J
jilly4ski
Guest
The school has a moral obligation to protect its students. So if someone gives scandal to children then the school has an obligation to protect their children from the scandal.
Unmarried Catholic school teacher, fired after pregnancy, will pursue legal action [CC]
- Status
S
seaton2005
Guest
Goodness! They erred in firing her. She definitely has a lawsuit and will probably prevail in litigation. I suspect the dioceses will pay her off. Shame on the school (a Catholic school) to judge her and discriminate against this teacher because she is pregnant. What every happened to compassion? Come on! God bless her.
S
seaton2005
Guest
You can’t discriminate against someone simply because they are pregnant. If there was an issue regarding her teaching ability, that would be a problem, but that is not the issue here. You must know that we have now discovered that many dioceses in the US over the past 50 years or so moved hundreds of clerics around (in essence hid them out) when said clerics had committed some very serious crimes against children (which by the way, He says there is really nothing more serious then to harm one of these little ones among us…they would be better to tie a millstone…). But to fire a teacher for coming up pregnant. What! Come on! Sometimes the hypocrisy makes me sick.
S
sousley
Guest
The school has been forced to respond to a situation caused by the actions of a staff member that represents it in a fashion contrary to its teachings.
Teaching is a profession, and as such, it professes a certain integrity of character that serves as a role model for her students. In the venue of a Catholic school, the teachings of the Catholic Church supplement the academic instruction. This teacher requested a position within this particular school setting and accepted the obligations presented to her until it became, in some way, inconvenient for her.
It is a greater show of mercy for the school to positively affect a consequence of sin (which could prompt a more perfect contrition for this individual), than to accommodate it by turning a blind eye (which may prolong any thought of repentance).
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
I really struggle with notion of defending these practices. 
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Exactly.
What this all boils down to is whether we are dealing with a public institution, or a private religious institution. Public institutions cannot discriminate; private and religious organizations can, with certain exceptions (e.g., no racial discrimination).
C
CanMan86
Guest
Jim, the examples you provided involve a teacher breaking the law, which is different. Also it has to do with actions done IN school not in one’s private life. I’m not saying that it was wrong to fire her, I just wonder why forgiveness can’t be an option in the same way Jesus offered forgiveness to the woman caught in adultery? I do, however, understand the importance of teachers being exemplary role models for students. Unfortunately many teachers are breaking their contracts without anyone knowing about it.
If her contract requires her to uphold a Catholic lifestyle, how does it distinguish between sins worthy of getting her fired vs sins not worthy of getting her fired? How many Catholic school teachers attend weekly mass? If not, is that worthy of being fired over? I’ve worked in the Catholic school system and can assure you that many teachers don’t care to go to Sunday mass.
S
SMGS127
Guest
The point of the pregnancy anti-discrimination bill was the stupid idea that pregnant women couldn’t work as hard and firing them for someone who would be a better worker. Also there was a misogynistic idea that a woman shouldn’t work at all if they have children (not considering that she might be able to work hours around her husband or he might be a stay-at-home dad).
In this case, she wasn’t fired for being pregnant. She was fired for having premarital sex.
Almost no Catholic company would fire a woman for having premarital sex, but if you are in a position of authority over children (CCD, daycare, or a school teacher), they have to. But I can’t imagine any Catholic CEO firing, say, his or her personal secretary, chairman, or lower-level worker for having premarital sex or engaging in immoral methods of conception; you’re right to say that would be unnecessarily cruel. But there is a reason schools do, specifically, and she shouldn’t fret. The Principal called her a “fantastic teacher” and gave her a great rep, and she could make 2.5-3x what she’s making now at a public or non-religious school (and she teaches literature), many of which are starving for teachers.
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
See, I struggle with that first position. As I find it hard to argue that what it amounts to isn’t just a discriminatory termination for pregnancy outside of marriage. If we say it truly was for premarital sex, that argument could only reasonably be supported if there were a near equal number of terminations for men as well, in addition to woman who were not pregnant. That’s certainly not the case though.
If we argue that’s because the others are hard to prove, or that it’s the apparent visible nature of the transgression. Than it completely becomes a matter of being pregnant outside of marriage, and not about premarital sex. Which could really be argued as a highly sexist and discriminatory practice.
What’s more though is that our country is generally ranked near dead last in the world, alongside such bastions of caring as Sierra Leone and Burma for the rights of pregnant woman and new mothers. While it may technically be illegal to not hire her for a new position based on her being pregnant, the practice is rampant with statistical evidence. Additionally, when her child comes due, as she would not qualify for FMLA due to having not worked for the aforementioned company for the pats year - it will be completely legal for a new company which did hire her, to terminate her employment upon delivering the child.
Shouldn’t fret? Do you believe she’ll be able to afford Cobra? She’ll have to fall on government medical assistance, if possible. Might as well say goodbye to any savings.
If you truly believe that she’ll be able to earn 2.5-3x her salary by teaching elsewhere, that implies unimaginable self-sacrifice and benevolence from her towards the school! Which is rewarded by personal devastation, under the pretense of punishing a statistically significant common practice both outside and even within the church.
That’s not even touching on the long drawn out practice of finding employment in another public or private school. A process which can often take six months to a year. A process which will likely cause her to uproot and move to where ever there is an open position, losing any social-family-church structure she’ll likely need to assist her as a single - parent.
As to the salary statements, you may be shocked but I can’t even see how that statement is plausible. New public school teachers frequently make ghastly low wages, even less than $30k a year in some cases. So are you saying some parochial schools have professional full time teacher salaries of $10-20k a year? Yet we’re going to hold them to a level of accountability, which we don’t hold parishioners or even arguably priests too? This just makes no sense to me, please explain what I’m missing. I’m just not grasping this issue apparently. Thank you.
S
saintjohnxxiii
Guest
The school is completely justified. If you don’t want to live a Catholic lifestyle, then don’t work in a Catholic school system. Its so simple.
V
vames
Guest
If firing a pregnant woman is an act of mercy, I wonder how an unmerciful act towards her would look like.
As for “prompting a more perfect contrition”, the only possible repentance that can be prompted by firing her is the repentance for her initial choice to have unprotected sex and for her subsequent choice to keep the baby. Because the teacher knows this simple fact: premarital sex, when it’s not discovered by the employer, doesn’t lead to firings; pregnancy does.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Its a great sadness, that the church is facing a storm over paedophile priests; because it was seen to avoid the issue. By comparison, the church acting against a pregnant teacher; might seem hypocritical.
The school will probably drive this teacher away; from whatever faith she had left.
We should pray for all concerned.
Blessings
Eric
S
seaton2005
Guest
It’s interesting your use of the verbiage “scandal” to describe a pregnant women/teacher. What have we become? I don’t see scandal here at all. This was not the Catholic thing to do fire a teacher for becoming pregnant outside of marriage. We are throwing out our own. What every happened to compassion? This school and dioceses is wrong! Shame on them.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Yes, scandal in the Church, carries a very specific meaning, outside of the term scandal used in the media. Scandal is an action (sin or the appearance of sin) which leads others to sin. CCC 2284. Go and read the section, it quotes the Bibles passage about leading the little ones astray…
I do not know which grade level this teacher taught at, but either elementary or secondary has its dangers of scandal to the students (the little ones) that she teaches, and like I said the school has a moral obligation to its students above any obligation to the teacher, especially since she broke her contract.
Are you saying that the school couldn’t fire her if she got “married” to a same sex partner or passed out condoms to her students? That would also be breaking the morality clause on her contract. The other poster was right, if you don’t want to live like a Catholic, don’t work for Catholic institutions.
S
sousley
Guest
A sheep may say that the shepherd was cruel to hook them about the neck with the staff and forcefully pull them away from the cliff (it is painful and left a bruise) but was it not his duty to lead him and the others that may follow on the safe path?
Recently, there have been other similar reports with similar outcomes:
1)A vice principal who chose to publicly announce his homosexual relationship.
2)A priest refusing Eucharist to a homosexual “couple” after this appeared in a newspaper.
3)Now this article.
In all cases, those representing church teachings took no consequential action toward anyone (they did not presume to pry into one’s bedroom), until the individuals celebrated their actions in a public way. In so doing, they present themselves publicly as someone ineligible for employment, Eucharist, etc.; thereby forcing the school or priest to respond to this challenging situation, knowing they may be publicly chastised for standing firm on church teaching.
With respect to St Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me: for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel., we should pray for the continued strength of these servants of the Church, and for God’s mercy and grace to strengthen everyone involved in these situations.
J
JimG
Guest
A Catholic middle school teaches students about Catholic morals as part of its curriculum, including Catholic sexual morality. It would be counterproductive to teach students that having sex outside of marriage is wrong while being taught by a teacher who has practiced it. No matter what you teach, students learn by example. “It can’t be that bad. Miss X did it, and she’s a good teacher!” Of course there is forgiveness of sin; there always is. But it doesn’t solve the problem of teaching students bad behavior by example. Actually, the better the teacher is in other respects, the worse is the scandal given by the bad behavior.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
As I said in another thread – Thank God for non-Catholic employers!
Sinners need somewhere to work too.
P
pepipop
Guest
I wonder if she had been raped and impregnated what they would have decided. I feel this is an extremely uncharitable decision, although I recognise the contractual terms agreed too. However, the catholic church offers the sacrament of reconciliation to all and recognises everyone is a sinner and all that this teacher has done, is to commit a sin and she has not done anything against church teachings, i.e. entered a SS marriage or had an abortion. If there were no sinners there would be no need for the church,
I think this decision is very wrong.
L
Lochias
Guest
So it sleeping around. That is also a big consequence.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Scandal can be a grave sin, and is not conducive to being a living example of the Church.
This woman slept around, knowingly violating her contract with a CATHOLIC school. Good on her for keeping the baby, but that doesn’t somehow magically erase the fact that she VIOLATED HER CONTRACT.
Good God.
V
vindicated
Guest
You are absolutely right!
- Status