. But I’m sticking to it. And to the reasonable conclusion that the expulsion had more to do with reprisal on the part of an embarrassed administration than with bad behavior on the part of the student (and/or her mom). The school has not provided any hard examples of bad behavior, only assertions, which the student and her family categorically deny. Whereas their action to have the teacher removed, was an example of good citizenship (again, my opinion, but I’m sticking with it).