Unmarried Catholic school teacher has baby

  • Thread starter Thread starter CreatioNova
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
childofmary1143 said:
That is true, but if the teacher is unrepentant about pre-marital sex then the school is conveying a very bad message.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. What difference does it make, regarding the child, if the teacher is unrepentent? The child is still here.
 
PaulinVa and Child of Mary are viewing this properly. Those who are contradicting them and judging them are not.

The bottom line is that there is a Catholic school teacher who is living in flagrant wanton rebellion against the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is NOT someone who made a mistake and humbly repented(ie, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, St. Peter, etc.)

How anyone can equate PROTECTING CHILDREN with shunning the baby is beyond me. That isn’t a logical line of thinking at all. The baby is the baby. No one is condeming the existence of the baby, just the sinful behavior of the baby’s mother.

As for, “Oh, let’s all get on her knees and worship her, because she didn’t viciously murder her own kid,” sorry but that line of thinking is PRO-CHOICE, which is against the teachings of the Catholic Church, too. Pro-life says that she never even had the option to murder her child, but that giving birth is the natural result of becoming pregnant, and not some choice that the mother gets to make.

There is a difference between being pro-life, and being “pro-choice, yet against abortion.” I challenge those who want to praise her for having the baby to think about which of those two categories you truly fall under.

I didn’t kill any babies, but does that fact constitute virtue on my part? If someone robbed a bank, would, “at least he didn’t kill any babies” mean that he is a POSITIVE example for CATHOLIC children?
 
demol said:
I respectfully disagree. What difference does it make, regarding the child, if the teacher is unrepentent? The child is still here.
Click to expand...
School’s existence are not for welcoming babies of its teachers. They are for the education of the students. A Catholic school is to teach Catholic values and teachings. If I have kids and put them in a Catholic school, I want the school to teach that pre-marital sex is wrong.

If the teacher is not sorry for committing sin, then it conflicts with the mandate of the School’s purpose.
 
To say that “at least she didn’t abort her baby” is like saying, “At least he didn’t kill her after raping her”
 
How would an outsider know if someone was repentant? Because the teacher brought her child to school, that doesn’t mean she is unrepentant? Maybe she is very repentant, and just plans on being a single mom now, and never having premarital sex again. We don’t know that for sure, but if she decides say, to live unmarried with the father of the baby…then, I don’t think it makes sense to keep the teacher on at a Catholic school. But, if she realizes that premarital sex is wrong–and decides to lead a chaste life from here on out…then, wouldn’t that be all she should have to do?
 
whatevergirl said:
How would an outsider know if someone was repentant? Because the teacher brought her child to school, that doesn’t mean she is unrepentant? Maybe she is very repentant, and just plans on being a single mom now, and never having premarital sex again. We don’t know that for sure, but if she decides say, to live unmarried with the father of the baby…then, I don’t think it makes sense to keep the teacher on at a Catholic school. But, if she realizes that premarital sex is wrong–and decides to lead a chaste life from here on out…then, wouldn’t that be all she should have to do?
Click to expand...
The person best to decide if she was repentant or not would be the Principal.

If I was the Principal of that school, I would have a private sit down with her and see what she felt and thought.

Is it considered normal for teachers who just had a baby to bring them to school? How often would they do it?

The School has a responsibility to the Parents of the students as they are the primary Customers if you will, and I can assure you that if I had kids in a Catholic School, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is ensuring that the teachings of the Faith are being conveyed in word AND ACTION.

Actions are always louder than words, and if the teacher is not sorry for that sin, then that attitude will be conveyed to the students.
 
If you were the principal–what would you define as repentant? A promise from the girl to be chaste, or to marry the dad?

I agree with what you’re saying–I just don’t think that a lay person can know if someone is repentant, and if this woman went to Confession, and confessed of having premarital sex, and was absolved–and is trying to live a chaste life, then that might be something to explore.
 
I agree, according to the dictionary definition of shun, that there are posters in this forum who are promoting the idea that this teacher and her child are to be shunned:
shun
v 1: avoid and stay away from deliberately; stay clear of [syn: eschew]
2: expel from a community or group [syn: banish, ban, ostracize, cast out, blackball]
Click to expand...
So to say this teacher and/or her child out of wedlock should be “avoided” and should “deliberately be made to stay clear of” the school premises is, in fact, shunning them. To say that this teacher and her child should be expelled from the community or group (the school) is, in fact, saying this teacher and her child should be shunned.

It’s not a matter of judging the posters who’ve promoted this view, it’s just pointing out the facts.
 
childofmary1143 said:
… if I had kids in a Catholic School, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is ensuring that the teachings of the Faith are being conveyed in word AND ACTION.
Click to expand...
The Prolife teaching of the Catholic Church is more important than the teaching on chastity. It’s also the most visable. We can hardly know whether a person is practising chastity or choosing life except through the visible means of a pregnancy. The pregnancy and child are the visible means by which we know two things about this teacher 1) she had a pregnancy out-of-wedlock therefore was not at the time practising chastity and 2) although she failed to practise chastity she did practice virtue in choosing life. Motherhood, even for an unwed mother, is still a virtue and still a choice. It’s a virtue, as Catholics, that we support, defend, and should always promote by our words and deeds.

How are you promoting a gospel of life in your words and deeds?
 
3 years ago, I took 5 of my kids out of public school and put them into my parish school. Since then I have found it harder and harder to explain to them why the teachers and other families don’t practice the faith. It becomes harder all the time, to keep my own children respectful of what my wife and I teach them about the faith, when they spend most of their day around the school. It seemed to be easier for them to be “christian” in public school. I’m praying for change!!!
 
whatevergirl said:
If you were the principal–what would you define as repentant? A promise from the girl to be chaste, or to marry the dad?

I agree with what you’re saying–I just don’t think that a lay person can know if someone is repentant, and if this woman went to Confession, and confessed of having premarital sex, and was absolved–and is trying to live a chaste life, then that might be something to explore.
Click to expand...
I would never put a litmus test of marrying the dad as a sign of repentance. If anything, she probably shouldn’t marry him as from what I have been told, those types of marriages rarely work out.

As for determining if a person is repentant, that gets tricky. I don’t profess to know of a sure fire formula. However, I would pay very close attention to how she talks. Repentance is something that can be picked up fairly easy.
 
RachelsAlumni, I think that we are getting carried away here talking about shunning. This teacher would not be SHUNNED by the school. The school is a place of work run by the Catholic Church. We are simply saying that she is no longer qualified to work there due to moral choices she has made. We are not shunning the baby. We are saying that it is inappropriate to bring a child born out of wedlock to a Catholic School. No big deal. We are making no assumptions about her present status with the Church, actually, We are simply saying she is a bad example.

As to the “virtue” of having a child out of wedlock instead of killing it, I don’t believe that Catholics thinking supports that. No person is supposed to abort a baby. Full Stop. Period. People should not be thanked or held up as an example for doing the only right thing when they are pregnant.

Interesting question about repentance, though. I was supposing that this woman would not be qualified to teach at a Catholic school unless and until she got married. I don’t know now.

I am conflicted about whether there is a distinction of being a single mother through unwed birth versus through divorce or being widowed.

HappyPerson - thanks.
 
PaulinVA said:
We are not shunning the baby. We are saying that it is inappropriate to bring a child born out of wedlock to a Catholic School. No big deal. We are making no assumptions about her present status with the Church, actually, We are simply saying she is a bad example.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of shunning? Saying the child is not welcome is saying the child is not welcome, regardless of him/her being born out of wedlock. You do not want the students exposed to the child. That is shunning.
Fine, the teacher is a bad example. No argument there. But two wrongs do not make a right. You are portraying the child as something negative. And that is always wrong.
 
whatevergirl said:
How would an outsider know if someone was repentant? Because the teacher brought her child to school, that doesn’t mean she is unrepentant? Maybe she is very repentant, and just plans on being a single mom now, and never having premarital sex again. We don’t know that for sure, but if she decides say, to live unmarried with the father of the baby…then, I don’t think it makes sense to keep the teacher on at a Catholic school. But, if she realizes that premarital sex is wrong–and decides to lead a chaste life from here on out…then, wouldn’t that be all she should have to do?
Click to expand...
Agreed. You’re promoting a most humane treatment.👍
 
demol said:
What is your definition of shunning? Saying the child is not welcome is saying the child is not welcome, regardless of him/her being born out of wedlock. You do not want the students exposed to the child. That is shunning.
Fine, the teacher is a bad example. No argument there. But two wrongs do not make a right. You are portraying the child as something negative. And that is always wrong.
Click to expand...
How can someone be “shunned” from a place or location they have no expectation to be allowed?

Is the baby an employee? No. Is the baby a student? No.
 
I don’t think you should judge the teacher. Leave her morality to her and God. What I would do is not get involved in the teacher’s personal life and instead have a talk with your daughter about sexual morality and that she’s bound to find many sexually immoral people but other people shouldn’t affect her relationship with God. Perhaps even read her some Bible quotes like Matthew 7:13-14 :
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.”
Click to expand...
Just to show her most people won’t be truly following Christ but that still Christ commands her to enter through the narrow gate. Just a thought.

Oh and kind of ironically, Jesus’ parable on judging comes right before that quote - looks like Matthew 7 was made for your situation perhaps!
 
Personally, I am not comfortable with the idea that this Catholic school has let the mom bring her baby in to school for the girls to go gaga over. To me, that is almost like allowing the mom to brag that she had a child when everyone knows she is not married. I don’t think they should have allowed her to do this. But then again, at least the mother did not get an abortion.
 
I think we have to be REALLY careful to not make it look like …on the one hand we are prolife, and on the other, a baby brought to the school is a ‘bad’ thing. The woman having a baby out of wedlock can be considered a shameful thing–but having a child is never shameful. Because this woman made a bad choice, she shouldn’t have to ‘hide’ her baby, because of a potential message. She doesn’t have to bring the baby to the school, but I think again, that if we are to celebrate life, and be such devout prolife supporters, we shouldn’t then turn around, and tell someone…‘your baby is not welcome here.’ or ‘don’t bring your baby to school, might send the wrong message.’

While it’s important to have the children in the school understand the immorality of premarital sex…it would be wrong to teach a student body to be prolife, while not permitting an unmarried woman to bringing her newborn to the school. What message does that show? Many young girls have abortions for this very reason-because they don’t want to bring shame to themselves, and their babies.

I understand the sentiments here…please don’t misunderstand my point. But, what’s done is done. You can’t undo this. If the teacher has repented…if she now is living a chaste life…she shouldn’t be ashamed of bringing her baby to school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top