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

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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

Or they were both drinking too much and neither really knew what transpired until she started missing periods.

“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.”

The world isn’t perfect, oh noes

 

[JimG]

The world isn’t perfect, oh noes

Getting less perfect all the time! Parents used to be able to protect their children’s innocence until puberty, allowing them a real childhood. Now, we must begin teaching them about sexual sin at an early age, spoiling their childhood.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Getting less perfect all the time! Parents used to be able to protect their children’s innocence until puberty, allowing them a real childhood. Now, we must begin teaching them about sexual sin at an early age, spoiling their childhood.

Historically children saw sex pretty young whether it be their parents or farm animals.

I saw some pretty disturbing stuff growing up in the inner city, but I had been instilled from a young age with what was right so I never struggled with it.

 

[Suudy]

Assume that she was coerced by her boyfriend until the facts show differently.

So, you criticize the school and those of us defending the school for judging the woman. But then you make the same judgement about the boyfriend? You demand we assume the woman’s innocence but refuse the do the same for the boyfriend?

How is this consistent?

 

[Suudy]

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

That’s not what is being said. Your are the only one making the statement that the school is firing unmarried, pregnant teachers. You assume the worst about the school’s reasons and process, and yet demand we assume the best about the woman.

 

[mtbender]

Let’s be clear on what this really is…

The teacher was fired for breach of contract – not being pregnant. You may disagree with the contract, but she didn’t when she took the job. She agreed to the terms…

Now we can debate if a Catholic School should have a morality clause, but let’s not be disingenuous about the Church’s or schools intent.

 

[Country_Gal]

I side with the school and I think it’s ridiculous for the teacher to file a lawsuit. How obnoxious is that?

People pay a lot of money for a private Catholic school with the expectation that the teachers will be good role models. A teacher getting knocked up like this it not what the parents are financially sacrificing for.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

But then you make the same judgement about the boyfriend? You demand we assume the woman’s innocence but refuse the do the same for the boyfriend?

It’s nearly impossible for a teacher to rape a man and get pregnant.

That’s not what is being said. Your are the only one making the statement that the school is firing unmarried, pregnant teachers. You assume the worst about the school’s reasons and process, and yet demand we assume the best about the woman.

No, I said from the beginning that we don’t know what happened and we don’t have all the facts to make an informed decision, like the school has.

My point is that given the facts that we have: single pregnant teacher fired, we are in no place to judge this single pregnant women–that’s God’s job. There are plenty of good reasons not to fire single pregnant women, the biggest is that it is supporting her decision to keep the baby.

My second point is that pregnancy isn’t scandalous to children and the fact that so many puritans here find it scandalous is disturbing.

People pay a lot of money for a private Catholic school with the expectation that the teachers will be good role models. A teacher getting knocked up like this it not what the parents are financially sacrificing for.

This is the attitude I find un-chrisitan: you are automatically judging single pregnancies as being the woman’s fault and assuming the pro-life decision to keep her baby will encourage children to fornicate.

To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

 

[Magdalena59]

I have mixed emotions about this and I think it can be a sticky situation for the school. She signed a contract and part of that was a single woman was not to get pregnant. If they let her stay then it will open the door for other situations that go against Catholic teaching, or other teachers to not follow their contracts.

On the other hand, she is keeping the baby and I think that is a very good testimony to the prolife cause. Letting her go is also going to fuel the fires of people who cry out saying that unable to afford a child is a reason for abortion.

Plus, we don’t know the woman’s situation and her attitude toward the school, her job and her pregnancy.

I think the school needs a lot of prayer.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

So those of us who are siding with the school are at fault because as you say:

we don’t know what happened and we don’t have all the facts to make an informed decision, like the school has.

But apparently you do when you say:

There are plenty of good reasons not to fire single pregnant women, the biggest is that it is supporting her decision to keep the baby.

It’s funny you accuse some of your fellow Catholics as being puritans

My second point is that pregnancy isn’t scandalous to children and the fact that** so many puritans** here find it scandalous is disturbing.

But then you lecture us on Christian behaviour:

This is the attitude I find un-chrisitan

 

[Suudy]

It’s nearly impossible for a teacher to rape a man and get pregnant.

That isn’t what I was talking about.

I said either 1) the woman engaged willing in sexual relations with her boyfriend or 2) the we coerced into sexual activity by, presumably, her boyfriend.

You condemn people for assuming #1, saying it is un-Christian to assume the worst of the woman (fornication). But then you turn around and assume #2, assuming the worst of the boyfriend (rape). You can’t have it both ways.

No, I said from the beginning that we don’t know what happened and we don’t have all the facts to make an informed decision, like the school has.

Then why criticize the school? Why do you assume the school is the one being unreasonable? Or even worse, why do you assume the boyfriend is guilty of rape?

My point is that given the facts that we have: single pregnant teacher fired, we are in no place to judge this single pregnant women–that’s God’s job.

You are making the same mistake many do. We aren’t judging the woman’s soul, but her actions. And the school did the same.

There are plenty of good reasons not to fire single pregnant women, the biggest is that it is supporting her decision to keep the baby.

I’m sure there are. She is likely a great teacher. That’s a good reason to keep her. She’s probably great with kids, another good reason to keep her.

But there is at least one good reason to fire her. In the school’s judgment, she engaged in behavior contrary to Church teaching it is a source of scandal.

My second point is that pregnancy isn’t scandalous to children and the fact that so many puritans here find it scandalous is disturbing.

Nobody here has said that pregnancy is scandal. Not one. What people have said is that fornication is scandalous. You are the one that keeps asserting that she was fired for being pregnant, when nobody has said such a thing.

And if finding fornication puritanical, then I guess I just too old fashioned for today.

This is the attitude I find un-chrisitan: you are automatically judging single pregnancies as being the woman’s fault and assuming the pro-life decision to keep her baby will encourage children to fornicate.

No, we are evaluating this particular situation. The school has apparently reached the conclusion her pregnancy was the result of scandalous behavior on her part contrary to the teachings of the Church. Take particular note: pregnancy is not a behavior, but a condition, so the conclusion was based on the behavior leading to the pregnancy, not the pregnancy itself.

And what is un-Christian is to assume that the school administration is somehow being unreasonable. Again, the only person on this thread that keeps referring to the pregnancy as the apparent source of scandal is you.

And finally, nobody here thinks being pregnant encourages children to fornicate. Nobody has stated that. Indeed, I strongly suspect that school, or other Catholic schools, have had pregnant teachers who are married. What some have said is that her pregnancy in her unmarried state leads to questions that give rise to scandal and send mixed/confusing messages about the necessary and proper conditions for having children.

To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Then you should certainly heed your own advice. Don’t assume the school’s administration is being unreasonable, unfair, or even mean. And don’t assume the boyfriend coerced the woman into having sex.

 

[THP]

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.

This is a fair point (although it is a slippery slope argument ). It is exactly why I am against all types of zero tolerance policies. I don’t know if that is the case in this situation. I think each situation needs to be evaluated fairly on its own merits and that it is difficult to make blanket specific statements. Pledges to do your best to uphold a Catholic lifestyle are certainly OK.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

You condemn people for assuming #1, saying it is un-Christian to assume the worst of the woman (fornication). But then you turn around and assume #2, assuming the worst of the boyfriend (rape). You can’t have it both ways.

I’m not assuming anything, nor have I. I clearly have stated that I do not have enough information to make an informed decision and that the school has. But what the media has done is to make a potential scandal of firing a pregnant teacher. There are plenty of people–like myself–who are concerned that this could lead to more abortions by shaming pregnancy.

It seems to me that you and others are arguing that the effect of a single teacher’s hypothetical pregnancy will invariably cause confusion about marriage and babies and lead children to sin and this would be scandalous. I find this argument silly and puritanical.

Assuming a pregnancy is the result of a private indiscretion, it would not be anyone’s business but that person, God and their confessor, and therefore not scandalous. If this teacher causes true scandal by publicly promoting things contrary to the faith, that’s a different story.

We as Christians are supposed to teach our children not to judge people and always to support women to not have an abortion. I believe a policy to fire women when they become pregnant, even because of a private indiscretion, may ultimately encourage them and others to seek an abortion rather than to keep the baby. After all, you are shaming them and taking their livelihood away at the same time.

One can be truly repentant of most sins (including, one might surmise, of sins among the oldest in history) without suffering drastic temporal consequences for them. Especially where such consequences might serve as an inducement to avoid them by commiting still greater sins.

Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

 

[Suudy]

I’m not assuming anything, nor have I. I clearly have stated that I do not have enough information to make an informed decision and that the school has.

You are the one that initially suggested the possibility of rape or abuse. See post #185. If, as you say, there isn’t enough information, why suggest that as a possibility?

The point is that somebody here acted improperly. Either the woman or the man–or both–acted contrary to Church teaching. That is a fact. The question is which party is guilty of the improper behavior. Apparently the school thinks the woman is culpable.

But what the media has done is to make a potential scandal of firing a pregnant teacher. There are plenty of people–like myself–who are concerned that this could lead to more abortions by shaming pregnancy.

You seem unable or unwilling to separate the deed that lead to the pregnancy from the pregnancy itself. The woman is not being shamed for being pregnant. The issue is the behavior that led to the pregnancy.

It seems to me that you and others are arguing that the effect of a single teacher’s hypothetical pregnancy will invariably cause confusion about marriage and babies and lead children to sin and this would be scandalous. I find this argument silly and puritanical.

Not invariably (nor inevitably). But possibly. And fornication, if publicly known, is scandalous. If an unmarried woman is pregnant, and she does not claim it was involuntary (such as via rape), what is a reasonable person to conclude?

Assuming a pregnancy is the result of a private indiscretion, it would not be anyone’s business but that person, God and their confessor, and therefore not scandalous. If this teacher causes true scandal by publicly promoting things contrary to the faith, that’s a different story.

Not all scandal requires an overt act. See CCC 2284 (or back at post #124).

We as Christians are supposed to teach our children not to judge people and always to support women to not have an abortion.

We are to teach them the type of judgement to avoid, which is the state of their soul. We judge behavior every day. Indeed, we judge our children’t behavior when we discipline them. The statement “judge not lest ye be judged” is not a license to sin, or is it a “get out of jail free card.”

I believe a policy to fire women when they become pregnant, even because of a private indiscretion, may ultimately encourage them and others to seek an abortion rather than to keep the baby.

Again, the woman wasn’t fired for becoming pregnant. Had it become known, say through a discussion where she was talking about the “great sex” she had over the weekend, that would have been grounds for divorce. The pregnancy wasn’t the cause of the firing, only part of the evidence that she had been involved in activity contrary to Church teaching.

After all, you are shaming them and taking their livelihood away at the same time.

Actions have consequences. While your blog entry talks about the temporal punishment due to sin, all it does is discuss whether the schools action was commensurate to the sin committed. But it seems to me that lacking the information, neither we nor Dr Peters can determine if that is the case.

Now, if this entire back and forth is really just about whether the school’s action was appropriate, fine. That’s a matter of opinion. And arguing over opinions is meaningless.

But it seemed to me you were defending the woman, suggesting she was not guilty. That is a discussion of fact, and the point I’ve been arguing. It is a fact that she, her boyfriend, or both, acted contrary to Church teaching. And if she was guilty of acting improperly, then it is a fact that the school is warranted in taking action. Her only defense is if she were coerced by her boyfriend.

So, which is it? Are we arguing opinion on the school’s choice of action? Or are we arguing fact and whether the school could take action?

 

[Trader]

Let’s be clear on what this really is…

The teacher was fired for breach of contract – not being pregnant. You may disagree with the contract, but she didn’t when she took the job. She agreed to the terms…

Now we can debate if a Catholic School should have a morality clause, but let’s not be disingenuous about the Church’s or schools intent.

This is important because firing someone for being pregnant would violate anti-discrimination laws. In our diocese all teachers have contracts that require them to familiarize themselves with Catholic teaching and live by it. We had one teacher’s contract not renewed because she told other teachers about her in-vitro fertilization attempts and refused to stop. In other places, teachers have been fired when a lesbian relationship became public, or they were publicly living in adultery.

The Church has a duty to proclaim the truth about marriage, especially in its ministries that formally teach the faith. I don’t see how the Church can accept public behavior that violates its teaching and remain credible.

BTW, our diocese lost the case where the teacher’s contract was not renewed for repeated in-vitro fertilization attempts before the EEOC, but then the EEOC refused to enforce its own ruling after the Hosanna Tabor decision, where the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the EEOC.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

This is important because firing someone for being pregnant would violate anti-discrimination laws. In our diocese all teachers have contracts that require them to familiarize themselves with Catholic teaching and live by it. We had one teacher’s contract not renewed because she told other teachers about her in-vitro fertilization attempts and refused to stop. In other places, teachers have been fired when a lesbian relationship became public, or they were publicly living in adultery.

The Church has a duty to proclaim the truth about marriage, especially in its ministries that formally teach the faith. I don’t see how the Church can accept public behavior that violates its teaching and remain credible.

BTW, our diocese lost the case where the teacher’s contract was not renewed for repeated in-vitro fertilization attempts before the EEOC, but then the EEOC refused to enforce its own ruling after the Hosanna Tabor decision, where the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the EEOC.

Pregnancy is unlike repeated in-vitro fertilization, openly committing adultery and public lesbian relationships, it only requires a single act which isn’t even necessarily mortally sinful.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Pregnancy is unlike repeated in-vitro fertilization, openly committing adultery and public lesbian relationships, it only requires a single act which isn’t even necessarily mortally sinful.

Preganacy is NOT a sin. Fornication (or sex outside of marriage) is always sinful.

 

[Nopales1234]

Before anyone throws rocks at me- I’m married!

However, I am also pregnant. And job hunting. Thankfully I have never been fired, but nobody wants to hire a pregnant woman, married or not. We are “liabilities”, “mentally unstable” and “distractions”, oh and “needy”, because working 16 hours straight is clearly entitlement in action. With my last pregnancy, I walked into a couple of interviews to hear snickers, see rolling eyes, and watch my interviewer make it quite clear tht I was a waste of their time. I eventually just stopped looking for a job. And now I’m pregnant again, looking for a job, and this time I wasn’t as able to hide my pregnancy for as long.

While I understand that a contract is a contract and this woman should have known what she was getting into, I can’t help but think the school could have acted more charitably. Because she was fired, she will have a difficult time finding another job (actually, scratch that, impossible). Because she is pregnant, everybody will think she is useless. So now her unborn child has a jobless mother, a father who nobody seems interested in punishing (unless you count child support but don’t worry low lifes can avoid that easily), and an uncertain future. You could just callously say that tha is all the woman’s fault (because why blame a man when you can blame the more obvious person) but it doesn’t erase the fact that the baby is going to suffer more.

Yes, it is stuff like this that tempts and pushes many women into an abortion. The school has the right to enforce their contract, but I think they should have offered her a reasonable alternative, perhaps working an office job at least. As it is, they’ve not only fired her but shunned her from the community by opening her up to gossip (or more than was already going on, judging by an anonymous letter that I doubt was out of concern.) she isn’t going to learn that her actions have consequences- she is going to learn that people hate her. That is exactly how it would feel. the thing is, if she hasn’t gotten pregnant most likely she would not have been fired. Everybody turns a blind eye to fornication now, unless suddenly a baby is conceived. Then, and only then, is it all suddenly a big scandal.

Contracts are contracts, but there has to be some way to keep a contract and yet remain merciful. To give the benefit of the doubt to the school, there could have been other factors in firing her that we don’t know about, (many times there are, and te media conveniently leaves those out) so I truly hope that it isn’t just because she conceived.

 

[DAML72]

I wonder how many other teachers at that school should be fired for not living a “catholic lifestyle?” But, lucky for them, they get to hide their sins. This woman does the right thing after doing the wrong thing and she loses her job and her income.

Agreed. I find it kind of hypocritical. We are all sinners.

 

[Pax2u]

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

Bad on the school for firing her.

No…

Good for her for choosing life instead of murdering the baby.
Good on the school for firing her.