A private organization has a right to have its employees abide by its rules. The fact that the NYCLU points out that the rule is not enforced against men is irrelevant.
Honestly, I think this is just getting ridiculous. She expected to be an unmarried, pregnant teacher at a Catholic school? I'm surprised they didn't fire her for doing drugs, since you'd have to be stoned to think that was ever going to happen.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I don't like that she got fired, but they weren't being "pro abortion."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, starLisa, one's brain would have to be fryin' to believe that punishing a woman for being pregnant is pro-life.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I don't know where that "pro-abortion" thing came from. They're not "pro-abortion." What they are is "anti-pre-marital sex." This case is about gender bias, not abortion.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't think the firing had anything at all with being pro-choice or pro-life.
It had to do with the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Period.
-pH
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Yeah, the abortion angle is pretty strained. Yes, lady, if you'd made an even worse decision in order to cover up your first bad decision, you could have kept your job. That is true in a lot of situations. Doesn't make it right. That's one of the costs of honesty and integrity — you deal with the consequences of your choices.
And honestly, if a male teacher had been involved in a moral scandal that he couldn't hide for some reason or another, he would be fired. If a woman was involved in a moral scandal that she couldn't hide for reasons other than pregnancy, she would be fired. The fact that all the allegations about "if she were male ..." or "if she got an abortion ..." are coming from the plaintiffs in the article indicates to me that the school holds no such positions.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
How much more pro-abortion can one get than depriving a woman of the means to feed her future child for being pregnant?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Now, it does depend on the school what level of "visible immorality" they'll tolerate (we had problems with that once at the Catholic school I worked at; a teacher who should have been long gone was not, and it was causing problems for the other staff and the students. That principal was bad news. Anyway...)
But I think I agree, if a male teacher had been visibly a drug abuser, he would have been fired, too.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:How much more pro-abortion can one get than depriving a woman of the means to feed her future child for being pregnant?
That's not what happened-- they refused to let her teach at a Catholic school. Public schools are obviously letting her work, since she is currently working for them.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yes, but if the male teacher had been the unmarried father of the child, would he have been fired?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
aspectre, I think the error in your logic is your assumption that abortion is the only means of not-being-pregnant.
This woman wasn't given an ultimatum to abort or lose her job. Abortion was not an option that was offered to her by her employers, and it was not the only way to avoid expulsion. In fact, if she had had an abortion, and her employers had found out about it, I'm pretty sure she would have been fired for that, too.
Abiding by a Catholic code of conduct is the only way she could have safely avoided this situation, and that is the behavior that her employers are trying to promote.
Angry as you are, passion does not make your argument logical.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Yes, but if the male teacher had been the unmarried father of the child, would he have been fired?
If it was proven, at the school I was at, yes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:In fact, if she had had an abortion, and her employers had found out about it, I'm pretty sure she would have been fired for that, too.
I agree.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Yes, but if the male teacher had been the unmarried father of the child, would he have been fired?
If it were known by the student body at large, then I would say, definitely yes, given their past actions. If it were entirely a private matter, then it's hard to say, given that this situation has not, to our knowledge, arisen at this particular school.
It's easy to say, "If she were male, this wouldn't be happening!" when she is not male, and we have no evidence to go on, other than prejudice against authorities in organized religions, and the assumption that they are all judgmental misogynists.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Dan_raven, sadly enough, I'd guess the answer to that is "probably not." Unless it was made public and became a scandal they couldn't keep from the parents of their students.
But I agree with those who say that this case is not about abortion. The school has the right to fire a teacher who is clearly in violation of the code of conduct they teach.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
It seems that she got very comfortable behaving in a decidedly non-Catholic manner in her private life, then putting on a false public front at work, to preserve the impression that she lived as an orthodox Catholic. Then when she reached a point where she could not maintain her hypocrisy any longer, she lashed out and blamed other people for a situation she herself created. It's pathetic.
You'd think that some people would be more annoyed at the religious hypocrite in this story than at the people who caught her.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I'm waiting for someone to sue God or evolution for discriminating against women by making them be the ones who get pregnant When that happens, I'll make a similar suit over all the times I've slipped off my bicycle seat, and suffered much more pain than a woman ever would have ...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Is she Catholic? I wasn't sure about that-- we had non-Catholic employees at the school I worked at. Including me. We all had to sign the same code of conduct, though.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, starLisa, one's brain would have to be fryin' to believe that punishing a woman for being pregnant is pro-life.
That's stupid. They didn't fire her for being pregnant, they fired her for getting pregnant. You know, the premarital sex being against Catholic laws, traditions, doctrines, etc.
I mean it's obviously reprehensible for a school to require its teachers to live up to some of the most basic aspects of good conduct when they're trying to impart such things to children. Scandalous!
quote:No, starLisa, one's brain would have to be fryin' to believe that punishing a woman for being pregnant is pro-life.
So what, supporting any social stigma against unmarried pregnancies equals being pro-choice? Nonsense. You can still try to discourage the one via social stigma while still encouraging a woman (or ideally a couple) to have the child once the bun starts cookin'.
quote:How much more pro-abortion can one get than depriving a woman of the means to feed her future child for being pregnant?
This is a lie. They have not deprived her of the means to support her future child. They have deprived her of one method of doing so. It's not as though it was a Catholic school on a desert island.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Where does grace enter into this? I think the problem is not that the school discriminated, but that they failed to extend grace.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, Puppy, the error is in saying that pregnancy should be punished. While it is true that Bishop DiMarzio's ruling only applies to that particular diocese, it is also true that it demonstrates his desire that society as a whole find unmarried pregnant women to be too morally corrupt to employ. That being the case, the rest of the diocese argument is so much hot air. If being in favor of abortion by starvation isn't hardcore pro-abortion, what is?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
aspectre, you're not listening to anything we say. So I'm going to stop trying to reason with you.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You all are not listening to what you all are saying, so I'm not surprised that you all can't explain your reasoning.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Millions upon millions of RomanCatholic women are having premarital sex, Rakeesh. So the punishment is for being pregnant.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
"if a male teacher had been involved in a moral scandal that he couldn't hide for some reason or another"
". . . what level of " visible immorality" they'll tolerate . . . "
"Yes, but if the male teacher had been the unmarried father of the child, would he have been fired? . . . If it was proven . . ."
*******************************************
All right - those top three comments disturb me greatly. Basically, my reading of those thoughts are that as long as your immorality/sin/breakage of tradition IS NOT SEEN (i.e., you don't get caught) it's not such a big deal. That's a rather nauseating viewpoint, I think. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting . . .
*********************************************
"But I agree with those who say that this case is not about abortion. The school has the right to fire a teacher who is clearly in violation of the code of conduct they teach."
Absolutely. I agree 100%. She didn't follow the code of conduct that was attached to the job and is now teaching elsewhere. That's life.
********************************************
*shrugs*
Wow.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:You all are not listening to what you all are saying, so I'm not surprised that you all can't explain your reasoning.
Wait, we're not the ones having trouble persuading a roomful of people that our arguments make any sense, aspectre
quote:No, Puppy, the error is in saying that pregnancy should be punished.
Pregnancy is not being punished here. Unwed sex is being punished. The pregnancy is only evidence in the case.
That's like saying a murderer might be sent to death row for the crime of tracking someone else's blood on his own carpet. Shouldn't he have the right to track blood wherever he wants in his own home? Well, yes, but when it is evidence of a prior misdeed, and it is noticed, it can get him in trouble for the prior misdeed.
If this woman were sufficiently obese, she also might have concealed the pregnancy with a well-timed vacation and feigned illness. In your mind, is this expulsion also a punishment for dieting?
I'm terribly sorry that women suffer from the biological disadvantage of having a more difficult time concealing their sexual escapades from public scrutiny. However, that is an inequality you must take up with God or the forces of nature.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shan,
How are they going to fire someone for something they don't know about? Or can't prove?
While I don't agree with this firing, it isn't (as has been suggested) about some priest trying to force a woman to have an abortion.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I didn't say it was about some woman being forced to have an abortion.
My dismay and shock is the attitude that says as long as you are lucky enough to not get caught, it doesn't matter.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:While it is true that Bishop DiMarzio's ruling only applies to that particular diocese, it is also true that it demonstrates his desire that society as a whole find unmarried pregnant women to be too morally corrupt to employ.
I just caught this feat of mind-reading on my second skim through your post, aspectre. Given that this bishop is an ecclesiastical authority, can you demonstrate to me how his ruling in an ecclesiastical case indicates some dark, hidden desire to apply his ruling to society as a whole? Did he attempt to blacklist her in any way? Is he a part of any kind of ongoing campaign to prevent single mothers from working? If not, I'd say that either you are a telepath, or you're just making things up.
quote:All right - those top three comments disturb me greatly. Basically, my reading of those thoughts are that as long as your immorality/sin/breakage of tradition IS NOT SEEN (i.e., you don't get caught) it's not such a big deal. That's a rather nauseating viewpoint, I think. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting . . .
Shan, in the case of my quote, you're misinterpreting. My point was that, since this particular case is visible, we can therefore assume that in other, similarly-visible cases, the school authorities would react in the same way.
It is hard to say what they would do in a case where the teacher's moral conduct is not visible, because we have no examples to back up our assertions. That was my only point. Not that hidden moral corruption, in general, somehow matters less. If anything, I think I came off pretty strongly against hypocrisy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:However, that is an inequality you must take up with God or the forces of nature.
Pssst...don't actually do this. I tried it and I'm still getting over a really nasty case of the boils. God's actually pretty cool about it but those forces of nature can be real bastards.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
aspectre,
quote:While it is true that Bishop DiMarzio's ruling only applies to that particular diocese, it is also true that it demonstrates his desire that society as a whole find unmarried pregnant women to be too morally corrupt to employ.
The only thing this particular ruling demonstrates is the Bishop's belief that the woman is too "morally corrupt" for this particular job for these particular employers. The Bishop hasn't said, "No good Catholic should employ this woman," so you're just spouting off nonsense.
quote:Millions upon millions of RomanCatholic women are having premarital sex, Rakeesh. So the punishment is for being pregnant.
Yes, and in fact when it is proven that they are having premarital sex as it is in this case, then they are chastised as well. The situation becomes different when they're working directly for the Man though, so to speak.
Also, those millions and millions of women are not working as teachers for a private Catholic school that is actively attempting to pass on its own traditions to the students. Keeping her employed as their teacher while she was not married would obviously directly contradict that effort.
quote:You all are not listening to what you all are saying, so I'm not surprised that you all can't explain your reasoning.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, but yes, Shan, it is a harsh fact of life that people who are willing to lie and hide their sins are more likely to get away without social consequences. It's a fact of life that plagues those with honesty and intergrity, and makes the world seem very unfair. However, I think that in the long run, the honest win out by earning a kind of respect (even if it is only self-respect) that self-serving liars and hypocrites never receive.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thank you for the clarification. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The title of this thread suggests that.
I'm appalled at the attitude as well, but what, practically, can they do as far as keeping people from getting away with it. That women sometimes have more obvious repercussions from illicit sex is a fact of biology.
That said, I will reiterate that I think firing someone for having sex without being married is wrong and archaic.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, that was pretty funny Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shan,
I expect that your interpretation is not actually a reflection of how she feels morally, but rather what she feels would happen publicly.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:That said, I will reiterate that I think firing someone for having sex without being married is wrong and archaic.
If you think that simply having a moral taboo against pre-marital sex is wrong and archaic, then that's a whole nother argument.
But if a major part of your job is to teach a moral system that includes such a taboo, then blatantly violating that taboo sabotages your ability to do your job, the way that showing up drunk or high sabotages your ability to work as an operator of heavy machinery. In both cases, firing is an understandable reaction by your employers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:God's actually pretty cool about it but those forces of nature can be real bastards
.
*rimshot* Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy,
I do think that the moral taboo against pre-marital sex is wrong and archaic.
More importantly though, I keep hoping that the Catholic Church would consider that the lessons of forgivness, of not judging, and of the aforementioned grace, might be even more worth teaching.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, Puppy, I have to admit that when I first read those initial statements and then the one about taking up the "injustices" with the Good Lord himself or nature, my mind immediately flashed upon certain other social injustices that have since been remedied, such as disallowing priesthood to men with the wrong color skin.
Personally, I think it is the choice of the individual as to their conduct, which of course leads to their responsibility for taking the consequences of their choice. In this person's case, she took a position in a school that has its' roots in a tradition and doctrine that very strongly believes a certain way, and then bucked the code, and that cost her - not the institution -
However, I still think there's a certain societal injustice in the "oh well" attitude of "too bad YOUR oopsie shows so clearly - better luck next time."
Just thinking out loud here . . .
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Ahem...
So, if she had gone to confession, admitted to the sin of premarital sex, and faithfully followed her penance, she would have been allowed to keep her job?...
...So the parishes and archdiocese that allowed clergy with acknowledged records of child abuse to retain their positions, and covered for them, aren't a suggestion of a double standard?...
The problem, and where I think the NYCLU definitely does have a case, is "a teacher is required to convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions, demonstrating an acceptance of Gospel values and the Christian tradition" is incredibly vague and lends itself to arbitrary abuse. A teacher could be dismissed for taking God's name in vain, or not dismissed despite a pattern of extramarital sexual relationships outside of work.
Students at the level this teacher was teaching (pre-kindergarten) are never going to ask whether their pregnant teacher is married or not. That makes this matter not one of what this teacher is conveying to her students, but of public perception, and that's troubling.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A question for the people who are arguing that the school should have shown grace: I know of (Protestant) clergy who were caught having affairs with parishioners, in violation of both parties’ marriage vows and in one case with a parishioner that the pastor had been counseling. They used the same argument – that they should not forfeit their credentials, though they had violated their ordination vows as well as their marriage vows, because the church is supposed to demonstrate forgiveness and grace. Do you agree?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is another issue with pastor/parisioner and counselor/counseled relationships that comes into the picture. This kind of relationship can be an abuse of a power relationship.
In the case of the broken marriage vows (sounds like a weird Nancy Drew book), I think the issue is one of vow breaking rather than sex. While I don't have a problem with pre-marital sex, I do have a problem with hurting other people - especially those with who you have a special relationship of trust, i.e. a pastor. I think that the trust issue would likely be a sufficient reason for pastoral reassignment. With the problem of trust and hurt, it would be pretty difficult for the pastor to be effective.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Reassignment, or suspension?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Students at the level this teacher was teaching (pre-kindergarten) are never going to ask whether their pregnant teacher is married or not. That makes this matter not one of what this teacher is conveying to her students, but of public perception, and that's troubling.
Ummm...how many preschoolers are you around on a regular basis?
Young kids are more likely to ask all kinds of questions, and don't forget there are parents involved too. All it takes is one kid coming home and talking about teacher's belly getting big and how there's a baby in there and parents will know. I assume most people know enough about the teachers of their kids to know if they're married or not, I certainly do.
And it is about what morals she's conveying to the kids - do you really think a preschooler won't ask "Ms. Smith, why are you having a baby and you're not married?" I can tell you they will ask such questions, and do. And a four year old coming home and telling his mother "Teacher is having a baby but she's not married, and didn't you tell me, Mom that you have to be married to have a baby?" For parents that expected the school they are paying good money to send their kids to will employ people who exhibit a high manner of moral character according to their religious values - that would be highly upsetting.
Do I like the fact that a pregnant woman was fired? No, I do not. I feel for her and hope she gets hired somewhere else soon. But do I think the school had both the right, and reason to do what they did? Yes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think a pastor who so abuses their position and disregards the gospel they are supposed to be preaching should no longer be in that position and should no longer be (officially) preaching.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: No, starLisa, one's brain would have to be fryin' to believe that punishing a woman for being pregnant is pro-life.
So you want to spin it as them punishing her for being pregnant. But you know that's not why they punished her. You know that extra-marital sex is a no-no. You know they can't have someone who is essentially wearing an "I have sex without being married" ribbon teaching in a school that is opposed to such a thing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: How much more pro-abortion can one get than depriving a woman of the means to feed her future child for being pregnant?
That's argument-by-intimidation. "Let me behave in a way that's contrary to your morality, or I'll do something else that's contrary to your morality! And stamp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue, too. Hmmph!"
She made a mistake. She got busted. Bummer for her, but it's totally a fair cop.
Is it fair that guys can screw around and not have it show? Sure is. I'll bring that up at the next God meeting. But fair or not, it is the way we're made.
This is a case that's being used by the anti-religious as an attack. It has no validity whatsoever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shan, was that question for me? Going back to the question of grace, repentance etc., reassignment unless the pastor shows a general inclination toward this.
If this is a backwards way into the subject of priests who abuse children, let me say that raping children is a very different issue than an affair between consenting adults.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I'm waiting for someone to sue God or evolution for discriminating against women by making them be the ones who get pregnant When that happens, I'll make a similar suit over all the times I've slipped off my bicycle seat, and suffered much more pain than a woman ever would have ...
I've always thought that the boys having the bike with the bar was a little strange.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Millions upon millions of RomanCatholic women are having premarital sex, Rakeesh. So the punishment is for being pregnant.
The punishment is for getting caught. Just like cheating on taxes. Lots of people do it, and only those who get caught get punished. Lots of people steal, and only those who get caught get punished.
Sheesh.
And this isn't even about punishing her. They have a responsibility to teach the values that they claim to teach. How on earth are they supposed to do that when one of their representatives to the kids they teach is a counter-example?
You're being completely unreasonable. Irrational, in fact.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: "if a male teacher had been involved in a moral scandal that he couldn't hide for some reason or another"
". . . what level of " visible immorality" they'll tolerate . . . "
"Yes, but if the male teacher had been the unmarried father of the child, would he have been fired? . . . If it was proven . . ."
*******************************************
All right - those top three comments disturb me greatly. Basically, my reading of those thoughts are that as long as your immorality/sin/breakage of tradition IS NOT SEEN (i.e., you don't get caught) it's not such a big deal. That's a rather nauseating viewpoint, I think. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting . . .
It's not that it's okay if you don't get caught. It's that of course they can't punish you if they don't know there's something to punish.
What is going on with some people?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: "Ms. Smith, why are you having a baby and you're not married?"
I think a pre-school child who asks this particular question was probably prompted by someone.
I can certainly see a child of that age asking about pregnancy. But the marital status of the person?
It troubles me that the message the Catholic Church seems to be sending these days is not that they're upright and morally sound, but that they're willing to do things to make themselves seem so on a surface level even if that betrays their values on a deeper level.
The principal value of Catholicism is not indignation, it's reconciliation.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that there is another issue with pastor/parisioner and counselor/counseled relationships that comes into the picture. This kind of relationship can be an abuse of a power relationship . . . I do have a problem with hurting other people - especially those with who you have a special relationship of trust, i.e. a pastor. I think that the trust issue would likely be a sufficient reason for pastoral reassignment. With the problem of trust and hurt, it would be pretty difficult for the pastor to be effective.
kmbboots - I think anyone here will hasten to tell you I am pretty straightforward, so you can stop looking for hidden messages, ideas, etc., in my comments *grin* I don't tend to go backwards into any discussion.
I think your thoughts about the trust issue are on the ball - and given that being a pastor implies a large amount of power and the need for trust between pastor and parishioner, I am not sure that simple reassignment is going to do the trick. That's all . . .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're kidding yourself, Sterling. I remember in pre- and elementary school asking and listening to other children ask all sorts of questions about their teachers.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sterling, we'll just have to disagree.
I know that when my mother divorced, my then-four year old asked her why she wasn't living with someone any more because she was a grown up and was supposed to be married.
When my Mom was describing a co-worker who was pregnant and mentioned she wasn't married, the four year old that overheard said "When is she getting married?" My mom (who didn't even know she overheard us) said I don't know, and the child answered "she has to get married, you can't have babies without a daddy, so she has to marry a daddy."
These are kids that didn't understand sex or reproduction but did have a strong correlation in their minds that babies are born into marriages, and anything that deviated from that pattern was certainly open for comment.
So, I have no trouble at all imagining preschool kids questioning the marital status of their teacher.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, basically the woman was fired for not living up to Catholic codes of conduct. I wonder, if the shoe was on the other foot, if people would be so quick to take the side of the school.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shan,
I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Please take my response as an indication of how strongly I feel about the reassignment of abusive priests - it is sort of a trigger word, I guess. Thanks for the reassurance - I will remember it.
I think that if the pastor is repentant that reassignment would be enough - assuming it is to a parish far enough away that the gossip wouldn't have followed him or her.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Very well. But you would probably also grant that the four-year-olds aren't asking the same question that, say, a thirty year old asking that question would. If you told a four-year-old that you hadn't met her baby's daddy but you sure there was one somewhere, that would probably suffice.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:All right - those top three comments disturb me greatly. Basically, my reading of those thoughts are that as long as your immorality/sin/breakage of tradition IS NOT SEEN (i.e., you don't get caught) it's not such a big deal. That's a rather nauseating viewpoint, I think. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting . . .
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you have to have reasonable proof of an act before you punish someone for it. Pregnancy in an unwed woman (when she has not said she was raped) is pretty clear proof of extra-marital sex. (If she was raped, that would be a totally different issue. But she hasn't said or even implied that she was.) It's a little harder to prove a man's involvement of an affair. But I'd say the "two or three witnesses" thing would apply here-- if the woman implicates him and there's another credible witness or two, or she is pregnant and DNA proves that the baby is his, or he confesses, then he should be fired as well. If a hypothetical man came to the principal and confessed that he was the father of a baby and he was unwed, I bet he would be fired. But this woman apparently confessed because she knew she couldn't hide it; I don't think our hypothetical man would go and voluntarily confess that kind of thing unless it was about to come out somehow, like a newspaper article or something. There's gender imbalance here, but it's inherent in women being the ones who get pregnant and pregnancy being a visible condition, unfortunately.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
dkw,
quote: A question for the people who are arguing that the school should have shown grace: I know of (Protestant) clergy who were caught having affairs with parishioners, in violation of both parties’ marriage vows and in one case with a parishioner that the pastor had been counseling. They used the same argument – that they should not forfeit their credentials, though they had violated their ordination vows as well as their marriage vows, because the church is supposed to demonstrate forgiveness and grace. Do you agree?
You have more experience with this. What is your opinion?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:
posted November 22, 2005 04:35 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A question for the people who are arguing that the school should have shown grace: I know of (Protestant) clergy who were caught having affairs with parishioners, in violation of both parties’ marriage vows and in one case with a parishioner that the pastor had been counseling. They used the same argument – that they should not forfeit their credentials, though they had violated their ordination vows as well as their marriage vows, because the church is supposed to demonstrate forgiveness and grace. Do you agree?
It's tough and has lots of shades for me. If either party were married I'd lean more toward dismissing the pastor. But if both were unmarried, say dating, I'd be more inclined toward another disciplinary action and/or re-assingment.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Very well. But you would probably also grant that the four-year-olds aren't asking the same question that, say, a thirty year old asking that question would.
However, once the four year old starts asking questions the questions from their 30 year old parents can't be far behind.
We can't lose sight that the school didn't dismiss her to appease four years olds. Four year olds don't pay private school tuitions - their parents do. The parents signed up to pay for this school with the understanding that the staff would be held to a standard based on Catholic Christian values. Failing to let go a teacher who was in known violation of those standards puts the school in a bad situation with the parents, not the kids. And the support of the parents they cannot afford to lose.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
romanylass,
What about other sins? Swearing? Coveting? Working on the Sabbath?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I draw the line at a sin that betrays the trust in the office. Certainly having affairs with parishioners fits into that category.
A preacher who in a bad moment swears - would receive my forgiveness before he had to ask for it. I know I've slipped up and said things I shouldn't say as well, we're all human.
But if he abuses his position, especially if he's in a position of power over someone and in a counselling situation that certainly applies, that moves beyond into a realm where I would say he is no longer fit to carry out his duties because he's betrayed the trust of the office.
I would forgive him personally, as a man, but I would not want him to be my pastor anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Belle,
I agree with the power/abuse argument (see previous comments) but what about dating? A consensual, non-marriage violating relationship?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: What about other sins? Swearing? Coveting? Working on the Sabbath?
Swearing? I guess it wouldn't even bother me, unless they were swearing around children.
Coveting? How could I tell?
Working on the Sabbath? Er, I expect a pastor to do that!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Working not in an official capacity - say house repair. Not keeping the Sabbath holy. I guess I'm asking, why does dating (consensual, non-marriage violating) bother you enough to discipline a pastor when other 10 commandment breaking sins do not.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Did someone have a problem with dating? Dating and extra-marital sex are different.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
For me, the problem isn't just that the pastor is breaking one of the 10 commandments. It's that the pastor is breaking a vow they made to the church as a condition of their employement. I believe that for most denominations expectations and consequences are spelled out very clearly before you take the job. If that is the case, I would expect the church leadership to follow through with the stated consequences.
As far as the questions of forgiveness and grace. . . I do think there are benefits to approaching issues on a case-by-case basis. If church policy allows lenancy, my personal inclinations would be as follows:
If a pastor is activly arguing that they should be treated with forgiveness and given a second chance, I'd fire them straight off. If they said something along the lines of: "I understand what I did was wrong, and I am deeply sorry for it. Here are some of the things I am doing to fix the problems that led to this mistake on my part: (Marriage counselling, therapy, ethics classes at a seminary, whatever seems appropriate to the situation and helpful.) If given a second chance, I will strive to fully uphold my vows in the future, but if that is not possible I will face the consequences of my actions," however, I would consider keeping them on in a probationary status, contingent on them following through with a mutually agreed on plan including some mixture of counselling and ethics education and regular meetings with a mentor pastor for a period of time.
That is for a mutually consentual affair outside of a pastor/parishioner counselling relationship. If there were additional power dynamics involved, I would be more inclined towards revoking credentials for a first offense. A second offense, of any sort, would lead to credentials being revoked with no further recourse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
romanylass - see above. My question was mostly for her. Not to pick on her - just to clarify. I just don't see sex as a sin if it doesn't cause hurt. Now there are all sorts of ways that indescriminate sex can cause hurt, it is a big thing. But two unmarried, consenting, adults having sexual relationship just isn't a problem for me. I don't get it.
Is this too far off topic?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
If it's something their church teaches against, they shouldn't be doing it. They're in a position to set examples for the church.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure what vows Protestant clergy make upon ordination? Would they preclude pre-marital sex? Other sins?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, yes, ketchupqueen. My point earlier is that I wished the school in question had set a better example.
(edit) For some reason that sounds snarky because I used your name. Not sure why. Didn't intend that. Just wanted to clear who I was answering.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
...
I don't get that. She broke the rules. She violated her contract. She's supposed to be setting an example of Catholic values to young children, and having sex outside of marriage and all the attendant issues doesn't qualify as doing that.
The school is setting a good example, IMO-- they're standing up for the values and examples taught to the children who attend the school.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think forgiveness and charity are more important Catholic values than abstinence.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Did they do it in an unkind manner? Did they deny her religious forgiveness/absolvement/whatever? Forgiveness is not the same as escaping consequences.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't know the specifics. And as was discussed earlier in this thread, she didn't sound particularly repentant. And the school was in its rights to fire her.
But as a general practice, it makes me sad.
More tomorrow - I must go and shop for pie fixin's
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kmbboots, yes, Protestant clergy are expected to abstain from non-marital sex. I personally agree with you that non-marital sex is not necessarily a bad thing, although it can be. But it is something that clergy have agreed not to do, as a condition of employment. So they can work within the system to change that if they don't feel it's just or they can not become clergy. They should not knowingly break the rules and expect to be able to avoid the consequences.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I can’t answer for all protestant denominations, but in the UMC part of the examination of clergy candidates includes the following: “For the sake of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world and the most effective witness to the Christian gospel and in consideration of your influence as an ordained minister are you willing to make a complete dedication of yourself to the highest ideals of the Christian life and to this end will you agree to exercise responsible self control by personal habits conducive to physical health, intentional intellectual development, fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness, integrity in all personal relationships, social responsibility, and growth in grace and the knowledge and love of God?”
As far as what to do with people who don’t live it out – I honestly don’t know. There are some cases I think are clearer than others, particularly those involving counselor/counselee relationships which are illegal in some states (where clergy involved in counseling are held to the same standards as mental health professionals).
But I think that qualification for a particular position must to a great extent be separate from the question of forgiveness/grace.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, what, exactly, are the kids learning from this particular episode? I wonder what they'll be told when they ask where their wonderful teacher went and what lessons they'll draw from that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Moral clauses or behavioral standards abound. We don't hear of them being enforced all that often, but they are there for a reason.
For example, I know that if I ever were charged with a DUI, I would lose my job. It is just something that would be totally inconsistent with the accepted standards of conduct for people who make their living in traffic safety. There would be no recourse and, while people would wish me well, they probably wouldn't hire me to work in my field of expertise because of the trust I'd so publicly violated.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: I didn't say it was about some woman being forced to have an abortion.
My dismay and shock is the attitude that says as long as you are lucky enough to not get caught, it doesn't matter.
I don't think it was that at all, it was just that if they didn't know about it they couldn't have punnished her for it. No one was advocating lying, just commenting on the fact that it was not possible to hide this, compared to a man's indescretions anyway.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Moral clauses or behavioral standards abound. We don't hear of them being enforced all that often, but they are there for a reason.
Really, really good reasons?
quote: For example, I know that if I ever were charged with a DUI, I would lose my job. It is just something that would be totally inconsistent with the accepted standards of conduct for people who make their living in traffic safety. There would be no recourse and, while people would wish me well, they probably wouldn't hire me to work in my field of expertise because of the trust I'd so publicly violated.
So, whatever the standards of conduct are, they're cool with you?
No offense to your post, Bob, but I think it's dodging my implied question of whether the punishment fits the crime in this case, or whether the woman needed to be punished at all.
The argument here is that the woman is a role model for the people underneath her. I get that. What I don't understand is the idea that role models have to either jump the hurdle or be shot. In this particular case, I ask again, what are the children learning about the rationale behind firing this woman? Is it going to make them better able to function in a heterogenous society, or worse? When these kids grow up, are they going to be able to fairly and objectively interact with people of different ideals and beliefs? Does it matter?
The idea that 'society' or a the powers that be can just fire people for not living up to a certain ideal doesn't sit well with me. Is it fair that people are fired or not hired because they are too fat, too black, too Muslim, or too old right just because the powers that be say so, and they think that that person doesn't fit with their ideal of what a person should be? I'm not sure that it is.
You might say that my examples are unreasonable in comparison to the original post in this thread because they don't impact how that person can do their job, but this woman wasn't fired for not being able to do her job. She was fired because she didn't fit the ideal. She was fired because she lapsed.
You say (or seem to be saying) that if you got into a dui, or if this woman is pregnant out of wedlock, both of you should be fired, no questions asked, because the ideal must be adhered to, yet I question whether that is the best ideal for society, or whether an ideal of, Lord love a duck, a little more toleration shouldn't be shown with an eye to necessity, rather than blind adherance to an ideal. Again, the little nippers are going to have to interact with others who aren't like them and don't believe as they do.
So. You got into a dui and aren't reflecting the ideal of not drinking while driving. This woman is obviously prego out of wedlock. I'm not comfortable putting those two things on the same moral plane, but I won't argue for now. What if, instead of firing you because, after all, you are an excellent an knowledgeable employee with an awesome head of hair and a full beard, the DoT or whoever it is you work for keeps you on with the understanding that you won't do it again, and you agree to that? Go into some kind of counseling, maybe? In the woman's case, maybe she could have a discussion with hte childrens about why she had sex out of wedlock and why it is wrong and what she can do in the future to not do it again? Aren't those two things better than just straight firing? I think so.
I'm not sure even about those, really. After all, where does it end? How much in the public eye does a person have to be before they have to behave like a saint?
The thing with social ideals is that they never take into account shades of grey or the individual. Maybe this woman is nice to small animals, gives blood regularly, and otherwise is an excellent role model for the community. Maybe outside of your dui, you help little, old ladies across the street in your spare time and regularly save families of baby ducks. Don't these count for anything? Or should the one 'bad' act totally erase them in the public view.
I don't know. It's all shades of grey, isn't it. I just am not comfortable saying 'whatever is, is'.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
So are you saying that people should not be held to the contracts they sign upon accepting employment?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Contracts are one thing -
there are other interesting moral/societal norm questions at work here though.
IMHO . . .
This is a good conversation - I'm really enjoying reading what you all have to say. Thanks for your thoughtfulness! *smile*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So are you saying that people should not be held to the contracts they sign upon accepting employment?
I do not question that the church absolutely has the right to fire her, or that she should have tried to abide more closely by the contract that she signed.
I do not know what the exact wording is of the contract that she signed, but assuming that it somewhat mirrors what is quoted in the original link regarding the student handbook, I question whether the church *must*, or should, fire her for the reasons I gave in my previous post. Most organizations have some kind of employee code of conduct that people sign. Infractions on the code of conduct often aren't dismissal.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Infractions on the code of conduct often aren't dismissal.
But sometimes they are.
And if her contract is anything like the one I signed each year I worked at that school, it read something like "I agree to hold myself to a high standard of moral conduct in accordance with the teachings and values of the Catholic Church. I understand that failure to live in accordance with this standard is grounds for immediate dismissal."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah. Your post doesn't contradict what I just said or explore any of the questions I have raised. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: And honestly, if a male teacher had been involved in a moral scandal that he couldn't hide for some reason or another, he would be fired. If a woman was involved in a moral scandal that she couldn't hide for reasons other than pregnancy, she would be fired.
I'm a little surprised at your word choice here. Unprotected sex is a 'moral scandal'? Stupid, possibly, but actively immoral? What is this, the fifties?
Edit : Oops, I didn't see the second page. Feel free to ignore me for commenting on something said more than 50 posts ago.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Your post doesn't contradict what I just said
quote:I question whether the church *must*, or should, fire her for the reasons I gave in my previous post.
quote:I understand that failure to live in accordance with this standard is grounds for immediate dismissal
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
KoM, we're talking about a different moral standard than yours or even the mainstream contemporary standard here, obviously.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
KQ, 'is grounds' does not translate to 'must be' or 'should be'. I don't know why you're choosing to interpret it that way. That is, grounds for firing does not equal firing. In Florida, a 'right to work state', pretty much anything is grounds for firing in the private sector. Doesn't mean that a company should fire someone at the drop of a hat, or must fire them if they're five minutes late.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I don't know why you're choosing to interpret it that way.
Because it was made clear to me when I signed the contract that the contract was worded that way basically to be nice, and that that clause was always enforced. I guess my personal experience (I did see people fired based on that clause, once the new principal came in-- three months after I started working there) is coloring my interpretation of it in this instance.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ah, I see.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Storm, maybe I'm misinterpreting your arguement here, but you seem to be saying that the Church didn't have to fire her. Even if her contract warned that such could be the case, they didn't haveto and therefore were somehow wrong because they did.
Clearly the church could choose to be more lenient in this particular case. They could have offered counseling, a sabbatical until the birth, or whatever. But just because they could also doesn't mean they should. As much as our contemporary secular society has embraced sexual freedom, bringing both good and bad consequences, most Christian religions, and especially very conservative ones, like The Catholic Church maintain that adherence to certain sexual moral standards is of utmost importance. Clearly in this case it is important enough to them that it was better to fire the teacher than to send the message that pre-marital sexual purity is less than supremely important.
Now, I have no problem with your arguement as it might apply to a public school, or even a private school with no explicit code of conduct. But you can't apply one set of moral values to an institution that exists explicitly to promote a different set of moral values. Well, you can I guess, but I don't see the point. You can argue that this shows the Catholic Church is behind the times, that its views are archaic, or that it is losing touch with contemporary moral attitudes, but that doesn't speak to any internal inconsistency in their actions and professed moral code.
I have to side with the religious conservatives on this thread. The issue here is one of personal integrity, not one of overbearing religious bullying or ultra-conservative hypocrisy. That issue is one that should be common ground for the entire spectrum, from the ultra-conservative to the ultra-liberal.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Storm, to me the only question is whether this woman knew what the behavioral standards were for her job. I guess I should've made that explicit. Whether I agree with the reasons or not, I took this job knowing what the standards are, and knowing what would happen if I violate them.
That, to me, is the most important question in this case.
If the church didn't make clear what its standards are, one could still argue that she should've been able to figure it out. But I would NOT agree that those standards were afterwards clearly enforceable. If she signed a "morals" clause in her employment contract, I'd say she's pretty much sunk as far as a case against her employer is concerned.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What Bob and Karl said. As for what lessons the children are learning, well I think the proper lesson is that all actions have consequences, either good or bad, and that when you take a job and your employer makes up-front expectations of you and you egregiously violate them, there will be very bad consequences.
quote:I don't know. It's all shades of grey, isn't it. I just am not comfortable saying 'whatever is, is'.
I don't see where the shade of grey is. If you voluntarily violate a rule that has a host of known consequences, and that rule is enforced by someone else, and you are caught violating that rule, then you are putting yourself at the enforcer's discretion to choose from those host of known consequences. The enforcer didn't start the ball rolling, the violater of the rule did. The enforcer didn't compel the violater to sign up to a code of conduct, the violator did.
Oh, and "grounds for immediate dismissal", well in every job I've ever had or applied for, that meant, "If we catch you doing this, we're going to fire you." Legally and implied, that's what it meant. I don't know what jobs you've worked where it doesn't mean that, in reality.
I think that's pretty darn obvious, really-you break an agreement, there will be consequences. You are not the one who chooses those consequences. You only get to choose the method of breaking or to abstain from breaking the contract. It's not just "whatever is, is" and I think you know it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would hope the children aren't learning any lesson from this. Which is to say -- the reasons that someone leaves a job should be kept confidential, especially if they're fired.
I realize that the teacher has made it public by filing a lawsuit, but the school still should not be commenting on it to the kids. "Ms so-and-so is no longer teaching here" is ALL they should say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
dkw,
quote: “For the sake of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world and the most effective witness to the Christian gospel and in consideration of your influence as an ordained minister are you willing to make a complete dedication of yourself to the highest ideals of the Christian life and to this end will you agree to exercise responsible self control by personal habits conducive to physical health , intentional intellectual development, fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness , integrity in all personal relationships, social responsibility, and growth in grace and the knowledge and love of God?”
Thanks for the info. With my extra pounds that's at least two reasons I would be disqualified from being a Methodist minister. (Although I did do pretty well in the classes I took at Garrett.) They would definately can me for being fat!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, they wouldn't. You'd be far from the only one. Your District Superintendent would ask you every year what you were doing to maintain physical, mental, and spiritual health, though.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Forgiveness is not the same as escaping consequences.
I kept waiting for someone to say that, thanks KQ.
Also, the Catholic church has held the same moral stance regarding extramarital sex throughout its existence. The fact that the Church has not changed its stand on a moral issue is not "behind the times". It's what a church is for - to set the standard, not to follow the trends of society, or get rid of those commandments that society has decided to disregard.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See... Ignoring all of the larger moral implications, I'm okay for firing someone for incompetency due to stupidity. In other words the "getting caught" aspect of things.
Pregnancy is 99.97% preventable. 100% if you get a tubal ligation. I highly doubt this pregancy falls into the 0.03% category.
I would not want a school teacher, teaching my child, that doesn't understand this rudimentary level of mathematics or statistics. It would have been $60 out of her pocket every three months for Depo for example, even without insurance coverage. A practical cost benefit analysis makes it immediately obvious whether $240/year is worth it to keep the job.
Besides, if she was a Catholic, she was already violating the premarital sex part, which is pretty black and white. As a result, I don't think she would have been adding to the actual 'sin' any more by going on birth control, which even in Catholicism is a bit more of a grey area.
Maybe you would say it would have compounded the "sin" by being more premeditated, but I don't buy it. A competent adult, should have a pretty good idea, when a situation could lead to a sexual encounter, and know where their boundary lines are. Not to mention that there are a variety of sexual acts that don't lead to pregnancy, even in the "heat of the moment" and if the male partner involved, doesn't understand why one of the non-pregnancy causing alternatives might be preferrable given a workplace situation, he's not someone you'd want to be with anyway!
AJ
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
As far as lessons being taught and learned, it should also be pointed out that the actions of the establishement in question are being viewed and felt far beyond the ways this may or may not affect 30+ kindergardeners.
I don't doubt that the Church would just as soon this issue have been kept between the woman and her school, with any lessons stemming naturally from the consequences of her actions. However, as she has made it a public issue, presumably hoping the fickle court of public opinion will work for her, it's to the church's credit that they would be willing to publicly stand up for an action they took in relative privacy.
One can say that it's hypocrisy for the church to come down on her what with its history of bizarre leniency regarding sexually abusive priests, however, the proper response for resolving hypocrisy is to make all one's actions fit one's morals. Not to chuck the morals.
I think there are many potential lessons to be learned from this situation. Most of them may be above the heads of kindergardeners, but from the Church's point of view, the lesson apparently needs to be learned by a few adults. Whose fault is it that the kids might be affected? What lesson would it teach kids and adults alike if the church just overlooked the (in their view) poor example of the teacher simply to avoid tough questions from the little ones?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm, maybe I'm misinterpreting your arguement here, but you seem to be saying that the Church didn't have to fire her. Even if her contract warned that such could be the case, they didn't haveto and therefore were somehow wrong because they did.
Clearly the church could choose to be more lenient in this particular case. They could have offered counseling, a sabbatical until the birth, or whatever. But just because they could also doesn't mean they should. As much as our contemporary secular society has embraced sexual freedom, bringing both good and bad consequences, most Christian religions, and especially very conservative ones, like The Catholic Church maintain that adherence to certain sexual moral standards is of utmost importance. Clearly in this case it is important enough to them that it was better to fire the teacher than to send the message that pre-marital sexual purity is less than supremely important.
Now, I have no problem with your arguement as it might apply to a public school, or even a private school with no explicit code of conduct. But you can't apply one set of moral values to an institution that exists explicitly to promote a different set of moral values. Well, you can I guess, but I don't see the point. You can argue that this shows the Catholic Church is behind the times, that its views are archaic, or that it is losing touch with contemporary moral attitudes, but that doesn't speak to any internal inconsistency in their actions and professed moral code.
I have to side with the religious conservatives on this thread. The issue here is one of personal integrity, not one of overbearing religious bullying or ultra-conservative hypocrisy. That issue is one that should be common ground for the entire spectrum, from the ultra-conservative to the ultra-liberal.
I gave a whole set of reasons why I thought there were better courses of action open to the school, other than just firing her. I don't see them being addressed.
I didn't frame my argument in terms of rights, or that there has been an abuse of rights or power by the church. I have explicitly stated that the church is fully within its rights to fire the woman.
I have framed my argument in terms of what is the best course of action for the church, the woman, the children, and society. I have framed my argument in terms of consequences. Just as individuals have to own up to the consequences of their actions, so, too, institutions.
Have I mentioned that it really bugs me when I can't write clearly enough to get a point across?
quote: I would hope the children aren't learning any lesson from this. Which is to say -- the reasons that someone leaves a job should be kept confidential, especially if they're fired.
I realize that the teacher has made it public by filing a lawsuit, but the school still should not be commenting on it to the kids. "Ms so-and-so is no longer teaching here" is ALL they should say.
On the one hand, I agree with you that termination is a private matter between employer and employee, but on the other hand, it's almost irrelevant whether or not the issue should be private. It's not, and the church and the woman have to take responsibility for their actions. If the church is going to make a moral stand and say in private that what the woman did is so immoral that she sets a bad example for the children and violates her contract, then it's going to have to be honest and consider the consequences of its actions, the example that it sets for the children, the parents, the rest of the Catholic church, and society if, and when, the truth does come out.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
My last post was written over the span of a few minutes and repeats a couple points made by previous posters. Pardon. I'm not plagiarizing, I promise. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dkw,
Normally I would hope so too, but I think there's little chance of that, which is why the stuff I said is what I hope they learn, but unfortunately I expect that a lotta other stuff will be thrown in as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KarlEd,
quote: What lesson would it teach kids and adults alike if the church just overlooked the (in their view) poor example of the teacher simply to avoid tough questions from the little ones?
My admittedly naive wish is that it could have been something along the lines of, "let anyone among you who is without sin cast the first stone", or possibly, "judge not."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: We can't lose sight that the school didn't dismiss her to appease four years olds. Four year olds don't pay private school tuitions - their parents do. The parents signed up to pay for this school with the understanding that the staff would be held to a standard based on Catholic Christian values. Failing to let go a teacher who was in known violation of those standards puts the school in a bad situation with the parents, not the kids. And the support of the parents they cannot afford to lose.
Perhaps. But I would argue that firing of their teacher is quite possibly going to raise more questions than allowing her to stay among the students. And the question of financial support strains the idea that this is a matter of a moral example.
quote:Pregnancy is 99.97% preventable. 100% if you get a tubal ligation. I highly doubt this pregancy falls into the 0.03% category.
BannaOj, are you aware of the difficulties of getting birth control of _any_ kind prescribed if you belong to a Catholic health plan, like the Providence health system? And a tubal ligation? Forget it. As for Depo Prevera, some women have pretty awful side effects. And it would probably mean going to a doctor other than her usual practitioner on a regular basis. I don't have enough info about this particular case to make the judgement that she just shouldda used birth control.
-
I think her administrators made a mistake in firing her.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: [QUOTE]BannaOj, are you aware of the difficulties of getting birth control of _any_ kind prescribed if you belong to a Catholic health plan, like the Providence health system? And a tubal ligation? Forget it. As for Depo Prevera, some women have pretty awful side effects. And it would probably mean going to a doctor other than her usual practitioner on a regular basis. I don't have enough info about this particular case to make the judgement that she just shouldda used birth control.
That's why Planned Parenthood exists. There are plenty of women out there without health insurance who still manage to get on birth control. In the event that birth control has bad side effects (or, you know, just for extra protection), there are condoms, which, while not as effective, would have reduced the risk significantly. And condoms don't require a doctor's visit or a prescription.
-pH
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KarlEd,
quote: What lesson would it teach kids and adults alike if the church just overlooked the (in their view) poor example of the teacher simply to avoid tough questions from the little ones?
My admittedly naive wish is that it could have been something along the lines of, "let anyone among you who is without sin cast the first stone", or possibly, "judge not."
I think Matt 7:1 is the least understood and most abused passage in all of scripture.
I would never ever let my (theoretical) child attend an institution that withheld consequences for wrongdoing because, hey, we all do bad things. It's possible that I am misinterpreting your response, but naivite is not a virtue in and of itself.
God given, or not, we have the gift of judgement, and we withhold it unconditionally at our peril.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I decline to ever argue things with you, Dagonee. You just rub me the wrong way in the way you argue things. Sorry. It's me, not you, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I consider myself naive because though I don't think the Church's attitude toward adult, consensual sex will change anytime soon, I keep hoping it will.
And, as I have stated, I think the school was within their rights to fire her - she had broken her contract.
But I think that in this case, where the action in question isn't illegal, isn't endangering the children (except possibly by making them curious about where the "daddy" is), and doesn't otherwise impact her teaching, a more lenient decision seems more Christian. "You screwed up; you're outa here", just doesn't strike me as Christ-like.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: [QUOTE]BannaOj, are you aware of the difficulties of getting birth control of _any_ kind prescribed if you belong to a Catholic health plan, like the Providence health system? And a tubal ligation? Forget it. As for Depo Prevera, some women have pretty awful side effects. And it would probably mean going to a doctor other than her usual practitioner on a regular basis. I don't have enough info about this particular case to make the judgement that she just shouldda used birth control.
That's why Planned Parenthood exists. There are plenty of women out there without health insurance who still manage to get on birth control. In the event that birth control has bad side effects (or, you know, just for extra protection), there are condoms, which, while not as effective, would have reduced the risk significantly. And condoms don't require a doctor's visit or a prescription.
-pH
Condoms also have (depending on who you ask) an effectiveness of somewhere between 90 and 95%. According to Consumer Reports, Planned Parenthood brand condoms are some of the worst on the market.
Again, don't feel I have enough information about this woman's particular case to judge.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sterling. Planned Parenthood, does not require insurance, and through them it is $60 every three months for Depo Provera.
It is *extremely* easy to get affordable birth control outside of a health plan. Common birth control drugs at cost are not that expensive to begin with, because they are made in such large quanities. At full cost they are between $30-40 per month. (And normally you can order 3 months for the price of two)
Plus you don't have to go to Planned parenthood to get free condoms. They are pretty darn cheap at the drugstore. Basic condoms *With Spermicidal* (lowers pregnancy rate further) are available for $5.
The woman was employed!
I don't think in this case there is any excuse for the woman not to be using hormonal birth control if she was being sexually active. Again... a stupidity thing. If it's going to cost you your job you are stupid not to take reasonable preventative measures.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Personally, also, as far as a tubal ligation goes, if I was absolutely certian I didn't want biological children, (which I'm pretty close to being and have seriously, seriously considered) I would pay for it out of pocket, even if it meant saving for several years to afford it. I'm not sure my own health plan covers that sort of elective surgery.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I think that in this case, where the action in question isn't illegal, isn't endangering the children (except possibly by making them curious about where the "daddy" is), and doesn't otherwise impact her teaching, a more lenient decision seems more Christian. "You screwed up; you're outa here", just doesn't strike me as Christ-like.
Did you read what people said about the institution she was working at existing precisely to promote a world-view that she was violating? You have not addressed that portion of the issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:\I decline to ever argue things with you, Dagonee. You just rub me the wrong way in the way you argue things. Sorry. It's me, not you, etc.
Does he get to complain that people are dodging his points, too?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
AJ, it's possible she had a blind spot about having sex. I mean, it's hard to have a blind spot about deliberately seeking out birth control when you know the church doesn't approve of birth control. It's harder to remember that the church/job doesn't approve of premarital sex in the heat of the moment.
Also, tubal ligations aren't 100% effective. I've met at least two people who prove that false. Furthermore I wonder if it would be very difficult to find a surgeon willing to do a tubal in a healthy young woman without any kids. I think that would be very hard to find. Doctors worry about lawsuits and so on, you know.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Okay, I'm going to rewind this discussion just a bit, because I think everyone missed something very important...
quote: Now 26-year-old Michelle McCusker is suing, saying she was unfairly bounced just a month into her first full-time job as a pre-K teacher at St. Rose of Lima.
I point this out (And forgive me if this was brought up already. I don't feel like fishing through the whole thread to find one point) because there is a simple rule regarding employment. When you get a job, you do not do something that is expressly prohibited by the employer within the first month. Ever. If you do, you are asking to be fired. I'm sorry, that's life. If this was a man in the same situation, they would have fired him without asking questions, because he would have only been working for a month. This woman was not working for the school for several years, not even one year. One month!!!
As a result, the school reached a decision...
quote:Church leaders said McCusker agreed to rules in their teacher personnel handbook, which states "a teacher is required to convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions, demonstrating an acceptance of Gospel values and the Christian tradition."
"This is a difficult situation for every person involved, but the school had no choice but to follow the principles contained in the teachers' personnel handbook," said diocese spokesman Frank DeRosa
Is this not what any intelligent employer does when someone breaks the rules in the first few months?
Now, if you want to discuss what would have happened to her if she had worked there for a while, let's look at the end of that article...
quote: A similar case was brought in 2003 when the unmarried director of an after-school program for Catholic Charities of Buffalo became pregnant. She was demoted and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the charity violated anti-discrimination laws.
It is very likely she could have kept her position as a teacher. She probably could have easilly gotten married to the guy who got her pregnant in this case and the cover-up would have been easy. But I'm sorry, no employer in their right mind has a duty to extend grace to someone who has only worked for them for one month. This is not a matter of religion, it's a matter of business practice. Do employers not have a right to expect brand new employees to adhere more firmly to the code than employees who have proven their worth? Maybe we should be asking that question along with these questions about religion.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Condoms also have (depending on who you ask) an effectiveness of somewhere between 90 and 95%.
*looks down at abdomen*
*nods ruefully*
quote:Furthermore I wonder if it would be very difficult to find a surgeon willing to do a tubal in a healthy young woman without any kids. I think that would be very hard to find.
Well, not around here, but I don't know about there.
But that's all beside the point, to my mind.
No matter what birth control method you use, you are still making a choice every time you have sexual intercourse. You know that choice may lead to pregnancy, no matter how small the chance.
She made that choice, knowing that her job was at stake. Her actions since make her seem like she thought that she could get away with something, and didn't, and now she's trying to shift the blame to the institution that is enforcing previously known consequenses of her choice. I think it's a good idea not to have a person with that kind of petulant attitude toward rules teaching children morals and values, personally.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Katharina,
Sure I did. I just think that world-view needs to be adjusted.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Theca, I've looked into it and I'm certian it would be quite easy for me to obtain a tubal ligation, should I actually decide I want one.
And yeah vasectomies aren't 100% either. However if their rate is lower than 0.03% failure...
As far as the blind spot about sex, I guess I tend to be judemental on the topic, because society has bent over backwards to provide information and resources, that there isn't much excuse left, short of being raised in a cloistered monastic lifestyle. (which does happen...but this woman had presumably graduated from college)
AJ
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Hmm.. Boris's post made me realize something that changes my opinion of the case:
She was fired in her first month of employment. She was three months pregnant at the time. So during the course of her employment she didn't necessarily have premarital sex. That moves me from solidly on the school's side to marginally on the defendant's side. Her prior misdeeds shouldn't affect her current job, IMO. <edit> Or, rather, the pregnancy is not evidence that she did anything to void her contract. Since I don't know of any other evidence, it's unreasonable to presume that she did break it. </edit>
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Katharina,
Sure I did. I just think that world-view needs to be adjusted.
Then your argument rests on another group changes their morality to fit yours. When the whole point is that their morality DOES NOT fit yours and the institution exists to promote their own world view.
In other words, you missed the point.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
hmmm very good point Senoj... if so, she might have a discrimination case.
AJ
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Katharina,
It isn't another group. It's my group. And the "group" has changed its world view in the past and will again. And the "group" is not one single entity with a single mind set, but rather billions of people all with somewhat different views.
In other words, that is my point.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Katharina,
Sure I did. I just think that world-view needs to be adjusted.
I think many world views need to be adjusted. I don't doubt that my own could use some adjustment somewhere along the line. However, I don't think an individual has the right to expect another group or institution to which they voluntarily belong to suspend or change fundamental facets of their worldview just because they've become inconvenient.
I think that in secular society this woman should have all the sexual freedom she wants. I don't think that has any bearing on her ability to teach a secular subject in public school, so it should not be grounds for dismissal provided she keep her apetites within the bounds of the law. Unwed pregnancy should not be grounds in secular society either. However, I also believe that groups of people should be able to meet and form societies that are able to self-define their creeds, moralities, or worldviews and should be free from governmental interferance as long as they act within the boundaries of the law. The, of course, can't expect freedom to act or persuade to act illegally, nor can they expect to be free from societal pressures to change. But they should be free to police themselves as a society and not be forced to cater to the whims of those (from within or without) who knowingly flaunt the ideals that define them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Katharina,
It isn't another group. It's my group. And the "group" has changed its world view in the past and will again. And the "group" is not one single entity with a single mind set, but rather billions of people all with somewhat different views.
In other words, that is my point.
I take it from this that you are Catholic. Why are you Catholic? I was Mormon once, and I came to learn that my worldview was not in line with the Mormon worldview. Others in similar situations to mine apparently feel the need to change the Mormon church's worldview to match their own. I've never understood their reasoning. The goals of the Mormon church are basically to aid people in realizing their potential by helping them raise themselves to meet the Church's ideals. (Some call that process Salvation). How is this served by fighting to lower the Church's ideals to meet the common denominator? How is this even possible and remain a Church at all?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Does he get to complain that people are dodging his points, too?
You know, if someone declines in a respectful manner to debate, you could always just LET them...
EDIT: rearranged for clarity
[ November 24, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, it's all well and good to pull out the "Judge not lest you be judged!" argument, but we can't forget that Christ himself did not turn blind eyes to sinners. He forgave them, and he loved them, but he didn't ever give anyone a free pass to sin. One of his most common goodbyes to people he had healed was "Go and sin no more."
Sin is forgiven in the Christian faith, but it is never supposed to be without consequences - I know I'm repeating what's already been said but I just want to re-iterate. The woman can be forgiven and shown Christian compassion and mercy for her sin and yet still lose her job because actions and sins do have consequences.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KarlEd,
I don't think that sexual abstinence is "fundamental" to Catholicism. I think sex in general is a place where we, as the Church, have gotten off track. (Thank you, St. Augustine.) I do think that forgiveness is fundamental to Catholicism. I do think that justice and charity are fundamental to Catholicism.
Believe me. Being just and forgiving and charitable are a great deal more "inconvenient" for me than being abstinent. I would rather you not think that my faith decisions are based on convenience.
Again, the Church does not have one opinion on this. And the "official" policy is often lagging behind the belief of the laity.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:It isn't another group. It's my group. And the "group" has changed its world view in the past and will again. And the "group" is not one single entity with a single mind set, but rather billions of people all with somewhat different views.
But does the "group" change its worldview? Or is there some higher authority that determines the worldview, and the individuals in the group decide whether they can live that way (and if not they leave the group)? I thought this was what differentiated a church from any other social club or group.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:She was fired in her first month of employment. She was three months pregnant at the time. So during the course of her employment she didn't necessarily have premarital sex. That moves me from solidly on the school's side to marginally on the defendant's side. Her prior misdeeds shouldn't affect her current job, IMO. <edit> Or, rather, the pregnancy is not evidence that she did anything to void her contract. Since I don't know of any other evidence, it's unreasonable to presume that she did break it. </edit>
Except that teachers are usually hired at the very least three months in advance. Usually more. New teachers usually sign a contract at the end of the previous school year for the next school year. (Have I mentioned that my uncle teaches at a Catholic school?)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KarlEd,
I don't think that sexual abstinence is "fundamental" to Catholicism.
I think many, many Catholics would disagree with you. (Modifying "sexual abstinence" with the word "pre-marital", of course).
quote:Believe me. Being just and forgiving and charitable are a great deal more "inconvenient" for me than being abstinent. I would rather you not think that my faith decisions are based on convenience.
I see where you get the idea that my use of "inconvenient" was directed at you. It wasn't, however. I was referring to the woman in question. I was presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that when she took the job she was willing to uphold certain ideals, which she apparently now thinks less important because she has failed to live up to them. I didn't mean to presume any motive on your part for what you believe.
quote:Again, the Church does not have one opinion on this. And the "official" policy is often lagging behind the belief of the laity.
Here's where my former Mormon-ness is showing. My concept of Church is that it is the authority on scriptural interpretation and conduct for its members, not that it takes its cue on interpretation from its members. I know there are some churches that define their creed essentially by a vote, but Mormons aren't like that. Mormons believe their leaders have actual authority to interpret scripture and declare God's word. I had thought Catholic authority was something similar.
Dagonee, you're Catholic, right? How do you view the role of the Church? Does it express the beliefs of its individual members and thus change as they do? Or does it teach it's members what is true independant of individual opinion? Or is it something else?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. It took me a while to write the last post so I missed some in-between posts.
KarlEd,
I am a Catholic (and a good Catholic) because I believe what I believe are the larger, more fundamental, aspects of Catholicism. Some of which are listed in my last post. I am Catholic rather than Protestant mostly because of the nature of sacramentality in Catholic belief. This is a big question and beyond that I'm not sure the community is interested in my particular faith journey.
quote: How is this served by fighting to lower the Church's ideals to meet the common denominator?
I think, rather, of raising them. Mind you, I am not advocating sexual irresponsibility or carelessness.
JennaDean,
The Church does change its world view. The Church properly refers to the whole Church including the laity. The "official" Church teaching has often in the past been influenced or changed in response to a change in the beliefs of the laity. The Arian Conflict was one of the most extreme example of this if you're interested.
[ November 23, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I'm still behind...
KarlEd, I think the answer to your last question is that it is somewhere in between. The "official" church does issue teachings. There are several levels of teaching. At the top there is the ex cathedra, this is it, no more fooling around, infallible teaching. This applies to very few things. Infallible teaching was only estblished as a doctrine at the first Vatican Council (around 1870?). I think (Dagonee would probably know for sure) that the only times the actual infallible teaching has been invoked have regarded Marian issues.
Now. Our new Pope, while he was still a Cardinal has "created" a sort of "we're not saying infallible we're just going to say that it is unchangable and we're not going to talk about it anymore" kind of loophole. I'm trying to remember what this is called - Dagonne will know. Certain hot button issues fall into this category.
I don't know that there is a precedent for him doing that. It is all very complicated and likely more than we want to get into here. It is not as simple as "the Pope says so". The Catholic Church is big and ponderous.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Except that teachers are usually hired at the very least three months in advance. Usually more. New teachers usually sign a contract at the end of the previous school year for the next school year. (Have I mentioned that my uncle teaches at a Catholic school?)
Thanks for that info. It pushes me back to the side of the school, although somewhat less strongly than before.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just as an example:
Most American Catholics (according to some poll that I can't put my hands on right now) believe that you can be a good Catholic while disagreeing with the Vatican's teaching on birth control. Certainly most in my acquaintance do. Several popes ago there was a conference held on the issue. Most of the Bishops participating in the conference thought the issue needed to be at least reexamined. At the end of the conference the pope basically disregarded their advice. Does that make the Bishops bad Catholics?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, admittedly I'm an outsider. Some would likely consider me unqualified, therefore, to comment on the issues at all. Basically the only thing I'm maintaining in this discussion is that if you promise to uphold certain ideals as a condition of membership and/or employment, you shouldn't expect to be able to continue membership or employment when you fail to uphold those ideals. This is doubly so when you not only fail to uphold the ideals, but argue that the ideals themselves aren't worthy of being upheld.
kmbboots, your personal religious views are interesting to me as is your "journey of faith". I appologize if you thought I was suggesting anything insincere about your beliefs in my comments above. I was not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would not consider you unqualified.
And I do agree that as an employer the school had every right to fire her. And I think she was probably irresponsible. And, givne that she is suing, probably unrepentant.
Thanks for your interest KarlEd. And thanks for clarifying - you have nothing to apologize for, it was my misinterpretation. Thanks, though.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It's not necessarily true that she was hired 3 months in advance. I've known of many cases where private schools were scrambling to find a teacher at the last minute due to something unexpected happening. They try to have the teachers hired ahead of time of course, but if a long time teacher suddenly decided not to return or to go elsewhere, they could have been looking for someone right before the term started.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, I'm not saying always, but most probably. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: It's not necessarily true that she was hired 3 months in advance. I've known of many cases where private schools were scrambling to find a teacher at the last minute due to something unexpected happening. They try to have the teachers hired ahead of time of course, but if a long time teacher suddenly decided not to return or to go elsewhere, they could have been looking for someone right before the term started.
When she accepted the position as teacher, she basically told them that she was already living her life according to the requirements of the institution. So, there are two possibilities.
1: She was hired several months in advance, knew the rules, broke them, and the school has every right to fire her.
2: She was hired in a rush, after she was pregnant, and she purposefully withheld information from them, and lied, saying that she was already obeying the rules, therby breaking the rules (I believe honesty is still a big thing in the Catholic church as well as chastity). In which case, the school still has every right to fire her.
Admittedly, the second situation probably doesn't work well in a courtroom situation. In the first situation, she has no grounds whatsoever. In the second, it would probably require proving that she has a history of deceit, and that this firing was not based solely on her pregnancy. Personally, I think this woman is digging for hush money by putting this "I kept my baby and they fired me anyway" spin on it. Of course, that's not something I can prove, just my own opinion.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: romanylass - see above. My question was mostly for her. Not to pick on her - just to clarify. I just don't see sex as a sin if it doesn't cause hurt. Now there are all sorts of ways that indescriminate sex can cause hurt, it is a big thing. But two unmarried, consenting, adults having sexual relationship just isn't a problem for me. I don't get it.
I think because it is more of a foundational value. I agrew withh you about sex being OK if no one is harmed, but most Christians don't.Potentially, especially if a pregnancy results, many more people will be affected than if a pastor swears from time to time or paints his house on Sunday.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm pretty darn sure it is against the law to inquire about pregnancy when hiring someone, nor is she obligated to reveal it during hiring. If the code of conduct was simply "from this point forward" and she was already pregnant, they likely have a legal case.
She knew she was pregnant when she was hired, and she was hired on September 7. Since the sex occured prior to the signing of the statement, the school doesn't have much of a case.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Condoms also have (depending on who you ask) an effectiveness of somewhere between 90 and 95%. According to Consumer Reports, Planned Parenthood brand condoms are some of the worst on the market.
Again, don't feel I have enough information about this woman's particular case to judge.
Yes, but as was previously stated, condoms are not particularly expensive. And neither is Planned Parenthood hormonal birth control. I know a girl who makes maybe half a teacher's salary (probably less, as she goes to school full-time) and lives on her own with no parental support whatsoever. She still manages to pay for birth control and condoms.
My problem isn't with the fact that she had sex; it's that she made it blatantly obvious that she was having non-marital sex and still considered herself deserving of the job. If someone smokes weed knowing that there is a possibility it will show up in his/her drug test, he/she is not entitled to keep his/her job if said test does in fact show that marijuana was used.
-pH
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't know if she failed to use birth control, or used birth control and it failed. The report provides no clue to that. As such, I feel unable to comment on her use or non-use of birth control. However, it's worth pointing out that no method of birth control is infallible. Certainly not the sole birth control method (rhythm method) generally approved in the Catholic Church.
I'd be curious what the take would be if she had been fired for having divorced and then remarried...
[ November 25, 2005, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Certainly not the sole birth control method (rhythm method) generally approved in the Catholic Church.
From your links, it seems that the Billings method is a form of the rhythm method. Both are basically timing intercourse to avoid the woman's fertile times. It just seems that the Billings method might add a layer of precision to the generic rhythm method. Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
No, they are both forms of natural planning.
The rhythm method (also called the calendar method) generally refers to the attempt to calculate the fertile period based only on the length of the cycle. It is consequently mostly worthless for most women.
The Billings method uses specific physical symptoms to determine the onset of fertility, which removes the guesswork.
I posted those links because too often people try to use the rhythm method to invalidate all natural methods.
It's kind of like saying that since the Pinto was such a disasterously bad car, it proves that all cars should be avoided.
--Mel
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The rhythm method, particularly in conjunction with "the mucus method", as it's referred to in Where There Is No Doctor, can be fairly effective. But the conjunction still has a failure rate around 25%.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
As a Martial Arts instructor employed to teach nonaggression and self-discipline, if I were ever discovered to have started a fight, gotteb in trouble with the law, taken drugs, or even engaged in behavior that might *cause* a fight, like taunting someone else or threatening them, I would be immediately dismissed. I would have violated the principles I was supposed to be teaching and it would be idiotic for me to suppose it would be otherwise.
Whether you *agree* with the principle of pre-marital abstinence the teacher was supposed to be teaching is moot. She was hired to teach a particular moral system, and the expectation that she keep her job while blatantly violating that very moral system is ludicrous.
What if she were a civil rights worker caught making blatantly racist comments? Should she still keep her job then? I think much of the anger toward the teacher being fired comes from the fact that they don't consider premarital sex wrong; thus her being fired for premarital sex appears to them as "being fired and having done nothing wrong." Whether you think her pre-marital sex was wrong in and of itself is entirely beside the point here. She was fired for violating the trust of her employers, for violating clear standards she was well aware of at the time of her employment. She was in direct and obvious contradiction of the standards of the community she was serving.
Had I engaged in premarital sex while a student at BYU I would have faced similar consequences, and I knew that going in. I would have been forgiven; no one would have borne me any ill will, but forgiveness does not equal a lack of consequences.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: Not in the studies done in China, where it was tested on nearly 1000 couples with >99% success rate. Here are some other studies. I provided links for my studies, can you provide links for yours?
--Mel
Since my figure came from a book, that's kind of problematic.
Where There Is No Doctor: Werner, David et. al., p. 285.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
If he didn't draw that number out of a hat, that might have a reference listed in the back, in the bibliography. If he doesn;t have a reference listed, how do you know it is accurate? Also that book is at least ten years old.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Yeah, I just found that book online, and the reference is in chapter 20. The author does not give an actual number, but he gives the method one star out of four, with four being the best at preventing pregnancy. I could find no bibliography either in that chapter or on the site. Perhaps there is one in the physical copy of the book.
Also, the "mucus method" that the author describes is not identical to the Billings method that I linked. There are specific rules that must be followed, and he doesn't mention a few of them.
--Mel
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: As a Martial Arts instructor employed to teach nonaggression and self-discipline, if I were ever discovered to have started a fight, gotteb in trouble with the law, taken drugs, or even engaged in behavior that might *cause* a fight, like taunting someone else or threatening them, I would be immediately dismissed. I would have violated the principles I was supposed to be teaching and it would be idiotic for me to suppose it would be otherwise.
What would you do if you found out one of your students was taking drugs, or started a fight, etc?
edit: Let's also stipulate that you had them sign some kind of pledge to not do any of those things, just to make it hew a little closer to the discussion at hand.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
They would be dismissed immediately. They understood and agreed to these rules when they signed up. Of course, with Martial Arts there is the additional concern that you never hand anything potentially dangerous to any *one* potentially dangerous; violent people and drug users are not people I am willing to teach potentially lethal techniques to. I have to take responsibility for what I teach, and that means being selective about who you teach it to. If a student just demonstrates anger-management problems, they may be worked with to help resolve their problem, as martial arts are wonderful for instilling discipline, but will NOT advance, or be taught advanced techniques. And if they, in the end, refuse to work on the problem, they will be dismissed.
I won't teach advanced martial arts to anyone I would feel uncomfortable handing a loaded pistol. I won't even teach *basics* to someone I feel may be potentially dangerous.
Fortuneately, such people aren't commonly drawn to the martial arts, generally lacking the discipline to stick with it, and when they are they usually quit themselves in disgust at how "slow" we're teaching things, and how they aren't learning the "cool stuff". They don't have the discipline to learn the fundamentals first.
There are exceptions to this, of course, but they're fortunately few and far between. When was the last time you heard of someone being murdered by a Black Belt using his hand-to-hand techniques?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
romanylass,
(Geez, my typing is so bad I keep typing ramenylass and thinking about noodles.)
Anyway, first: How are more people affected by consensual sex between adults?
And second: Why do so many Christians feel (I hesitate to say most)that sexual purity is more fundamental than forgiveness?
And to bring this back to the thread topic, while I don't think that the school was encouraging anybody to have an abortion, firing this woman certainly doesn't encourage anyone in a similar situation to continue the pregnancy.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
As a Christian I might answer the second question: I don't feel sexual purity is more fundamental than forgiveness. They're just two different fundamentals. Forgiveness is something we receive from God, and it's something we should offer each other. Forgiving each other means we refuse to retain hard feelings toward a person or wish them harm. It doesn't mean the person's wrong actions are now excusable, and it doesn't mean they can escape the consequences of their actions. For example, God may have forgiven her but he hasn't excused her from the consequences of her actions - she still got pregnant. And the school officials may forgive her and love her, and hope for the best for her, but that doesn't mean she will escape the consequences of breaking the terms of her employment.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: Yeah, I just found that book online, and the reference is in chapter 20. The author does not give an actual number, but he gives the method one star out of four, with four being the best at preventing pregnancy. I could find no bibliography either in that chapter or on the site. Perhaps there is one in the physical copy of the book.
Also, the "mucus method" that the author describes is not identical to the Billings method that I linked. There are specific rules that must be followed, and he doesn't mention a few of them.
--Mel
My edition does list numbers, albeit symbolically on a table. (1994, new revised English 2nd ed.) The table lists "of each twenty women using this method"... "on the average, this many are likely to get pregnant" (Rhythm, 7; Mucus, 6; Combined, 5, or 75% efficacy.)
Granted, the Billings method may be more effective, perhaps much more so. But I would caution that participants in a lab study are naturally more likely to accurately follow all necessary steps in using any form of birth control.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
You haven't mentioned any lab study, though.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
tCW listed at least two.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
JennaDean,
I understand what you are saying, but I think forgiveness is bigger than that. To forgive a debt, for example, means that you don't have to pay it.
Back to the stone throwing example in the Gospels, the woman caught in the act of adultery did not suffer the consequences of her act. Clearly, she should have been stoned.
BTW, KarlEd, I am very interested to hear your take on this story. I think it has been misinterpreted, too. Possibly in different ways?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Sterling: Oh, I thought you were still talking about the book.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Sorry. Y'know how what you're thinking is clear in your mind, but not necessarily in your text?...
I presume WTIND is citing a study, but its bibliography is somewhat lacking. It's more of a "beyond first aid" handbook than an extended discussion of any particular subject, including birth control.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: (Geez, my typing is so bad I keep typing ramenylass and thinking about noodles.) I do serve lots of pasta. But never ramen actually.
quote: Anyway, first: How are more people affected by consensual sex between adults?
Because a pregnancy could result.
quote: And second: Why do so many Christians feel (I hesitate to say most)that sexual purity is more fundamental than forgiveness?
I wouldn't. I'd say the opposite.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
romanylass,
quote: posted November 29, 2005 05:34 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, first: How are more people affected by consensual sex between adults?
But that is still going to affect only the people directly involved (family, friends), not the community at large.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And second: Why do so many Christians feel (I hesitate to say most)that sexual purity is more fundamental than forgiveness? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't. I'd say the opposite.
I'm glad. Me, too. It seemed like the situation that started this thread indicated otherwise.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
When that happens, I'll make a similar suit over all the times I've slipped off my bicycle seat, and suffered much more pain than a woman ever would have ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Feel free to ignore me for commenting on something said more than 50 posts ago.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)