Unmarried Catholic school teacher has baby

[RachelsAlumni]

Wouldn’t happen. No one has a right to have their contract renewed, at least in Texas. A Catholic school teacher – any Catholic school teacher – who violates his or her contract should not be re-hired.

It’s naive to think that you can simply not re-hire and be free from legal recourse. Anyone can file a lawsuit, and if they can show that the reason the contract was not renewed was because of their pregnancy then it’s likely the ACLU would take up their cause.

Here’s another case involving Catholic Charities, not because she was fired, but because she was forced to either resign or accept a demotion to a position that involved no youth contract:

When A.N., who is not married, became pregnant, she was informed that she would have to resign or accept a demotion to a position that involved no youth contact. An excellent employee, A.N. was relegated to a lesser position for no other reason than that she was unmarried and pregnant.

In 2003, the NYCLU’s Reproductive Rights Project (RRP) filed a lawsuit against the Grand Island School District in the Western District of New York alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination under Title VII (the federal anti-discrimination in employment law), under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Due Clause Process Clause protecting the right to sexual and procreative liberty. The RRP also filed a pregnancy and religious discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who found that Catholic Charities’ action constituted illegal discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and that Catholic Charities’ asserted justification for the transfer – poor job performance – was pretextual. The RRP was then able to negotiate a settlement for A.N., including formal adoption of anti-discrimination policy by both Catholic Charities of Buffalo and the Grand Island School District. The Grand Island Board of Education then updated its Equal Employment Opportunity policies to incorporate pregnancy and marriage as bases upon which employment, retention and advancement decisions shall not be made.

IMO it’s scandalous for the Church to act in a manner that’s hypocritical of the Gospel of Life by firing or demoting or ‘getting rid of’ a woman for being pregnant especially when it’s outside wedlock since this could be a catalyst for the mother to choose to abort:

73 percent of those seeking an abortion were doing so because they could not afford to have a baby.

The Church is commissioned to care for widows & orphans. A fatherless child is an orphan. A mother without a husband is for all intents and purposes a widow.

 

[JReducation]

In a right to work state, you can terminate a person without giving any explanation and you can decide not to renew a contract. I’m not sure of other states where the right to work law does not exisst.

JR

 

[PaulinVA]

It’s naive to think that you can simply not re-hire and be free from legal recourse. Anyone can file a lawsuit, and if they can show that the reason the contract was not renewed was because of their pregnancy then it’s likely the ACLU would take up their cause.

So, the person sues. No contract renewal is guaranteed. I hope you’re not arguing we should let the courts decide how we live our Christian faith.

IMO it’s scandalous for the Church to act in a manner that’s hypocritical of the Gospel of Life by firing or demoting or ‘getting rid of’ a woman for being pregnant especially when it’s outside wedlock since this could be a catalyst for the mother to choose to abort:

Do you think that there are any actions that would disqualify a person from teaching at a Catholic school? Should parents who pay tuition for a Catholic education have an expectation that the teachers at the school are actually living the Catholic faith?

The Church is commissioned to care for widows & orphans. A fatherless child is an orphan. A mother without a husband is for all intents and purposes a widow.

I realize that you are talking in generalities, but in the case that started this thread, a woman got pregnant out of wedlock and is living with the father with no intention of getting married. Do you still think that she is a victim here? Do you REALLY think she should be teaching in a Catholic grade school in the US?

 

[RachelsAlumni]

In a right to work state, you can terminate a person without giving any explanation and you can decide not to renew a contract. I’m not sure of other states where the right to work law does not exisst.

JR

This is partially true.

For example, I live in a State that considers work “at will” so my employer can at any time without any reason what-so-ever fire me lawfully. If my employer fires me without cause I can claim unemployment insurance which the employer pays. So if the employer does not want to have to pay unemployment then they have to show cause according to State & Federal labor laws.

The only time I could make a claim of wrongful termination against an employer in an “at will” State is if I could claim they discharged me out of discrimination.

Discharging a woman because she is pregnant is discrimination. Demoting a woman because she is pregnant is discrimination. Refusing to renew the contract of a woman because she is pregnant (while renewing the contracts of others) is discrimination.

A pregnant woman removed from her position because she is pregnant may or may not sue and/or prevail in her lawsuit, but the fact that there are consistently lawsuits filed by the ACLU for this very reason would leave me to believe that the possibility of the school being sued by the ACLU is a definate consideration.

 

[JReducation]

This is partially true.

For example, I live in a State that considers work “at will” so my employer can at any time without any reason what-so-ever fire me lawfully. If my employer fires me without cause I can claim unemployment insurance which the employer pays. So if the employer does not want to have to pay unemployment then they have to show cause according to State & Federal labor laws.

The only time I could make a claim of wrongful termination against an employer in an “at will” State is if I could claim they discharged me out of discrimination.

Discharging a woman because she is pregnant is discrimination. Demoting a woman because she is pregnant is discrimination. Refusing to renew the contract of a woman because she is pregnant (while renewing the contracts of others) is discrimination.

A pregnant woman removed from her position because she is pregnant may or may not sue and/or prevail in her lawsuit, but the fact that there are consistently lawsuits filed by the ACLU for this very reason would leave me to believe that the possibility of the school being sued by the ACLU is a definate consideration.

This makes sense.

Despite all of the above, I would have a difficult time firing such a person, not because I agree with their situation. My difficulty stems from the fact that as Catholics we always have to choose the moral good.

From where I see it, as I posted before, there are two goods.

1. Protect the children from exposure to a sinful life style
2. Emphasize the Church’s pro-life teaching.

In the first good, the children would be protected from this circumstance. But the fact is that they are exposed to this sin on TV, their neighborhood and other settings. How much protection is one really doing. Maybe it’s really a teaching moment for the parents.

In the second case, the Church’s credibility can be called into qustion. We promote a culture for life, but we prosecute the unwed mother. I know that this not true, but that’s the way that it will be interpreted by many. As someone once told me, perceptions are very important.

I’m just glad I’m not the principal of that school.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[RachelsAlumni]

So, the person sues. No contract renewal is guaranteed. I hope you’re not arguing we should let the courts decide how we live our Christian faith.

this is just silly. I was responding to Mark to let him know he could be opening himself up for a battle with the ACLU. How you could interpret that as the courts deciding how the faithful live our Christian faith is a long shot.

Should parents who pay tuition for a Catholic education have an expectation that the teachers at the school are actually living the Catholic faith?

If parents require a higher standard of purity than the school itself, if parents put the visable virtues of chastity and purity above the Sanctity of Life and care for widows & orphans then perhaps they should find another school, maybe one that is run & taught solely by religious. It is voluntary after all. Catholic parents have the option of either sending their kids to Catholic school or putting them in CCD classes for their Catholic education.

…in the case that started this thread, a woman got pregnant out of wedlock and is living with the father with no intention of getting married. Do you still think that she is a victim here? Do you REALLY think she should be teaching in a Catholic grade school in the US?

If it’s true that the teacher is living with a man outside wedlock I do think the school should have been more careful about the teacher’s living arrangements prior to hiring her. I suspect that If it’s true this teacher is living with a man outside marriage, then the school is very lax about applying the moral clause and there are others in their employ who aren’t living up to the standards of the moral clause as well. This laxity on their part would make it all the more difficult for them to discharge this particular teacher.

I don’t think the woman talked about in this thread is a victim because she has retained her position at the school throughout her pregnancy and after. I think the school did the right thing by her and their actions are consistent with the Church’s teaching on the Sanctity of Life, and the care of the widow & orphan.

I think the Church places the issue of abortion above the issue of fornication. The Church should, therefore, not act in a hypocritical or self sabatoging way by firing or demoting women who choose life. It is inconsistent with promoting a Gospel of Life, which supersedes teachings on continence.

“It is not pro-life to take away the resources and support that women need and deserve to bring children into this world,” Foster says. "The appropriate response for the employer when they found out she was pregnant, is to say, ‘Congratulations,’ and, ‘How can I help?’ " ~ Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life

 

[childofmary1143]

I can’t say that the aformentioned teacher should be fired. However I do think that if she is unrepentant about her indiscretion, then I don’t think she should bring the baby to school.

 

[Scribbless]

What do you think Jesus would do? Throw her out? Stone her? Just hink, if she’d had an abortion nobody every would have known. How about abmitting that folks are human, make mistakes and should be treated with mercy, compassion and forgiveness. IMO, that’s what Jesus would do. I’m not trying to be rude and apologize if I’m coming off that way - but as Jesus pointed out, the sick don’t need a physician. Mercy, compassion and forgiveness. No stone throwing. Remember, there but for the grace of God, go I.

Very good point. She made a mistake…we all do, we all sin, however, with this particular sin, isn’t just God who can see her sin, this woman has to live with the effects of peoples judgments because she is pregnant. However, we must think positively…it probably would’ve been much easier for her to have an abortion…and no one would be judging her…however, she chose to face the consequences, and not have an abortion. We must try and find the good in people and not the bad. As for her students, it is not a good lesson, however, hopefully when they’re older, they will see the good in her decision as well.

 

[Bella3502]

I can’t say that the aformentioned teacher should be fired. However I do think that if she is unrepentant about her indiscretion, then I don’t think she should bring the baby to school.

How long do we as Catholics shun this baby? 5years, 10 years? Forever???

If the mother never marries, how long should she pretend that the child does not exist in relationship to other perfect Catholics and their children?

How does the mother go about proving her repentence? (I suppose she could wear a sign on her forehead.)

**Lastly, is her baby any less special because the mom is not married? I don’t think so. **

Babies should be celebrated. Those born to single moms should not be treated as second class citizens. That is just wrong.

 

[PaulinVA]

As for her students, it is not a good lesson, however, hopefully when they’re older, they will see the good in her decision as well.

The good in her decision to have sex outside of marriage and live with the father out of wedlock?

 

[PaulinVA]

How long do we as Catholics shun this baby? 5years, 10 years? Forever???

If the mother never marries, how long should she pretend that the child does not exist in relationship to other perfect Catholics and their children?

How does the mother go about proving her repentence? (I suppose she could wear a sign on her forehead.)

**Lastly, is her baby any less special because the mom is not married? I don’t think so. **

Babies should be celebrated. Those born to single moms should not be treated as second class citizens. That is just wrong.

I don’t get it. How do you equate a prohibition to bring your baby, conceived out of wedlock, to a Catholic school and “shunning”? It’s just protecting the innocent children in the school from a negative role model.

And, frankly, I am surprised at some of the responses on this thread. Some responses show an absolute and total affirmation of this woman and her decisions (living with a man out of wedlock and having a baby with him) and a total rejection of the ability of a Catholic school to present the Catholic faith to it’s students.

I don’t understand why, as a Church, we should be unable to make decisions based on our faith. I am not saying that this woman should be stoned. I am not saying that this woman should not be welcomed in church. I am not saying that the baby is a second class citizen in the Church. I am simply saying that this woman, an unmarried mother living with the father (which makes her not a single mother but someone who is not married but living as a married woman), should not be eligible to teach at a Catholic school because she is not living the Catholic faith.

 

[Bella3502]

I don’t get it. How do you equate a prohibition to bring your baby, conceived out of wedlock, to a Catholic school and “shunning”? It’s just protecting the innocent children in the school from a negative role model.

And, frankly, I am surprised at some of the responses on this thread. Some responses show an absolute and total affirmation of this woman and her decisions (living with a man out of wedlock and having a baby with him) and a total rejection of the ability of a Catholic school to present the Catholic faith to it’s students.

I don’t understand why, as a Church, we should be unable to make decisions based on our faith. I am not saying that this woman should be stoned. I am not saying that this woman should not be welcomed in church. I am not saying that the baby is a second class citizen in the Church. I am simply saying that this woman, an unmarried mother living with the father (which makes her not a single mother but someone who is not married but living as a married woman), should not be eligible to teach at a Catholic school because she is not living the Catholic faith.

I’ll take that as 1 vote for “Shun for Life” catagory.

 

[Coder]

What do you think Jesus would do? Throw her out? Stone her? Just hink, if she’d had an abortion nobody every would have known. How about abmitting that folks are human, make mistakes and should be treated with mercy, compassion and forgiveness. IMO, that’s what Jesus would do. I’m not trying to be rude and apologize if I’m coming off that way - but as Jesus pointed out, the sick don’t need a physician. Mercy, compassion and forgiveness. No stone throwing. Remember, there but for the grace of God, go I.

Yes I agree, she may have repented and now she has the baby.

I also understand about the example part, but maybe it was hard to try to hide that fact that she has a child and maybe the children wanted to see the baby. Also, if she tried to deny that she was a mom, that would be deceptive and she may not want to be disingenuine.

One would need to know the facts before one could determine if there is any unacceptably bad example involved.

 

[childofmary1143]

I’ll take that as 1 vote for “Shun for Life” catagory.

Who the he** are you to judge another. Hypocrite!!

 

[KingAlfred]

The school my daughter attends is a catholic school. It is generally well run and fairly strict and has at its heart the teachings of the catholic church running through the curriculum and school activities. I posted elsewhere on another thread a troublesome issue now arising with school assemblies beng held in the church.

However, I have now discovered that one of the teachers, who is unmarried, has just had a baby. She brought the baby into school for the girls to see and go gaga over.

All very well and good but now Im wondering what kind of example is this setting to the girls. On the one hand they are being taught catholic principles and morals, and particularly the older group about love and sex and relationships, and then they get presented with a beautiful bonnie baby by an unmarried teacher they all look up to and respect.

Im now left wondering if the school should take a much stronger line with the moral example set by the teachers in the school, but no doubt they would run foul of some sex discrimination law or other

Not a good situation. This might sound cruel, but the teacher should keep this event in her life private. It does indeed set a bad example.

 

[leonie]

So, I’m thinking that many people don’t really think that the teacher’s lifestyle affects the kids?

In the past, perhaps people gave the issue of scandal too great a gravity over the person, but now, I think it’s swung the other way.

I’m sure it’s a cultural thing–the individual over the good of the group (in this case, kids).

But, in this case, I don’t think the consequences for the individual are that horrific. She goes and gets a job in a public school, or even better, takes a nonteaching job.

 

[demol]

The good in her decision to have sex outside of marriage and live with the father out of wedlock?

How about the decision against abortion, and to give life? That’s a pretty good decision, wouldn’t you say?

 

[PaulinVA]

How about the decision against abortion, and to give life? That’s a pretty good decision, wouldn’t you say?

For a Catholic, there’s really no decision to be made, is there?

I guess I have a problem celebrating, “At least she didn’t kill the baby.”

 

[demol]

I guess I have a problem celebrating, “At least she didn’t kill the baby.”

That’s too bad. With abortion being as popular as it is, every child is something to celebrate, no matter the circumstances.

 

[childofmary1143]

That’s too bad. With abortion being as popular as it is, every child is something to celebrate, no matter the circumstances.

That is true, but if the teacher is unrepentant about pre-marital sex then the school is conveying a very bad message.