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

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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?

Sure, and put in the smallest cell available in solitary confinemenf

There ya go!

His post is a non sequitur, one cannot conclude a lifestyle from a pregnancy, we can’t even conclude that she sinned.

 

[seaton2005]

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?

Yes! that’s what we do in America which is a democracy. We have a criminal justice system for these matters.

 

[seaton2005]

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.

I agree! It’s unlawful for fire this teacher for being pregnant. Some have posted that she violated a contract. The contract most likely won’t hold legal weight. Anyway you look at it you can’t fire some one for being pregnant Catholic school or not. I hope she prevails. With that said, there may be more to the story.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Sure, and put in the smallest cell available in solitary confinemenf

His post is a non sequitur, one cannot conclude a lifestyle from a pregnancy, we can’t even conclude that she sinned.

Meaning she may have become pregnant by forced sexual relations?

 

[Sarabande]

We don’t know enough about this particular situation, but this article includes 10 other similar situations from religious institutions. It’s mixed in the outcomes, probably based on the evidence presented. For the last example, the woman “would not assure officials that she would stop having sex.” For that a US district judge said that because of religious affiliation, it was exempted from the pregnancy discrimination law.

Firing unwed teachers who become pregnant is not uncommon for private religious schools. It’s not necessarily illegal, either. Although federal law generally forbids discrimination against pregnant women, the Supreme Court has ruled that religious employers are protected from certain discrimination lawsuits brought by employees who serve in ministerial roles. For example, they have the right give preference to job candidates who share their religion, if the purpose of the job is primarily religious.

Religious organizations are permitted to require employees to sign a religious contract, but they must enforce these contracts equally for men and women. In a recent legal analysis, Lauren E. Fisher, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, pointed out that this is inherently impossible. “The majority of sins do not present themselves with hairy palms, growing noses, crossed eyes, or anything else that would make one’s sins obvious—except for the one instance in which there is glaring evidence of moral transgression: pregnancy outside of marriage,” Fischer wrote.

motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant

To me, I think that if this woman did feel truly sorry for what she did and said she would not engage in that activity again until marriage, other accommodations could have been made without firing her, but I guess we won’t know until more information comes out on it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Good for her for choosing life instead of murdering the baby.

Bad on the school for firing her.

That was my first thought. First Catholic priority has always got to giving life every possible chance to grow, even when the conditions are less than ideal.

Yes, she is not being a good role model for not ensuring that her child has a legitimate father, but it would be far worse to punish the child by taking away the livelihood of the only parent.

 

[Tsuwano]

I believe this school and the diocese missed a golden opportunity for evangelization. Yes, this woman, by having sex out of wedlock, went against the rules she was expected to uphold, but I’m sure it wasn’t her intention to become pregnant. By becoming pregnant and deciding not to keep her baby, she made her transgression visible to the world. It is a visibility which no man who commits the same transgression is subject to. This, in itself, should cause the authorities to be lenient. Secondly, she did keep her baby when she very easily didn’t have to. Now she is paying a price which, again, no man need pay. I applaud her for keeping her baby, but I deplore the fact that she is having to lose her means of livelihood and the ability to support that child. This, to me, seems rather harsh and unmerciful. Thirdly, I note the irony that the Blessed Virgin also found herself in a similar situation; an unwed mother with no visible means of support, and was fortunate that her betrothed believed her story (not without some convincing from heaven) and accepted her as his wife and the child as his own. If the Blessed Virgin Mary had been a school teacher at this school in this diocese, an angel would have had to appear to both her betrothed and her principal. Rules are rules some people say, but the Lord has told us that no rule is greater than the love and mercy we show to others. This woman surely deserves a little love and mercy at this point in her life. I hope she finds it.

 

[JimG]

I’m in favor of compassion too, but I’m wondering how far this policy should be carried. Suppose a Catholic elementary or middle school has mostly unmarried teachers. If they all begin to become pregnant out of wedlock, soon the school has mostly single teachers with children. Later, some of the single teachers have more than one child while remaining unmarried. Is this acceptable to the school and parents? Is it of no consequence whatever? Just asking.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Diocese stands by firing decision

I can’t understand how you can be fired for being pregnant without in some other way causing scandal. Pregnancy isn’t scandalous or sinful, it’s a physical state. If anything, it is a public statement that says you are pro-life.

What you could in theory be fired for is how and why you got pregnant. But that seems too personal for anyone to know unless of course it was made into a public statement which causes scandal: like publicly supporting in-vitro fertilization and single parenthood.

If this women got fired simply because she got pregnant it would amount to phariseeism: judging people based on outward appearances and not their hearts and intents. I also don’t see how this would be a pro-life message to the students by shaming pregnancy.

Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

 

[Suudy]

I can’t understand how you can be fired for being pregnant without in some other way causing scandal.

The pregnancy outside of marriage caused the scandal, not the firing.

Pregnancy isn’t scandalous or sinful, it’s a physical state.

The pregnancy itself isn’t, but fornication is. So is IVF. If a married teacher made it publicly known, say through a commercial for an IVF clinic, I suspect the school would have acted similarly.

If anything, it is a public statement that says you are pro-life.

The ends do not justify the means. Is one pro-life if they use IVF?

What you could in theory be fired for is how and why you got pregnant. But that seems too personal for anyone to know unless of course it was made into a public statement which causes scandal: like publicly supporting in-vitro fertilization and single parenthood.

The obvious “public statement” is the child growing inside the mother’s womb. It becomes pretty clear that one is pregnant without having to call a press conference.

If this women got fired simply because she got pregnant it would amount to phariseeism: judging people based on outward appearances and not their hearts and intents.

Nonsense. She wasn’t fired for being pregnant. She was fired for fornication.

I also don’t see how this would be a pro-life message to the students by shaming pregnancy.

Because it isn’t shaming pregnancy. It is shaming fornication.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Nonsense. She wasn’t fired for being pregnant. She was fired for fornication.

How do you know she wasn’t raped? Maybe she was drugged? Maybe her boyfriend pressured her to such an extent she wasn’t completely culpable. Last time I checked, culpability of sin depends on the degree of consent and knowledge.

Only God and maybe her confessor know what really happened, except those who are able to judge people based on outward appearance.

Because it isn’t shaming pregnancy. It is shaming fornication.

In that case they should have cameras set up in every teachers house to make sure they don’t fornicate, look at pornography or masturbate. If sin is grounds for firing in a catholic school, nobody could work there. It has to be established that whatever she did, was scandalous enough for dismissal.

Being pregnant in of itself doesn’t cut it and the how and why of a pregnancy is usually nobody’s business–that’s between her and God.

** People who judge and criticize others are hypocrites and cowards who are unable to face their own defects**, Pope Francis said.

 

[Suudy]

How do you know she wasn’t raped? Maybe she was drugged? Maybe her boyfriend pressured her to such an extent she wasn’t completely culpable. Last time I checked, culpability of sin depends on the degree of consent and knowledge.

I have no doubt that the school did its due diligence. Had she been coerced into sexual activity, it is a crime. But to assume malice on the part of the boyfriend is just as uncharitable as to assume malice on the part of the school.

Only God and maybe her confessor know what really happened, except those who are able to judge people based on outward appearance.In that case they should have cameras set up in every teachers house to make sure they don’t fornicate, look at pornography or masturbate.

Which of these, without public disclosure or other public evidence, are likely to become known? How is anyone even aware that a sinner guilty of these particular sins is teaching at a school?

If sin is grounds for firing in a catholic school, nobody could work there. It has to be established that whatever she did, was scandalous enough for dismissal.

I don’t think sin itself is grounds for dismissal. But then we don’t know the details. Did the woman repent and firmly resolve to avoid sin? Was she cohabitating with her boyfriend, a near occasion of sin?

For my part, I would assume the school did the research, talked with this woman, then made a decision. I highly doubt it was the case of the woman showing up to class one day with a bulge, asked if she was pregnant, and told to pack her things and find a new job.

Being pregnant in of itself doesn’t cut it and the how and why of a pregnancy is usually nobody’s business–that’s between her and God.

If it were about pregnancy, then it would follow that married teachers would also be fired for being pregnant. Is there evidence this has occurred?

And you didn’t answer about IVF. What if a woman appeared on a clinics IVF literature or in a commercial as a testimonial about her experience? Would that be grounds for dismissal?

If IVF (as an invalid means of becoming pregnant) are sufficient, why not fornication?

 

[Suudy]

People who judge and criticize others are hypocrites and cowards who are unable to face their own defects, Pope Francis said.

Take the full quote (not my emphasis):
“Those who live judging their neighbors, speaking badly of them, are hypocrites because they don’t have the strength, the courage to look at their own defects,” he said.
What does he mean by “Those who live judging their neighbors, speaking badly of them”? Does the school “live judging their neighbors”? Or does it have some other, higher, central purpose?

And “judge not” is not a license to sin, nor a license to tolerate sin. It is far more complex than just “live and let live.”

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Which of these, without public disclosure or other public evidence, are likely to become known? How is anyone even aware that a sinner guilty of these particular sins is teaching at a school?

That’s my point, nobody knows except really God and that person and maybe their confessor. Because we are supposed to not gossip and judge others, we should always assume the best without knowing differently. This would certainly apply to any pregnant women, married or not.

For my part, I would assume the school did the research, talked with this woman, then made a decision. I highly doubt it was the case of the woman showing up to class one day with a bulge, asked if she was pregnant, and told to pack her things and find a new job.

I agree, there must be scandal involved, like the how and why of her pregnancy is manifest to everyone and is against catholic teaching. It’s just difficult to understand how that happened in this case. We do not have all the facts and the media is presenting this story as if she was simply fired for being pregnant.

What if a woman appeared on a clinics IVF literature or in a commercial as a testimonial about her experience? Would that be grounds for dismissal?

If IVF (as an invalid means of becoming pregnant) are sufficient, why not fornication?

Absolutely, this is scandal just like if she somehow was promoting sex before marriage in a public way. But being fired from a private indiscretion should not be legitimate grounds for dismissal.

 

[Suudy]

That’s my point, nobody knows except really God and that person and maybe their confessor. Because we are supposed to not gossip and judge others, we should always assume the best without knowing differently. This would certainly apply to any pregnant women, married or not.

This doesn’t make any sense. If we are not to “judge others” and “assume the best without knowing differently” is impossible with regard to an unmarried pregnant woman.

Fact: The woman is pregnant.

There are only three possibilities to explain this: 1) she willingly engaged in sexual activity, 2) was coerced, or 3) used IVF. In every single scenario we have to “just others”. In #1, it is fornication. In #2 it is rape. And in #3 it is an illicit means.

So, regardless of how you slice it, you have to assume the worst about somebody–either the woman or her boyfriend. So, who’s it going to be?

But being fired from a private indiscretion should not be legitimate grounds for dismissal.

Bah! Marijuana is now legal here in WA. I personally know people who have been fired for failing drug tests, even after it was legal. I also know of people who have been fired for having adulterous affairs. And I know of people fired for getting a DUI, on their own time, in their own vehicle. And I know of one person fired for being caught drunk and passed out in public.

Do you think these “private indiscretions” (notably the marijuana and adultery) aren’t “legitimate grounds for dismissal”?

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Good for her for choosing life instead of murdering the baby.

Bad on the school for firing her.

I agree

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Do you think these “private indiscretions” (notably the marijuana and adultery) aren’t “legitimate grounds for dismissal”?

The question to ask is whether the “private indiscretion” is scandalous or not. Being that it’s private, it’s difficult to make it scandalous. Now if the teacher is advocating the smoking of pot (or sex outside of marriage) publicly, then that’s a different story.

So, regardless of how you slice it, you have to assume the worst about somebody–either the woman or her boyfriend. So, who’s it going to be?

How is it any of our business? Assume that she was coerced by her boyfriend until the facts show differently.

 

[FollowChrist34]

This doesn’t make any sense. If we are not to “judge others” and “assume the best without knowing differently” is impossible with regard to an unmarried pregnant woman.

Fact: The woman is pregnant.

There are only three possibilities to explain this: 1) she willingly engaged in sexual activity, 2) was coerced, or 3) used IVF. In every single scenario we have to “just others”. In #1, it is fornication. In #2 it is rape. And in #3 it is an illicit means.

So, regardless of how you slice it, you have to assume the worst about somebody–either the woman or her boyfriend. So, who’s it going to be?

Bah! Marijuana is now legal here in WA. I personally know people who have been fired for failing drug tests, even after it was legal. I also know of people who have been fired for having adulterous affairs. And I know of people fired for getting a DUI, on their own time, in their own vehicle. And I know of one person fired for being caught drunk and passed out in public.

Do you think these “private indiscretions” (notably the marijuana and adultery) aren’t “legitimate grounds for dismissal”?

Agreed, agreed. Just in case you’re starting to doubt, you are being completely rational in defense of the school here (and basic Catholic teaching).

 

[Tony_Micelli]

And I know of people fired for getting a DUI, on their own time, in their own vehicle. And I know of one person fired for being caught drunk and passed out in public.

None of these things are private btw and being criminal have nothing to do with what happened to this teacher.

Agreed, agreed. Just in case you’re starting to doubt, you are being completely rational in defense of the school here (and basic Catholic teaching).

It’s catholic teaching to fire single pregnant teachers? That’s news to me.

 

[JimG]

“Mommy, guess what? My teacher is having a baby!”

“Oh. I thought you said she was not married.”

“She isn’t. But I think she has a boyfriend.”

“Oh.”

“Mom?”

“Yes?”

“I thought you said that when people got married, they had babies. How can they have babies if they’re not married?”

“Well, we’ll talk about that after supper. Um, maybe I should talk to your school first.”