What would be the best solution?

[phil19034]

I also look at it like this… what would we say, think & do if a nun (teaching at the school) got pregnant? It would be the scandal of the century!

So why is it different with lay Catholic school teachers? Afterall, Catholic School teachers are youth ministers in the Church.

Years ago, most (if not all) Catholic School teachers were nuns and priests. Lay teachers are “filling in” for the nuns and priests, kind of like who EMHCs fill into for priests and deacons at Mass. Some schools (mostly in inner-city Catholic Schools), which are staffed by nuns in habits, are slowing moving away from lay teachers and having more nuns, like it was back in the 1950s.

There are new orders of Nuns dedicated to teaching in Catholic Schools (I met some at the World Meeting of Families). As their numbers grow, hopefully, they will teach in more schools, and our need for lay teachers will diminish.

In the meantime, we have to hold lay teachers to the same standard as we hold priests, deacons and nuns. If it would be scandalous for a priest, deacon or nun, then it should be considered scandalous for a lay teacher.

That’s really, all there is too it.

God Bless

 

[pianistclare]

I also look at it like this… what would we say, think & do if a nun (teaching at the school) got pregnant? It would be the scandal of the century!

So why is it different with lay Catholic school teachers? Afterall, Catholic School teachers are youth ministers in the Church.

Years ago, most (if not all) Catholic School teachers were nuns and priests. Lay teachers are “filling in” for the nuns and priests, kind of like who EMHCs fill into for priests and deacons at Mass. Some schools (mostly in inner-city Catholic Schools), which are staffed by nuns in habits, are slowing moving away from lay teachers and having more nuns, like it was back in the 1950s.

There are new orders of Nuns dedicated to teaching in Catholic Schools (I met some at the World Meeting of Families). As their numbers grow, hopefully, they will teach in more schools, and our need for lay teachers will diminish.

In the meantime, we have to hold lay teachers to the same standard as we hold priests, deacons and nuns. If it would be scandalous for a priest, deacon or nun, then it should be considered scandalous for a lay teacher.

That’s really, all there is too it.

God Bless

Exactly.

 

[Evania]

Of course it makes a difference. She’s not setting herself as a teacher of morality and faith.
We had two married teachers that were clearly involved in an affair.
We don’t know if they were actually sleeping together, but they did pass notes constantly, met in dark rooms and stood 2 inches from each other, kissed, goofed off when they should have been teaching. The principal called them both in, and reminded them that they signed morality clauses and he couldn’t have them on board. He said he would not fire them, nor would he say anything negative about them to perspective employers. (for any public school job…violate the morality clause and you never work for a Diocesan school again).
He wished them well, but gave them the opportunity to resign. They were mortified. They actually thought they were being discreet. When parents had children coming home asking questions, the principal had to act.
Then ended up both divorcing their spouses, had a child out of wedlock, married later, and then he dropped dead at 37 years old. She went back to her maiden name. Lives alone, as far as I know. they had about 8 months of “bliss” and then it all blew up. The staff all went to the funeral. It was very sad.
But they made their choice. They knew what they were doing was wrong. Absolutely.
When you teach the faith, you have to have certain standards. That’s not being judgmental or mean. It’s just the way it is. Negatively impact the spiritual growth of the children by clearly not living your faith, and you’re out. Whether layperson or priest or sister. We who work for the church have to be uber careful. We represent the faith. Like it or not. When a church employee crosses the line, the church has no option.
They had their child baptized. There were not ostracized, But they could not, in good conscience, teach religion.

I totally see the need for a morality clause in Catholic schools.

In the case of the two teachers that you shared, they clearly were engaging in an affair, under the noses of their students no less, and judging by what you said, it seems that they were unrepentant. In my opinion, the school should have let them go. In the hypothetical scenario of a teacher pregnant out of wedlock, if she is unrepentant then I think she should be let go as well. In that case, I would have to agree, she would not be a good teacher of faith and morality. I think, however, if she is truly repentant of her actions, and goes and “sins no more.” then I don’t see what good would come out of firing her. Heck, look at St. Augustine. I bet he would be an excellent teacher of religion and he had one spotty past. He fathered a child out of wedlock. However, he repented. I just want to be a little bit more clear on my position, lest there is any misunderstanding. I’m fully supportive of the morality clause, however I also believe in offering redemption to a person if they are truly sorry and have turned their lives around.
Blessings!

 

[pianistclare]

I totally see the need for a morality clause in Catholic schools.

In the case of the two teachers that you shared, they clearly were engaging in an affair, under the noses of their students no less, and judging by what you said, it seems that they were unrepentant. In my opinion, the school should have let them go. In the hypothetical scenario of a teacher pregnant out of wedlock, if she is unrepentant then I think she should be let go as well. In that case, I would have to agree, she would not be a good teacher of faith and morality. I think, however, if she is truly repentant of her actions, and goes and “sins no more.” then I don’t see what good would come out of firing her. Heck, look at St. Augustine. I bet he would be an excellent teacher of religion and he had one spotty past. He fathered a child out of wedlock. However, he repented. I just want to be a little bit more clear on my position, lest there is any misunderstanding. I’m fully supportive of the morality clause, however I also believe in offering redemption to a person if they are truly sorry and have turned their lives around.
Blessings!

Well, except for the laity don’t get to decide these things for Diocese.
The Bishops decide what the line is, and if people choose to cross it, then that’s their decision. It’s never up to a vote.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I totally see the need for a morality clause in Catholic schools.

In the case of the two teachers that you shared, they clearly were engaging in an affair, under the noses of their students no less, and judging by what you said, it seems that they were unrepentant. In my opinion, the school should have let them go. In the hypothetical scenario of a teacher pregnant out of wedlock, if she is unrepentant then I think she should be let go as well. In that case, I would have to agree, she would not be a good teacher of faith and morality. I think, however, if she is truly repentant of her actions, and goes and “sins no more.” then I don’t see what good would come out of firing her. Heck, look at St. Augustine. I bet he would be an excellent teacher of religion and he had one spotty past. He fathered a child out of wedlock. However, he repented. I just want to be a little bit more clear on my position, lest there is any misunderstanding. I’m fully supportive of the morality clause, however I also believe in offering redemption to a person if they are truly sorry and have turned their lives around.
Blessings!

And again the question, how does one determine her repentance. Repentance or not some sins have consequences. But that is taboo these days. More taboo than an unwed pregnant teacher that parents pay money to send their kids to her class… It’s a backward world we live in with misplaced understandings of “mercy”

 

[Evania]

And again the question, how does one determine her repentance. Repentance or not some sins have consequences. But that is taboo these days. More taboo than an unwed pregnant teacher that parents pay money to send their kids to her class… It’s a backward world we live in with misplaced understandings of “mercy”

I don’t think demonstrating love and mercy toward a contrite soul contributes to a backward society. St. Paul said, “They will know we are Christians by our love.” I agree with you that there are many, especially in our secular world, who misunderstand what mercy actually is. A lot of evils are done in this modern age in the name of “mercy”. However, showing compassion to one who has confessed their sins isn’t one of them. I certainly don’t think anything that I’ve stated could be considered to be “misplaced”.

My idea of mercy comes from from how Christ dealt with the adulteress. He said “Go and sin no more”. The Pharisees probably thought he was in the wrong to deal with the matter in that way too; however, Christ and ONLY Christ saw that the woman was truly sorry and was able to say, “Neither do I accuse you.” So if the hypothetical unwed woman receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and God forgives her, then who am I to judge whether she is actually repentant or not? In the Lord’s Prayer, He states that He forgives us to the extent that we forgive others. Surely, we aren’t greater than our Master? In any event, I’m thankful that God shows such undeserved mercy to us every day. One can argue that his mercy is “misplaced” on us weak sinners, but He gives it to us readily if we turn to him and repent of our sins.

However, that being said, what I DO think is backward is when we proclaim that we’re pro-life and yet toss a repentant unwed mother on the streets, jobless, and fully knowing that companies most likely will not hire a pregnant woman. That is the opposite of mercy. I don’t think He would approve of that.

But you raise some good points: Yes, there are consequences for her actions, so I think her superiors need to review her case. There’s nothing wrong with them questioning her. If she says that she is remorseful for her actions, and if she upon observation does not teach anything against faith and morality, then there is no real reason to doubt her sincerity. If she flaunts her sin and speaks contrary to what the Church teaches, then she should be let go. You asked, “How does one determine repentance?” My answer is that if her repentance is sincere she would show by her actions from that time forward.

Blessings!

 

[Evania]

Well, except for the laity don’t get to decide these things for Diocese.
The Bishops decide what the line is, and if people choose to cross it, then that’s their decision. It’s never up to a vote.

Yes, I agree with you. I’m not interested in deciding anything for the bishops or putting my views up for a vote. Since a forum encourages discussion, I’m just submitting my personal opinions as the OP requested. I’m not planning on starting any protests or hand out any petitions to sign.

Blessings!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t think demonstrating love and mercy toward a contrite soul contributes to a backward society. St. Paul said, “They will know we are Christians by our love.” I agree with you that there are many, especially in our secular world, who misunderstand what mercy actually is. A lot of evils are done in this modern age in the name of “mercy”. However, showing compassion to one who has confessed their sins isn’t one of them. I certainly don’t think anything that I’ve stated could be considered to be “misplaced”.

My idea of mercy comes from from how Christ dealt with the adulteress. He said “Go and sin no more”. The Pharisees probably thought he was in the wrong to deal with the matter in that way too; however, Christ and ONLY Christ saw that the woman was truly sorry and was able to say, “Neither do I accuse you.” So if the hypothetical unwed woman receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and God forgives her, then who am I to judge whether she is actually repentant or not? In the Lord’s Prayer, He states that He forgives us to the extent that we forgive others. Surely, we aren’t greater than our Master? In any event, I’m thankful that God shows such undeserved mercy to us every day. One can argue that his mercy is “misplaced” on us weak sinners, but He gives it to us readily if we turn to him and repent of our sins.

However, that being said, what I DO think is backward is when we proclaim that we’re pro-life and yet toss a repentant unwed mother on the streets, jobless, and fully knowing that companies most likely will not hire a pregnant woman. That is the opposite of mercy. I don’t think He would approve of that.

But you raise some good points: Yes, there are consequences for her actions, so I think her superiors need to review her case. There’s nothing wrong with them questioning her. If she says that she is remorseful for her actions, and if she upon observation does not teach anything against faith and morality, then there is no real reason to doubt her sincerity. If she flaunts her sin and speaks contrary to what the Church teaches, then she should be let go. You asked, “How does one determine repentance?” My answer is that if her repentance is sincere she would show by her actions from that time forward.

Blessings!

However, that being said, what I DO think is backward is when we proclaim that we’re pro-life and yet toss a repentant unwed mother on the streets, jobless, and fully knowing that companies most likely will not hire a pregnant woman. That is the opposite of mercy. I don’t think He would approve of that.

Here is where you go a little off the rails. It certainly depends on the job doesn’t it? And when charged with the care of children including their souls don’t you think that the unwed mother needs to stop doing damage to other children and start getting ready for her own? Would you change your mind if the unwed mother goes by the title of sister and wears a habit. Why or why not do you think she should teach or not…?

Yes, there are consequences for her actions, so I think her superiors need to review her case. There’s nothing wrong with them questioning her. If she says that she is remorseful for her actions, and if she upon observation does not teach anything against faith and morality, then there is no real reason to doubt her sincerity.

Ah, so her repentance IS necessary to be a public thing. It is not just something between her and the priest in the confessional is it? It indeed needs to be demonstrated to the administration of the school since they are charged with her employment. And the administration answers to the parents… etc. You see my point? Ultimately an administrator must make a decision and I find it odd that people here would think his decision would be unchristian if he let a pregnant unwed teacher go in the name of keeping with the morality and standards a school SHOULD set for itself.

If she flaunts her sin and speaks contrary to what the Church teaches, then she should be let go. You asked, “How does one determine repentance?” My answer is that if her repentance is sincere she would show by her actions from that time forward.

Flaunts her sin? Uh, her sin is going to flaunt itself… Are you suggesting if she smiles too much or wears too cute maternity clothes then that is where you draw the line?

And her actions going forward are kind of unrealistic aren’t they. I mean she is not going to get pregnant AGAIN while pregnant?

In short what you have provided by this misunderstood concept of “mercy” and by invoking the tired pharasee argument and marrying it with the “don’t judge” mentality is a playbook for getting out of jury duty. But it is not really solid theology.

 

[pianistclare]

Yes, I agree with you. I’m not interested in deciding anything for the bishops or putting my views up for a vote. Since a forum encourages discussion, I’m just submitting my personal opinions as the OP requested. I’m not planning on starting any protests or hand out any petitions to sign.

Blessings!

LOL agreed! I know what you mean, of course.
It does seem though that this discussion has crossed over form "a person moral enough to teach the kids in a Catholic school with appropriate consequences for voiding a contract, to “none of my business, so let’s feel sorry for a girl who got pregnant without being married.” I think the OP may have made that leap.
Two totally different scenarios.
I don’t think anyone on this forum would shun or be cruel any single mother.
But that doesn’t mean we pretend it’s just fine to have a person who clearly does not espouse the teachings of the Catholic church teaching Catholic school children.

That’s like hiring a person to teach swimming that’s afraid of the water. Makes no sense.
And no one in such a position would rightfully believe that they should get the job!

Also, when my principal let that “couple” go, he was showing mercy. He could have told all the parents, ranted to the other teachers, and made a scene. He gave them the chance to simply walk away without public judgment. I think he was being kind, given the circumstances.

 

[Evania]

Here is where you go a little off the rails. It certainly depends on the job doesn’t it? And when charged with the care of children including their souls don’t you think that the unwed mother needs to stop doing damage to other children and start getting ready for her own? Would you change your mind if the unwed mother goes by the title of sister and wears a habit. Why or why not do you think she should teach or not…?

Like I said, if she repents and speaks truth regarding Church teaching after making a sacramental confession, there will be no further damage. Unless the mere presence of a pregnant bump is what You consider to be the irreparable “further damage.”. In answer to your question: a nun has taken vows of chastity and is working in a Catholic institution. Although the sins of the Catholic nun and unmarried woman are both grave sins in need of sacramental confession, there is added scandal, by the nature of the vows of the nun. For instance, if an unmarried man and a married man or even a priest all engage in the same sexual sins with women outside of the bonds of matrimony, they have all gravely sinned. However, the married man has also broken his vows with his wife. In the case of the priest, He has violated his priestly vows that he made to God. Such is the case with the nun, she has broken a professed vow she has made to the Church and to God.

Ah, so her repentance IS necessary to be a public thing. It is not just something between her and the priest in the confessional is it? It indeed needs to be demonstrated to the administration of the school since they are charged with her employment.

Well if she violated the morality code, I think the school deserves an explanation. I wouldn’t necessarily term it “public repentance”.

Flaunts her sin? Uh, her sin is going to flaunt itself…

Wrong. Her sin was forgiven in Confession. The only thing that is left is the natural consequence of a sin that was already forgiven…a baby bump. When I see a baby bump, I don’t think of the “sexual act” that has put it there. I see a growing baby. In your opinion, at what point is she no longer flaunting her sins? Just until the baby is born? With that outlook, why are we encouraging her to not terminate her “sins”? The answer is because the pregnancy isn’t the sin. By staying pregnant, she is giving life to her child. She isn’t “flaunting” anything. I don’t know what you mean by “flaunt”. Is this what you think a woman’s body does by virtue of a bump?
Here is the definition of flaunt according to Webster:
1)to parade or display oneself conspicuously, defiantly, or boldly.
2)to wave conspicuously in the air.

And her actions going forward are kind of unrealistic aren’t they.

Are you automatically presuming that it’s unrealistic that she will repent and remain chaste from here on out? Do you think it’s unrealistic that she will remain faithful to Church Teaching just because she is pregnant? That isn’t mercy. That is presupposing. And that is sitting in judgment of another person’s soul. Is it our job to wait for a penitent to trip up again as soon as they exit the confessional? I guess I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

In short what you have provided by this misunderstood concept of “mercy” and by invoking the tired pharasee argument and marrying it with the “don’t judge” mentality is a playbook for getting out of jury duty. But it is not really solid theology.

I quoted Scripture. That is 2,000 years of solid theology. I also have read Divine Mercy in my Soul by St. Faustina. That is where I get my concept of mercy, I praise God for His Mercy upon us poor sinners. Not one of us deserves it, but He is lavish towards those of us who turn to Him. Is a servant greater than his master? If so, then how should we demonstrate His Mercy differently? Again, I’m not speaking of unrepentant sinners. I’m talking about those who turn to Him with sorrow for their sins?

 

[Evania]

LOL agreed! I know what you mean, of course.
It does seem though that this discussion has crossed over form "a person moral enough to teach the kids in a Catholic school with appropriate consequences for voiding a contract, to “none of my business, so let’s feel sorry for a girl who got pregnant without being married.” I think the OP may have made that leap.
Two totally different scenarios.
I don’t think anyone on this forum would shun or be cruel any single mother.
But that doesn’t mean we pretend it’s just fine to have a person who clearly does not espouse the teachings of the Catholic church teaching Catholic school children.

That’s true. It is two separate topics that are getting blended.

I just think it needs to be a case by case. I think that schools need to hire those that adhere to Church Teaching. This is a definite problem in many Catholic schools. I’m not speaking of those that proudly and arrogantly defy the code of conduct and turn around and try to sue. I’m strictly speaking of the cases which may involve someone that had a lapse of judgement, sinned, and feels remorseful and repents.

That’s like hiring a person to teach swimming that’s afraid of the water. Makes no sense.
And no one in such a position would rightfully believe that they should get the job!

Good analogy and I agree.

Also, when my principal let that “couple” go, he was showing mercy. He could have told all the parents, ranted to the other teachers, and made a scene. He gave them the chance to simply walk away without public judgment. I think he was being kind, given the circumstances.

Yes, I think the principal in this case was very merciful in how he handled it. You said these two teachers went on to marry eachother, divorcing their respective spouses. It doesn’t sound like they were repentant of their actions otherwise it wouldn’t have continued on. Very sad.

 

[phil19034]

Like I said, if she repents and speaks truth regarding Church teaching after making a sacramental confession, there will be no further damage. Unless the mere presence of a pregnant bump is what You consider to be the irreparable “further damage.”. In answer to your question: a nun has taken vows of chastity and is working in a Catholic institution. Although the sins of the Catholic nun and unmarried woman are both grave sins in need of sacramental confession, there is added scandal, by the nature of the vows of the nun. For instance, if an unmarried man and a married man or even a priest all engage in the same sexual sins with women outside of the bonds of matrimony, they have all gravely sinned. However, the married man has also broken his vows with his wife. In the case of the priest, He has violated his priestly vows that he made to God. Such is the case with the nun, she has broken a professed vow she has made to the Church and to God.

Well if she violated the morality code, I think the school deserves an explanation. I wouldn’t necessarily term it “public repentance”.

Wrong. Her sin was forgiven in Confession. The only thing that is left is the natural consequence of a sin that was already forgiven…a baby bump. When I see a baby bump, I don’t think of the “sexual act” that has put it there. I see a growing baby. In your opinion, at what point is she no longer flaunting her sins? Just until the baby is born? With that outlook, why are we encouraging her to not terminate her “sins”? The answer is because the pregnancy isn’t the sin. By staying pregnant, she is giving life to her child. She isn’t “flaunting” anything. I don’t know what you mean by “flaunt”. Is this what you think a woman’s body does by virtue of a bump?
Here is the definition of flaunt according to Webster:
1)to parade or display oneself conspicuously, defiantly, or boldly.
2)to wave conspicuously in the air.

Are you automatically presuming that it’s unrealistic that she will repent and remain chaste from here on out? Do you think it’s unrealistic that she will remain faithful to Church Teaching just because she is pregnant? That isn’t mercy. That is presupposing. And that is sitting in judgment of another person’s soul. Is it our job to wait for a penitent to trip up again as soon as they exit the confessional? I guess I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

I quoted Scripture. That is 2,000 years of solid theology. I also have read Divine Mercy in my Soul by St. Faustina. That is where I get my concept of mercy, I praise God for His Mercy upon us poor sinners. Not one of us deserves it, but He is lavish towards those of us who turn to Him. Is a servant greater than his master? If so, then how should we demonstrate His Mercy differently? Again, I’m not speaking of unrepentant sinners. I’m talking about those who turn to Him with sorrow for their sins?

What about the single teacher who signed a morality clause? He/she is breaking that contract by fornicating.

My brother smoked weed at a party while in the Air Force (he was in his early 20s) and when asked about the party by the Air Force, he was dishonorably discharged. He didn’t get arrested or receive a police record, but he was kicked out of the Air Force. They showed him mercy by not pressing charges or turning him over to the police. But his actions still had consequences.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Divine Mercy. But as Bishop Barron says (during his keynote speech at the World Meeting of Families), we must be 100% dedicated to the Divine Law / Church Law while at the same time being 100% for Mercy.

When we repent of our sins via Confession, it doesn’t automatically get rid of our temporal punishment. The scandal created from our sins doesn’t go away because we are repentant. For example: a repentant murder who was caught by the authorities still needs to go to jail. Just like a repentant fornicator who was “caught” fornicating (by getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant) also has a temporal punishment.

Now you could argue that the baby will be the temporal punishment for the fornication… But there still is the scandal to the children and parents. It’s bad enough when kids have family members and neighbors creating scandal in their lives, but the Church is supposed to be a place where the kids are protected from scandal.

NOTE: perhaps there are situations where the Bishop could simply place a repentant teacher on sabbatical and then move the teacher to another school (as a form of Mercy). However, the Church did that with repentant molester priests, and it backfired. Having subjective exceptions COULD backfire too (esp in today’s litigious society)

God Bless

 

[Boy_Wonder]

It galls me to no end to see a woman teacher fired from a Catholic school for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Unless the circumstances are scandalous, open and notorious, AND she doesn’t seem to care, a pregnant teacher should be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. Fear of losing a teaching job might cause women to abort. The sight of a posse of outraged self-righteous parents, administrators, and clergy or religious getting their way by firing the poor woman, would be enough to drive her out of the church and many students as well. Provided that her demeanor is not defiant, then compassion and dignity are her due. Running her out of the school will do much greater and long term damage to the teacher, her career, and many students who are dismayed by this hypocritical treatment of a woman in trouble.

 

[Evania]

Hi Phil,

Yes, I agree, by fornicating they broke the contract. I’m not excusing the sin by saying that, nor do I have the opinion that what I’m saying should apply to every single teacher in such a situation. I’m just saying in the case of the one who makes a lapse of judgment, received sacramental confession and has a firm purpose of never doing it again, there should be room for discretion used by the administrator. I’m not saying that there should never be consequences, but that sometimes mercy can be used instead in certain cases. I noted some examples in the Gospel, in which mercy was used in similar scenarios. In each case I referenced, the sinner wasn’t reveling in their sins, but was sorrowful for them. By Jewish law, certain things were supposed to be the consequences for the certain sins that were committed; however, mercy was showed in the cases where true repentance was shown.

God bless you too!

 

[phil19034]

Hi Phil,

Yes, I agree, by fornicating they broke the contract. I’m not excusing the sin by saying that, nor do I have the opinion that what I’m saying should apply to every single teacher in such a situation. I’m just saying in the case of the one who makes a lapse of judgment, received sacramental confession and has a firm purpose of never doing it again, there should be room for discretion used by the administrator. I’m not saying that there should never be consequences, but that sometimes mercy can be used instead in certain cases. I noted some examples in the Gospel, in which mercy was used in similar scenarios. In each case I referenced, the sinner wasn’t reveling in their sins, but was sorrowful for them. By Jewish law, certain things were supposed to be the consequences for the certain sins that were committed; however, mercy was showed in the cases where true repentance was shown.

God bless you too!

I don’t disagree that there SHOULD be (in a perfect world) exceptions for a truly repentant person. For example, the Bishop could perhaps keep someone who publicly showed her repentance by becoming a chastity speaker for Catholic schools and parishes (in addition to his/her teaching job)

But the problem I really see are law suits. Allowing subjective exceptions opens a door for an anti-Catholic to shut the whole thing down. American law is pretty black and white, with little room for subjectivity. And even if the Church won every case, the legal fees and bad press would be taxing on the Church.

So as a matter of practice, I fear that exceptions need to be rare.

I also want to be clear for others… It’s not just the woman who gets pregnant. A male teacher who gets a woman pregnant outside wedlock should receive the same punishment.

God bless

BTW - I personally do think that all Church employees should take an annual vow of Chastity (I’m not talking about a perpetual vow, even though all Catholics are called to live a live of Chastity (even married ones).

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What about the single teacher who signed a morality clause? He/she is breaking that contract by fornicating.

My brother smoked weed at a party while in the Air Force (he was in his early 20s) and when asked about the party by the Air Force, he was dishonorably discharged. He didn’t get arrested or receive a police record, but he was kicked out of the Air Force. They showed him mercy by not pressing charges or turning him over to the police. But his actions still had consequences.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Divine Mercy. But as Bishop Barron says (during his keynote speech at the World Meeting of Families), we must be 100% dedicated to the Divine Law / Church Law while at the same time being 100% for Mercy.

When we repent of our sins via Confession, it doesn’t automatically get rid of our temporal punishment. The scandal created from our sins doesn’t go away because we are repentant. For example: a repentant murder who was caught by the authorities still needs to go to jail. Just like a repentant fornicator who was “caught” fornicating (by getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant) also has a temporal punishment.

Now you could argue that the baby will be the temporal punishment for the fornication… But there still is the scandal to the children and parents. It’s bad enough when kids have family members and neighbors creating scandal in their lives, but the Church is supposed to be a place where the kids are protected from scandal.

NOTE: perhaps there are situations where the Bishop could simply place a repentant teacher on sabbatical and then move the teacher to another school (as a form of Mercy). However, the Church did that with repentant molester priests, and it backfired. Having subjective exceptions COULD backfire too (esp in today’s litigious society)

God Bless

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It galls me to no end to see a woman teacher fired from a Catholic school for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Unless the circumstances are scandalous, open and notorious, AND she doesn’t seem to care, a pregnant teacher should be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. Fear of losing a teaching job might cause women to abort. The sight of a posse of outraged self-righteous parents, administrators, and clergy or religious getting their way by firing the poor woman, would be enough to drive her out of the church and many students as well. Provided that her demeanor is not defiant, then compassion and dignity are her due. Running her out of the school will do much greater and long term damage to the teacher, her career, and many students who are dismayed by this hypocritical treatment of a woman in trouble.

If I were a teacher at a school run by you I would love it. I would also know I could not ever be fired!

If I were a parent, I would pull my kids from your school. So, there’s that…

 

[Evania]

If I were a teacher at a school run by you I would love it. I would also know I could not ever be fired!

If I were a parent, I would pull my kids from your school. So, there’s that…

To: Boy Wonder,

I feel differently than HoosierDaddy, although he’s certainly entitled to his opinion.
And plus I want to encourage you and build you up.

If I were a teacher at your school, I would be relieved to know that there was some wiggle room for compassion, and that if I had a coworker that was genuinely sorry for her sins, went to a priest and resolved in her heart that she was going to " go and sin no more", that you would follow Christ’s example in such a case. As a employee, it would be important to me that you would show discretion. Although, admittedly, you would certainly be justified in going by the book, I would be proud that your first response wasn’t automatic justice all the time. As my superior, that would mean a lot to me that you lived out the Beatitudes, because although I personally haven’t sinned in quite the same way as she did, I still know that I am a sinner. And if it wasn’t for God’s grace, I could have.

If I were a parent, I would be thankful that you wouldn’t fire her, because as a pro-life worker who has a tremendous love for babies born and pre-born; I know first hand that you are absolutely right. Women terminate their pregnancies because they think it would fix all their problems, hide the dirty looks and save their jobs. Again, I would be happy that you showed discretion in such an issue and didn’t automatically pick up a stone as the “law” commands. I would be proud to be associated with a school that didn’t say that although their teacher wasn’t fit to teach children, she would be fit to work a night time janitorial position which could cause harm to her pre-born child.

God Bless!

 

[Evania]

But the problem I really see are law suits. Allowing subjective exceptions opens a door for an anti-Catholic to shut the whole thing down. American law is pretty black and white, with little room for subjectivity. And even if the Church won every case, the legal fees and bad press would be taxing on the Church.

So as a matter of practice, I fear that exceptions need to be rare.

You make a really good point here, Phil. However I still think the door should be open for the one who is truly repentant. Realistically speaking, I don’t see every single woman automatically running for a priest, however there are those that do! I know one such person who did just that and is now a married mother of several children, and not only still teaches in the classroom, but also teaches NFP to engaged couples. She was very remorseful to the point of tears afterwards. It was a serious lapse in judgment on her part. Afterwards, she went on to live a chaste life until she met her husband. She is extremely thankful to her principal. To this day, she says that she credits him for giving her that chance to prove herself. if not for that second chance, she says that she likely would have fallen into deep despair at her situation. So yes, I have to agree with you that the exceptions need to be strict. However, I feel that the door shouldn’t completely slam shut on the possibility of redemption. Thank you for bringing up that point!

God bless

BTW - I personally do think that all Church employees should take an annual vow of Chastity (I’m not talking about a perpetual vow, even though all Catholics are called to live a live of Chastity (even married ones).

i think that’s a wonderful idea!

 

[pianistclare]

It galls me to no end to see a woman teacher fired from a Catholic school for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Unless the circumstances are scandalous, open and notorious, AND she doesn’t seem to care, a pregnant teacher should be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. Fear of losing a teaching job might cause women to abort. The sight of a posse of outraged self-righteous parents, administrators, and clergy or religious getting their way by firing the poor woman, would be enough to drive her out of the church and many students as well. Provided that her demeanor is not defiant, then compassion and dignity are her due. Running her out of the school will do much greater and long term damage to the teacher, her career, and many students who are dismayed by this hypocritical treatment of a woman in trouble.

Whoa, you went form zero to like a thousand.
Who formed a posse?
Who was outraged?
No, that’s not what happened at all or would happen, frankly. Most parents in Catholic schools are not interested, frankly.
God has commandments, we’re all called to obey them. The fact is there ARE morality clauses. They have to be enforced. There is no hypocritical treatment. Any damage has been self inflicted. She can be forgiven by God in the confessional. We don’t need to forgive her. It’s not about judgment. Would you want someone who lost their drivers license teaching your kid driver’s ed? No.
You’ve taken this way out of context and blown it up into something that did not happen.
There’s nothing hypocritical about enforcing a contract. Try that in the workplace and see how far you get. You’re be the one shown the door for “freaking out”.

As I said before there are 2 different scenarios.
One, where the community wraps their arms around a person who is in a jam, and another where an employer enforces a contract.
Stick to the facts.