What would be the best solution?

[ToeInTheWater]

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.

I find this quote that describes a baby as “punishment” to be very ironic in light of the outrage directed against then-Senator Obama by pro-lifers, for stating that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby”, now this was a statement he made in favor of abortion, wasn’t it? Hmm.

Now of course, if a teacher at a Catholic school gets pregnant, gets fired, and has an abortion, I guess the easy way out for the supporters of Divine Law and Justice is to simply dismiss her as an unrepentant murdering harlot who’s obviously headed to a hot place, and never deserved any mercy on the first place.

I guess if people are stating “we have to prioritize the well-being of the children in the school over the well-being of the individual” then that makes a little more sense.

ETA: And while so far no one has really addressed the question of how to handle an unwed pregnancy is a result of rape, if we really care about the poor scandalized children first and foremost, then it seems it would be justifiable to fire the rape victim as well. Perhaps using the assumption that “bet it wasn’t real rape, Ms. O wore pretty short skirts after all, better for the children to get her out of their sight”!

 

[Kelfa28]

All Catholic schools should have morality clauses.

If they are supposed to have staff members who uphold the values and teachings of the Church then they need to be held accountable for not doing so.

I’m sorry…but this includes women who become pregnant and have zero intention of marrying the father.
I think the only way a single mom can be public ally repentant is if she and the father marry.

Then she can keep her job.

I know that not all women who get pregnant out of wedlock should Marry the fathers of these children but she still made a choice (rape is not a choice) to disregard the morality contract she signed.

You break the contract and you should be fired.

My oldest started attending a Private Catholic school this past fall and we are paying a lot of money to be sure she is in a school environment that upholds our belief.

I’d be horrified and robbed of my tuition money if there was a scandal that wasn’t dealt with properly.

This is coming from a woman who did have a child out of wedlock, repented and married the father soon after we had her.

 

[Trident_H]

I find this quote that describes a baby as “punishment” to be very ironic in light of the outrage directed against then-Senator Obama by pro-lifers, for stating that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby”, now this was a statement he made in favor of abortion, wasn’t it? Hmm.

Now of course, if a teacher at a Catholic school gets pregnant, gets fired, and has an abortion, I guess the easy way out for the supporters of Divine Law and Justice is to simply dismiss her as an unrepentant murdering harlot who’s obviously headed to a hot place, and never deserved any mercy on the first place.

I guess if people are stating “we have to prioritize the well-being of the children in the school over the well-being of the individual” then that makes a little more sense.

ETA: And while so far no one has really addressed the question of how to handle an unwed pregnancy is a result of rape, if we really care about the poor scandalized children first and foremost, then it seems it would be justifiable to fire the rape victim as well. Perhaps using the assumption that “bet it wasn’t real rape, Ms. O wore pretty short skirts after all, better for the children to get her out of their sight”!

My take on this is that kids wouldn’t care. They wouldn’t think two thoughts about it. I think suspension of the teacher would be a fine path to tread. Give her some mat leave and go from there. Then when the baby’s born and she’s ready to come back that should be the end of it. I don’t know. I think there’s a two-sided sword in this. The danger of making everything meaningless versus the danger of stoking everything up with far too much meaning.

And I mean we’re divisive creatures from the get-go. We’re always ready to carve someone off from the herd. But that doesn’t mean we don’t care about them. Not always. And it doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to cast people aside. Just because they did something that we were lucky enough to avoid doing ourselves. Just because we’d never been stuck in that kind of rut ourselves. Because if we were all judged by the same standards none of us would qualify to teach kids. We’d all be kept on the outside of this.

But at the same time I understand the want and the need to draw a line somewhere. To have some kind of standard. Because otherwise choosing the role models for our kids is pretty meaningless. We want the kids to follow the examples set by the right sort of people. I mean that’s a natural. That’s understandable. So from that line of sight we’d have to do something about it.

So that’s why I’d hug the middle ground on this. I’d go for a suspension. Then a welcoming back. It’s the only thing I can think of.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[phil19034]

I find this quote that describes a baby as “punishment” to be very ironic in light of the outrage directed against then-Senator Obama by pro-lifers, for stating that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby”, now this was a statement he made in favor of abortion, wasn’t it? Hmm.

Now of course, if a teacher at a Catholic school gets pregnant, gets fired, and has an abortion, I guess the easy way out for the supporters of Divine Law and Justice is to simply dismiss her as an unrepentant murdering harlot who’s obviously headed to a hot place, and never deserved any mercy on the first place.

I guess if people are stating “we have to prioritize the well-being of the children in the school over the well-being of the individual” then that makes a little more sense.

ETA: And while so far no one has really addressed the question of how to handle an unwed pregnancy is a result of rape, if we really care about the poor scandalized children first and foremost, then it seems it would be justifiable to fire the rape victim as well. Perhaps using the assumption that “bet it wasn’t real rape, Ms. O wore pretty short skirts after all, better for the children to get her out of their sight”!

First - let me say that I was not supporting that argument, I was simply saying it could be made (by pro-choice or pro-life people).

You wrote: “guess if people are stating ‘we have to prioritize the well-being of the children in the school over the well-being of the individual’ then that makes a little more sense.”

This is exactly the point. Especially, if you make teachers sign a morality clause.

In regards to rape I think there are two ways to handle this (but I don’t have any details worked out) - depending on what the teacher prefers.

1. the easy way is if the teacher decides to make the rape public and becomes a saintly example to us all.
2. the teacher wishes to keep it private. The teacher should then go to her priest (or a priest she trusts) who then should go directly to the Bishop (unless the teacher goes directly to the Bishop). From there, the Bishop will make sure she is not fired and can make a comment like: “Ms Soandso is committed to the virtue of Chastity and did not break her commitment to chastity. Parents should rest assured that Ms. Skandso is 100% committed to Holy Mother Church and their children are safe in her care and example.” (if needed).

Also, a teacher who was raped and wants to keep it private, might want to go on “medical leave” for a while to receive the psychological & spiritual help needed. The Church shouldn’t force her to go on leave, but should make sure that going on paid leave is more than OK to make sure she is emotionally ready to support her new baby.

Again - I don’t have details on who to best handle, but it should be something like this.

God Bless

 

[ToeInTheWater]

All Catholic schools should have morality clauses.

If they are supposed to have staff members who uphold the values and teachings of the Church then they need to be held accountable for not doing so.

I’m sorry…but this includes women who become pregnant and have zero intention of marrying the father.
I think the only way a single mom can be public ally repentant is if she and the father marry.

Then she can keep her job.

I know that not all women who get pregnant out of wedlock should Marry the fathers of these children but she still made a choice (rape is not a choice) to disregard the morality contract she signed.

You break the contract and you should be fired.

So you seem to be stating that rape victims should NOT be “held accountable” because they did not deliberately break their contacts.

However, it seems a case could be made that a rape case could be “scandalous” as well. What if a 1st grade teacher becomes pregnant due to rape. Would the 6 year old kids in her class be able to understand what rape is? I’m sure many parents would NOT want them to be taught about rape at that age.

But if they aren’t told the teacher was raped, then the kids wouldn’t see any difference between that situation, and a situation of pregnancy from consensual sex. And so the same problem of “scandal”, that such children would conclude it’s fine to get pregnant outside marriage, would apply.

If this is merely about treating the mother with justice vs mercy, then of course it would neither be just or merciful to fire a rape victim. But if it’s about “protecting the little ones from scandal”, then it seems firing a rape victim could be justified as well.

ETA: And to counter the predictable claims that I am pulling this off-topic and throwing out extreme situations that are merely hypothetical, that it is very rare for a pregnancy to result from rape; this is the Moral Theology forum. Discussing hypothetical situations seems quite valid for this particular forum.

 

[phil19034]

My take on this is that kids wouldn’t care. They wouldn’t think two thoughts about it. I think suspension of the teacher would be a fine path to tread. Give her some mat leave and go from there. Then when the baby’s born and she’s ready to come back that should be the end of it. I don’t know. I think there’s a two-sided sword in this. The danger of making everything meaningless versus the danger of stoking everything up with far too much meaning.

And I mean we’re divisive creatures from the get-go. We’re always ready to carve someone off from the herd. But that doesn’t mean we don’t care about them. Not always. And it doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to cast people aside. Just because they did something that we were lucky enough to avoid doing ourselves. Just because we’d never been stuck in that kind of rut ourselves. Because if we were all judged by the same standards none of us would qualify to teach kids. We’d all be kept on the outside of this.

But at the same time I understand the want and the need to draw a line somewhere. To have some kind of standard. Because otherwise choosing the role models for our kids is pretty meaningless. We want the kids to follow the examples set by the right sort of people. I mean that’s a natural. That’s understandable. So from that line of sight we’d have to do something about it.

So that’s why I’d hug the middle ground on this. I’d go for a suspension. Then a welcoming back. It’s the only thing I can think of.

Peace.

-Trident

I can accept suspension for a truly repentant teacher, as long as firing the teacher who is not repentant or disagrees with the Church still happens AND as long as a suspended teacher is then fired for the next infraction of the morality code or infraction against Church teaching.

This would show Mercy where needed, yet still being 100% committed to the law.

God Bless!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

All Catholic schools should have morality clauses.

If they are supposed to have staff members who uphold the values and teachings of the Church then they need to be held accountable for not doing so.

I’m sorry…but this includes women who become pregnant and have zero intention of marrying the father.
I think the only way a single mom can be public ally repentant is if she and the father marry.

Then she can keep her job.

I know that not all women who get pregnant out of wedlock should Marry the fathers of these children but she still made a choice (rape is not a choice) to disregard the morality contract she signed.

You break the contract and you should be fired.

My oldest started attending a Private Catholic school this past fall and we are paying a lot of money to be sure she is in a school environment that upholds our belief.

I’d be horrified and robbed of my tuition money if there was a scandal that wasn’t dealt with properly.

This is coming from a woman who did have a child out of wedlock, repented and married the father soon after we had her.

The only way a woman can repent is by marrying the father? Now that’s just silly. What if he won’t marry her? What if upon finding out about the baby he reveals a very dark side of himself that makes him unfit to be a husband and father? You’re insisting that she take responsibility for his sin as well as hers, and making forgiving her contingent upon his actions.

Frankly, school teachers make very little, private school teachers especially so. This woman probably doesn’t have a large savings or the skills required to find another job mid-school year. If I were pregnant and teaching in a Catholic school and I knew my options were carry the baby and lose at least my job and health insurance (if not my apartment, car, etc with no money coming in) or abort and keep my life in tact, I’m aborting. Hands down, not a second thought.

 

[Trident_H]

I can accept suspension for a truly repentant teacher, as long as firing the teacher who is not repentant or disagrees with the Church still happens AND as long as a suspended teacher is then fired for the next infraction of the morality code or infraction against Church teaching.

This would show Mercy where needed, yet still being 100% committed to the law.

God Bless!

Ok. I think we could agree on that score.

 

[Trident_H]

The only way a woman can repent is by marrying the father? Now that’s just silly.

That’s not what she said. It was one way. Not the only way.

What if he won’t marry her? What if upon finding out about the baby he reveals a very dark side of himself that makes him unfit to be a husband and father? You’re insisting that she take responsibility for his sin as well as hers, and making forgiving her contingent upon his actions.

Frankly, school teachers make very little, private school teachers especially so.

No darling.* I *make very little. I’d love to have the salary of a school teacher. The benefits. The holiday time. The works. I’m sure you’d laugh at my paycheck.

This woman probably doesn’t have a large savings or the skills required to find another job mid-school year.

Then she’d be pretty short-sighted to be glossing over her contract conditions right? I mean if I’m told no drinking on the job I don’t get tempted to do it. And if I’m told no toking on the weekend I’m going to play that straight too. If I signed up for that job knowing those details why would I pretend they don’t exist? Especially if I’m desperate for the cash?

If I were pregnant and teaching in a Catholic school

Then someone wasn’t doing a very good job of checking your background I guess.

and I knew my options were carry the baby and lose at least my job and health insurance (if not my apartment, car, etc with no money coming in) or abort and keep my life in tact, I’m aborting. Hands down, not a second thought.

And that’s why you’d hopefully never be found teaching in a Catholic school. Because by willing to abort you’d basically be admitting every day to all of those innocent little kids in front of you that if any one of them had ever gotten in the way of your paycheck you wouldn’t have hesitated. That’s why it’s important to have good role models in this. Self-absorbed types need not apply.

Kelfa’s got the right way in this. Caring about the kid ahead of herself. I know that’s maybe hard for you to understand. I get that. I’m just sorry it’s such murky water. I’m sorry it’s not as obvious as it should be.

-Trident

 

[BlueEyedLady]

d laugh at my paycheck.
Then she’d be pretty short-sighted to be glossing over her contract conditions right? I mean if I’m told no drinking on the job I don’t get tempted to do it. And if I’m told no toking on the weekend I’m going to play that straight too. If I signed up for that job knowing those details why would I pretend they don’t exist? Especially if I’m desperate for the cash?

It’s an unenforceable rule. The rule is not no pregnancy, its no sex out of wedlock. If course, men aren’t held accountable, note are contracepting women. The only time this can be enforced is when a woman gets pregnant and needs her means to support herself and her soon to be baby the most.

The rule is fine, in theory. But in practice, it’s m misogynistic, anti family, anti baby, and anti love, charity, and mercy. It’s cruel and petulant. It doesn’t punish sex, it punishes babies.

And yes, if you make a woman choose between shelter and pregnancy, you make it much more likely she’ll choose survival. You may not think it’s right, but nothing happens in s vacuum, and it’s reality.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

d laugh at my paycheck.
Then she’d be pretty short-sighted to be glossing over her contract conditions right? I mean if I’m told no drinking on the job I don’t get tempted to do it. And if I’m told no toking on the weekend I’m going to play that straight too. If I signed up for that job knowing those details why would I pretend they don’t exist? Especially if I’m desperate for the cash?

It’s an unenforceable rule. The rule is not no pregnancy, its no sex out of wedlock. If course, men aren’t held accountable, note are contracepting women. The only time this can be enforced is when a woman gets pregnant and needs her means to support herself and her soon to be baby the most.

The rule is fine, in theory. But in practice, it’s m misogynistic, anti family, anti baby, and anti love, charity, and mercy. It’s cruel and petulant. It doesn’t punish sex, it punishes babies.

And yes, if you make a woman choose between shelter and pregnancy, you make it much more likely she’ll choose survival. You may not think it’s right, but nothing happens in s vacuum, and it’s reality.

 

[Trident_H]

It’s an unenforceable rule. The rule is not no pregnancy, its no sex out of wedlock. If course, men aren’t held accountable, note are contracepting women. The only time this can be enforced is when a woman gets pregnant and needs her means to support herself and her soon to be baby the most.

The rule is fine, in theory. But in practice, it’s m misogynistic

I don’t see it that way. Someone’s not paying attention to their contract. Someone’s stepped out of bounds. Can you tell if guys are doing it? No. But that’s just bad luck. That doesn’t mean you’re supposed to ignore what evidence you do have when it’s staring you in the face.

, anti family, anti baby, and anti love, charity, and mercy. It’s cruel and petulant. It doesn’t punish sex, it punishes babies.

Why do you care? I mean I don’t get it. You complain that it punishes all these things. But for you the baby’s the first to get killed when the going gets tough. No question. I mean you act like there aren’t charities that help with this very type of situation. Like there’s really no other option.

Would you also come to the defense of the surgeon hooked on cocaine. Justifying why he shouldn’t be fired. Even though it’s no good for his patients. Because if he gets fired over it he won’t have a job anymore? I mean where’s the consequence for actions in this? Where’s the, well why didn’t you think about that before going that way? Not after. I mean why is it always up to the straight-cocked crowd to pick-up all the pieces for the short-sighted group?

I mean even when I was in full-blown alcoholic stupidity I never really blamed my bosses for firing me. I knew it was my fault. I got no gain from trying to play the sympathy card. The after-the-fact-woe-is-me-on-a-binge way out. My fault. My consequence. Too bad.

And yes, if you make a woman choose between shelter and pregnancy, you make it much more likely she’ll choose survival. You may not think it’s right, but nothing happens in s vacuum, and it’s reality.

And that’s why I suggested a suspension. But really. Where’s my sympathy gotten to? Someone’s told not to do something under pain of firing. Does it anyway. Gets fired. Now it’s the employer’s fault? When does it get to be the fault of the person who chose to ignore what would get them fired?

I mean I’m all for compassion. For leniency. For forgiveness. But when it’s warranted. When it’s the way forward after a corrective measure. Not when it’s written into the contract. So that doing wrong has no consequences. So that nothing matters because someone will always cover for your mistakes.

I don’t know. I guess we’re still on opposite sides on this. Sorry about that.

-Trident

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I don’t see it that way. Someone’s not paying attention to their contract. Someone’s stepped out of bounds. Can you tell if guys are doing it? No. But that’s just bad luck. That doesn’t mean you’re supposed to ignore what evidence you do have when it’s staring you in the face.

Why do you care? I mean I don’t get it. You complain that it punishes all these things. But for you the baby’s the first to get killed when the going gets tough. No question. I mean you act like there aren’t charities that help with this very type of situation. Like there’s really no other option.

Would you also come to the defense of the surgeon hooked on cocaine. Justifying why he shouldn’t be fired. Even though it’s no good for his patients. Because if he gets fired over it he won’t have a job anymore? I mean where’s the consequence for actions in this? Where’s the, well why didn’t you think about that before going that way? Not after. I mean why is it always up to the straight-cocked crowd to pick-up all the pieces for the short-sighted group?

I mean even when I was in full-blown alcoholic stupidity I never really blamed my bosses for firing me. I knew it was my fault. I got no gain from trying to play the sympathy card. The after-the-fact-woe-is-me-on-a-binge way out. My fault. My consequence. Too bad.

And that’s why I suggested a suspension. But really. Where’s my sympathy gotten to? Someone’s told not to do something under pain of firing. Does it anyway. Gets fired. Now it’s the employer’s fault? When does it get to be the fault of the person who chose to ignore what would get them fired?

I mean I’m all for compassion. For leniency. For forgiveness. But when it’s warranted. When it’s the way forward after a corrective measure. Not when it’s written into the contract. So that doing wrong has no consequences. So that nothing matters because someone will always cover for your mistakes.

I don’t know. I guess we’re still on opposite sides on this. Sorry about that.

-Trident

You seem really focused on the principles and theory behind this. But principles don’t un-make babies, and they sure as heck don’t feed them. That’s why the church gets publicly reamed every time they do this. Taking someone out of gainful employment, putting then on the streets, and doing so for no other reason than they are about to expect a baby is disgusting. No amount of charity money and clothes are going to make the woman or her child OK. (And I really dig the pro-life “pregnant women might as well be coke addicts,” stance. I’m sure Pope Francis would dig it too)

And that’s why I love this country. Catholic organizations are free to single out pregnant women, and only pregnant women, for life destroying punishment. Likewise, the media, outside observers, and donors are free to say that it’s a cruel display of hypocrisy and make their decisions based on that. And they do.

The decision I would come to is to abort, because homeless and pregnant with no health insurance is a very dangerous situation. Other women may choose differently, but you can be sure that not all will. So you stand on your principles, and I’ll continue to make my choices based on reality.

Proud to be an American.

 

[Trident_H]

You seem really focused on the principles and theory behind this.

Yeah. I know. Principles sort of become a bit of a habit when you’ve been good as long as I have been. I mean I’m saint material here. Just poke me some more. You’ll see the halo show up pretty soon.

But principles don’t un-make babies

No. And a lack of principles don’t get a pass every time they happen. That’s not fair thinking. That’s soft-headedness. That’s wishful thinking. Because if that’s to be the case there’s no real point in having principles. The game’s played the same way whether you’re playing by the rules or just helping yourself to the deck. Nice for someone without principles. But not fair to the rest who are trying hard.

, and they sure as heck don’t feed them.

Good thing Catholic charities do feed them.

That’s why the church gets publicly reamed every time they do this. Taking someone out of gainful employment, putting then on the streets, and doing so for no other reason than they are about to expect a baby is disgusting.

Good thing there’s a balance in this. In this apparent epidemic of unwed mothers getting kicked out of their teaching positions. Good thing Catholic Social Services is there to help. I don’t see the foundation of the Atheists Super Concerned With Babies hanging around though. Oh wait. They’re all at Planned Parenthood. Busy un-planning all the babies.

No amount of charity money and clothes are going to make the woman or her child OK.

Wait. I’ve got to reach for a tissue here. I mean you’ve really got me on this one. No amount of charity money is going to make someone Ok? Well it sure worked pretty good for me. Got me right back on my feet when I needed it.

(And I really dig the pro-life “pregnant women might as well be coke addicts,” stance. I’m sure Pope Francis would dig it too)

You did? Wow. That’s great. Because being a drug addict that’s all I could really think of to equate to what must surely be a sex-addiction on the part of the teacher. You know. That teacher that vowed to be chaste and then. Just. Couldn’t. Manage. That. Level. Of. Commitment.

I mean this is tough stuff. My heart’s right in my mouth on this one.

I’m still a bit confused about why you brought the Pope into this one though. All the way from Italy. I mean is he supposed to be on your side there? Sort of holding up your banner?

And that’s why I love this country. Catholic organizations are free to single out pregnant women, and only pregnant women, for life destroying punishment. Likewise, the media, outside observers, and donors are free to say that it’s a cruel display of hypocrisy and make their decisions based on that. And they do.

The decision I would come to is to abort, because homeless and pregnant with no health insurance is a very dangerous situation. Other women may choose differently, but you can be sure that not all will. So you stand on your principles, and I’ll continue to make my choices based on reality.

Proud to be an American.

Oh. I guess there was no other way out of this. I guess it’s either I’m a Proud American. Or I’m one of those guys with no heart.

Either I’ve got to be the one sweeping up after everyone’s mistakes. Making everything all good. So no one has to take responsibility for their own actions. Or I’m a bastard.

I mean you’ve done a good job trying to unpin the last year’s worth of work I’ve made in getting to where I’m at. Because it wasn’t until I took responsibility for my own actions that I could climb out of the hole I’d dug for myself. It wasn’t until I’d faced the reality that I had to hang my hat on my own consequences that I was able to pivot.

But here you come ready to give me a pat on the head and a shovel. Ready to say that no matter what choices I make in life you’ll be there to help me out. To show me that it’s never my fault. It’s never my problem. And that I don’t really need to worry about it.

So is it Ok if I come and crash at your place the next time I fall to my temptation? The next time I trade my addictions for what’s more important in life. And get evicted? Because I doubt you’d let me in. In fact I doubt you’d let an unwed mother share your house either. Because for all your sanctimonious preaching you have yet to live in the real world. You’ve yet to stumble around that corner.

Your false compassion is nothing that I need. You have no idea. You have no clue as to the harm in this. I wish life was as simple as you paint it. But it’s not.

It’s so easy to preach from the sidelines. But if you actually want to make a difference get into the doing of things. Get into life’s inner workings. And make things matter. Go and volunteer at an unwed women’s shelter. And instead of enabling them to make poor life choices. Instead of just placating them with meaningless platitudes. Help brace them for the reality. That life’s hard. That life takes courage. That you own your mistakes. That it’s Ok to ask for help. But it’s not Ok to just expect it’s something you’re owed.

-Trident

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Let me start by saying that I think that Catholic schools should have morals clauses for their employees.

Scandal should be avoided, so a gay man with a partner would be an example. Or someone living openly with their boyfriend or girlfriend. Or the gangster teaching CCD

But, pregnancy isn’t outside of marriage isn’t a sin, the premarital sex is sinful.

So if a teacher were to go around and tell the children, “I’m pregnant and I’m not married, no one needs a husband, aren’t I a liberated woman?” then I see the problem.

But if the woman committed a sin and repented, scandal can be avoided. It could be prolife witness to the children, “Miss Smith is going to have a baby, having a baby on her own is a very difficult path to be on but she chose life.”

In my own life, I’ve had to discuss divorce and remarriage , single motherhood, cohabitation to my to my children often before they got to school. (family members that one cannot shelter children from)

Just yesterday, I took my youngest to the pediatrician. Our practice is pretty large, and the doctor seeing him for his sick visit was new to us. She was very pregnant. My son looked at her wide eyed and asked me when she stepped out of the room, “Does she have a baby in there?” “Yes she does.” I have no clue of her marital status. My son recognized a pregnant woman and realized “baby”.

I worked as a teacher in a Catholic high school a long while ago. There was a single mom math teacher there. I wasn’t aware of the circumstances of her pregnancy. I just knew that she lived alone with her son, and had a very hard time. The girls also realized that the teacher had a hard time and was struggling. It wasn’t glamorous.

That particular HS had started off about 100 years prior as a home and school for unwed mothers. So I guess that was part of the reason this teacher was welcomed.

 

[angell1]

All Catholic school teachers are required to sign a morality clause, at least around here to prevent these sorts of things. It should not be a surprise to anyone that certain standards are to be maintained.
If someone gets pregnant while in their employ, it’s a pretty recent development.
Catholic school is not simply private school. It is supposed to uphold Gospel values. And while the leadership may feel great compassion for the young woman and indeed for the unborn child, she did sign that she would uphold the teachings of the Church and model them for the children and families.

just a quick followup question about this, does violating the morality clause once mean you can never teach in a catholic school again?

let’s say hypothetical unwed mother repents and wishes to apply to a different school a few years later

does simply being a single mother disaqualify a person from being a teacher?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

just a quick followup question about this, does violating the morality clause once mean you can never teach in a catholic school again?

let’s say hypothetical unwed mother repents and wishes to apply to a different school a few years later

does simply being a single mother disaqualify a person from being a teacher?

Each job is a new contract. Violation of one schools clause is not binding on another. This could cause complications if it is a diocese that you sign the clause with.

But all that being said, any future employer should vet any employee well. And that includes their past experiences as a teacher.

 

[Evania]

It’s an unenforceable rule. The rule is not no pregnancy, its no sex out of wedlock. If course, men aren’t held accountable, note are contracepting women. The only time this can be enforced is when a woman gets pregnant and needs her means to support herself and her soon to be baby the most.

The rule is fine, in theory. But in practice, it’s m misogynistic, anti family, anti baby, and anti love, charity, and mercy. It’s cruel and petulant. It doesn’t punish sex, it punishes babies.

And yes, if you make a woman choose between shelter and pregnancy, you make it much more likely she’ll choose survival. You may not think it’s right, but nothing happens in s vacuum, and it’s reality.

This is a very good point that is getting ignored or glossed over. Does this rule only apply to the women who are pro-life and choose to not abort their child? How can this same exact rule be enforced against male teachers who do the exact same thing? What about teachers who choose to contracept/ pro choice women? So far the only answer that I’ve seen addressing this is “Sorry, bad luck.” Either way, the fact is that this will only be enforced against the teachers who are pro-life, and I don’t want to make a decision against life appear favorable to her sitiuation in any way, shape or form.

To be honest though, I think there is a solution. However, it’s long term, and will require us to step outside the box a minute and look at the bigger picture in order to fix it. We all hopefully agree on the point that Catholic schools need to hire Catholics that uphold Church teaching in regards to faith and morals. We agree on that? Good.

Here’s what we need to address: According to recent polls, a majority of Catholics believe in using contraception which is a mortal sin. A lot of Catholics aren’t even clear on what a mortal sin consists of and why we should not receive Communion without the sacrament of Reconciliation. There was a poll that was posted on a Catholic website that sadly, most Catholics regard the Eucharist as only a “symbol” and not the Body and Blood of Christ. A great number of Catholics are also cohabitating before marriage. Then we also have to acknowledge that sex education is taught in Catholic schools in sixth grade, including information regarding use of contraception due to governmental funding that many schools receive. What about the Catholic colleges that don’t uphold Church teaching? There are several such colleges which have completely lost their Catholic identity. I’m not going on a diatribe to switch topics, but to show that this is linked to the problem we are discussing. The above problems need to be addressed because this the next generation of our Church. These people will become our priests, nuns and teachers.

Firing only the teachers that carry their child to term is a band-aid fix to a greater problem. We need better catchesis in our schools, and also quite honestly in many of our parishes.

Blessings!

 

[BornInMarch]

Let her keep her job.

By firing a teacher for getting pregnant out of wedlock, the only lesson being conveyed to the students is that slip ups and mistakes (things everybody makes) will be neither tolerated nor forgiven. God forbid one of that woman’s students was conceived in wedlock …

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Let her keep her job.

By firing a teacher for getting pregnant out of wedlock, the only lesson being conveyed to the students is that slip ups and mistakes (things everybody makes) will be neither tolerated nor forgiven. God forbid one of that woman’s students was conceived in wedlock …

Pretty much. Because the only people who get punished are women who get pregnant, the message is clear: An abortion we don’t know about is preferable to a child that we have to see.