Unmarried Catholic school teacher, fired after pregnancy, will pursue legal action [CC]

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I don’t think it was rape because I would imagine that information would be known and the school would have no moral reason to fire her.

While most people think of rape as an attack by a stranger it isn’t really, indeed the vast majority know their attackers. As they usually know each other the perpetrator very well might know where the victim lives and given the rather low success of prosecution it might be far more dangerous to report than not report. If that sounds a bit emotional that’s because it isn’t just a hypothetical for me…

Then there is another possibility that she was drinking at the time and so whether it was or wasn’t consensual (as well as who it was) is a bit fuzzy.

 

[Spanish_Donkey]

This thread has more than 150 posts and I think that it is completely out of focus.

Imagine this situation: A man is caught shoplifting in a shop and he is arrested. He might have been trying to steal something expensive, a smartphone or something similar, so according to the handbooks of moral theology he might have committed mortal sin. While in custody he is beaten almost to death. The policeman who committed the beating is a Catholic and he is also in charge of the lay ministry to prisoners in his diocese. Everything comes out in the media. A spokesman for the diocese expresses support for the behavior of the policeman. A group of Catholics who have read the news discuss it. What are they talking about? The morality of shoplifting!!!

Sex out of wedlock may be a mortal sin [and it is a matter for the sinner, her or his confessor and God’s Grace, and I think that other people can profit nothing by talking or gossiping about it] but it is a mere trifle compared to phariseism. If you don’t agree, read the Gospel.

And the behavior of the school and the diocese in this case stinks of phariseism. There’s an **anonymous letter ** denouncing that an unwed teacher is pregnant (very likely written by a very devout lady that never misses her daily devotions). The reaction of the school is to kick the sinner out: she is a blemish in the appearance of respectability of Butte Catholic School. And a man responsible for Catholic schools in the diocese declares: “Yes, it is hard, but we had no choice: it was the Christian thing to do.”

I’m outraged. Several days ago I didn’t know that there was a woman called Shaela Evenson in Montana. I don’t even live in the US and it would take me some time to find Montana in a map. But I’m outraged. Imagine the effect of the behavior of the school and the diocese on Miss Evenson, her relatives, her friends, her pupils and the rest of the student body. With the news in the media, imagine the effect on the pro-life work of thousands of Catholic priests, nuns and volunteers who offer their time and money to support single mothers in crisis pregnancies across the country.

What will the result be? Catholics leaving the Church, abortions, conversions delayed or not happening altogether. And these are not the consequences of sex out of wedlock. These are the consequences of phariseism.

No small price to pay for keeping Butte Catholic School’s respectability intact.

 

[InigoMontoya]

If they side with the woman, then it sets the legal precedent that signed contracts mean absolutely nothing. One step closer to pure, unadulterated insanity in the US if that happens.

Not even close. Even a mere freshman business law course will demonstrate how complicated contract law is, and how an argument could be made that depending on the jurisdiction - the contract may not be legally enforceable.

But when you fill out tax paperwork for the job you will need to report if you are married. The school will know and therefore know if you are married or unmarried.

Some things just can’t be kept secret forever.

Sure they can, you do realize it’s generally illegal for an employer to ask those questions?

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.

To many it’s merely a job or profession. One of my current coworkers is a devout atheist, he formerly was recruited by the local Catholic school… Because he’s a phenomenal and well renowned professional at what he does. He was a professional as well, so his personal beliefs weren’t discussed or known at the school. Spent several years there and was well regarded, before moving on to higher academia.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Sure they can, you do realize it’s generally illegal for an employer to ask those questions?

It would be illegal during the interview process but once hired they can ask for that since there are tax implications.

 

[Bklynguy]

Or, y’know, bad on her for not controlling herself in the first place. Or, even barring that, bad on her for thinking that the contract she signed means absolutely squat.

I’m glad she chose life, too, but that doesn’t make what she’s doing now not wrong.

Yes, but if people are going to be punished for not following Church law and teaching, it should apply to all. Ever notice pro-abortion politicians getting a pass?

 

[seaton2005]

Yes, but if people are going to be punished for not following Church law and teaching, it should apply to all. Ever notice pro-abortion politicians getting a pass?

Good point. Also, remember the pro-death penalty politicians get a pass too. We seem to forget that end of the pro-life stand.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Good point. Also, remember the pro-death penalty politicians get a pass too. We seem to forget that end of the pro-life stand.

Supporting the death penalty isn’t necessarily immoral.

While I am for the universal abolition of the death penalty I am more concerned about the conservative abandonment of the poor.

 

[seaton2005]

Supporting the death penalty isn’t necessarily immoral.

While I am for the universal abolition of the death penalty I am more concerned about the conservative abandonment of the poor.

Really! It’s not? I respectfully disagree. I believe the last time I looked at the Catholic Catechism (2267) that the death penalty is no longer necessary to protect society. I also know that the American Catholic Bishops are sound in their support of an end to capital punishment. It’s part of the culture of life issue. I recently heard one Catholic politician in my geographical area make a statement that really resonated and made perfect sense. The politician said that she: “didn’t understand how people who support an unborn fetus’s right to life could condemn that same person later on to die.”

 

[JimG]

Really! It’s not? I respectfully disagree. I believe the last time I looked at the Catholic Catechism (2267) that the death penalty is no longer necessary to protect society. I also know that the American Catholic Bishops are sound in their support of an end to capital punishment. It’s part of the culture of life issue. I recently heard one Catholic politician in my geographical area make a statement that really resonated and made perfect sense. The politician said that she: “didn’t understand how people who support an unborn fetus’s right to life could condemn that same person later on to die.”

Of course, a significant difference is that the condemned person gets a trial and several appeals. The unborn child is condemned to death for no crime except his or her existence, gets no trial, no representation, and no appeal.

I don’t support the death penalty in most circumstances, but it is not comparable to abortion.

 

[seekerz]

Of course, a significant difference is that the condemned person gets a trial and several appeals. The unborn child is condemned to death for no crime except his or her existence, gets no trial, no representation, and no appeal.

I don’t support the death penalty in most circumstances, but it is not comparable to abortion.

It is comparable to abortion, IMO - it is just not ***equivalent ***to it.

 

[seaton2005]

Of course, a significant difference is that the condemned person gets a trial and several appeals. The unborn child is condemned to death for no crime except his or her existence, gets no trial, no representation, and no appeal.

I don’t support the death penalty in most circumstances, but it is not comparable to abortion.

Your point is well taken. With your statement one could argue that you are outside of Catholic teaching. I would, too, part with your underpinning in as much that I do believe abortion and the death penalty to be on the same level. BTW: even with appeals in death penalty cases there have been over 200 just within the past 30 years that have been exonerated after spending many years on death row. It’s also believed that there have been innocents put to death.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Really! It’s not? I respectfully disagree. I believe the last time I looked at the Catholic Catechism (2267) that the death penalty is no longer necessary to protect society. I also know that the American Catholic Bishops are sound in their support of an end to capital punishment. It’s part of the culture of life issue. I recently heard one Catholic politician in my geographical area make a statement that really resonated and made perfect sense. The politician said that she: “didn’t understand how people who support an unborn fetus’s right to life could condemn that same person later on to die.”

Not to derail this thread by switching the topic to the Death Penalty the Catechism actually states:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined,** the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.**

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

The Bolding refutes the belief that the Death Penalty is always wrong.

 

[JimG]

Your point is well taken. With your statement one could argue that you are outside of Catholic teaching. I would, too, part with your underpinning in as much that I do believe abortion and the death penalty to be on the same level. BTW: even with appeals in death penalty cases there have been over 200 just within the past 30 years that have been exonerated after spending many years on death row. It’s also believed that there have been innocents put to death.

That’s one reason I would never agree to be on a death penalty jury. But I’ve seen some open and shut cases where the killer is clearly guilty.

I also know of one parishioner whose daughter was murdered by a guy who was convicted of murdering her and three other girls he dated. This matter of being able to keep somebody locked up for life seems not to necessarily apply. The man received a sentence of five consecutive life terms. So far he has come up for parole four times, and the families of the girls feel it necessary to make a trip to the prison each time to testify against releasing him.

The Church has not rescinded its teaching that the state does have a right to use the death penalty, and the statement as to having the means to keep people locked is a prudential judgment. It seems to be more of a hypothesis than a reality when it comes to the application of the law.

But my main reason for opposing the death penalty is cost and justice. I costs hugely more to prosecute a capital murder case than it does to prosecute a first degree murder case, and it is much harder to get a conviction, which means that the criminal has a greater chance of going free. And finally, if convicted, the appeals process (mandatory in this state) will stretch out for decades. Anybody sentenced to death can be pretty much assured of living ten or twenty years longer unless he dies of natural causes in the meantime.

Sorry for going off topic!

 

[Bklynguy]

Supporting the death penalty isn’t necessarily immoral.

While I am for the universal abolition of the death penalty I am more concerned about the conservative abandonment of the poor.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

In most, if not all cases, in our modern life, the death penalty is unwarranted. If anything, it is warranted to apply against terrorists. It is true, though, that the Catechism does not condemn the death penalty even remotely the same as it condemns abortion.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

In most, if not all cases, in our modern life, the death penalty is unwarranted. If anything, it is warranted to apply against terrorists. It is true, though, that the Catechism does not condemn the death penalty even remotely the same as it condemns abortion.

Turning terrorists into martyrs is a brilliant idea

 

[manualman]

I mention the child molester just as an example of a single sin, repented of, which might still affect a person’s job. What if a teacher were found to have child porn on his computer, yet never touched a child?

Since we’re doing tangents…

You’ve been around long enough and read enough articles to know better. There’s no such thing as a child molester who has only committed that one sin. Actually committing child molestation is the end of a long, dark ugly journey into sin. It doesn’t just happen one day out of the blue.

I think we’re kind of done here. As usual, the media haven’t unearthed enough facts to determine if the teacher in question committed an isolated sin she’s repented of or if she’s defiant of church teaching in general and asserting that a catholic school has no right to require that it’s teachers demonstrably believe in Catholicism to teach there.

 

[Sarabande]

S

I think we’re kind of done here. As usual, the media haven’t unearthed enough facts to determine if the teacher in question committed an isolated sin she’s repented of or if she’s defiant of church teaching in general and asserting that a catholic school has no right to require that it’s teachers demonstrably believe in Catholicism to teach there.

I agree. For me, it really all depends on the attitude of the teacher as well as the attitudes of the people at the school. We don’t have any information about what ensued when the met, so it’s hard for me to be outraged at either side. The whole situation saddens me, though.

The crummiest action in the whole story was that someone sent a anonymous letter to the diocese about her condition. The person couldn’t even put his/her name on it and be a man/woman. That was cruel. The information would have eventually come out once she started showing. Instead, I really do think that letter didn’t help with having a more calm situation in handling it. It already got everyone’s defenses up.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Given that pregnancy isn’t sinful, I have a hard time seeing how being pregnant could be grounds for dismissal. Plus, it’s against the law to fire someone because they are pregnant. It appears she was fired for having sex outside of marriage. I think being fired for that is too extreme given it’s a personal matter between her and God and her confessor.

There must be more to this story than we are being told. Maybe some people at the school find is scandalous for a single women to become pregnant.

 

[Bklynguy]

Turning terrorists into martyrs is a brilliant idea

The death penalty for terrorists is actually not that controversial. Do you think they should have tried to arrest Osama Bin Laden and brought him back to stand trial and be incarcerated in a federal prison, paid for by U.S. taxpayers?

 

[Jeanne_S]

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.

There ya go!