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!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
posted
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?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
posted
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>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
