Catholic high school in Montana fired an unmarried teacher when she became pregnant

The Catholic high school in Montana that fired an unmarried teacher when she became pregnant is taking a lot of criticism but defends itself saying there was really no choice: the mother-to-be, Shaela Evenson, “made a willful decision to violate the terms of her contract.”

That contract requires her to follow Catholic teachings in both her personal and professional life, Superintendent Patrick Haggarty tells the Montana Standard.

Haggarty and the Diocese of Helena continued to cite their legal contractual obligations when it was pointed out that Pope Francis has taken a different path in preaching mercy and support for unmarried women and their children, and blasting church officials who shun them.

“… I think that the connection between what the Holy Father has done, which is an incredible act of kindness, is not the same as what we face with a contractual obligation with our teachers,” Haggarty says.

Um, maybe not. See more at:

- davidgibson.religionnews.com...

In the Pope Francis era, you'd think that an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant and decides to have the baby, rather than have an abortion, would have the support of her church.

But a beloved Catholic teacher in Montana was just fired simply for becoming pregnant. According to diocesan officials, she's now a bad example for her students.

Isn't this exactly what Pope Francis is getting at when he warns that the church needs to stop being so punitive and sex-obsessed?

Already a leading Catholic theologian is criticizing the diocese, saying that when "Catholic teaching on sexual matters is so widely dismissed, even by Catholics, this kind of necessarily selective enforcement is going to make Catholic teaching seem arbitrary and cruel."

reply to post by Grimpachi


I'm not really religious, but I have no issue with this or how it was handled. She can be a teacher at a public school if she doesn't want her personal and professional life to be mixed. It is a catholic school, and the teachers must all sign contacts that say they will abide by the rules. She violated it.

Either way, even if an unmarked teacher got pregnant teaching in a public school, I would hope she would lie to her students and say the word "husband" and not "boyfriend" going forward. I don't shame women for getting pregnant before marriage, but it's not something I would want children to grow up thinking it is perfectly acceptable. Children who are born of unwed mothers have a higher risk factor, grow up more often than not without a father figure, have behavioral problems, and much more. It's simply the product of not planning and lack of stability.

How dare a private school have a code of conduct and expect their employees to follow it? The nerve of some people!

That fact that many Catholics don't follow the church's teaching is all the more reason to emphasize it. If they don't like the church's teaching, they can find another church, and if this teacher refuses to abide by the standards that she agreed to when she was hired, she can find another job.

She signed the contact of her own free will. She broke the terms so she really has nothing to complain about. Had she not signed a contract then she would have grounds for a court case. This is why you should always read and agree to the terms.

reply to post by adjensen

That fact that many Catholics don't follow the church's teaching is all the more reason to emphasize it.

So Catholics do not care what the Pope has to say on such things? And here I thought he was supposed to be some sort of guiding authority.

The thread isn't about if they have the right to fire her it is about if they should because it isn't like they have to.


The rest of the article explains.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Catholic hypocrisy at it's best! I would really like to see the contract that she supposedly broke. I wonder if it just had a "sin" clause, a "sexual sin" clause, or a "if you get caught sinning" clause. I guess the pro-life irony won't be lost on the students. "Do the right "Catholic" thing, and keep the baby, and get tossed out on your toockuss for doing so.

Pro-life my arse!

She might want to point out that Mary was pregnant when Joseph married her.

She signed a contract that stipulate she set a good example in her conduct. Becoming pregnant without being married pretty much signals that her private conduct is not in alignment, and there is no way she can continue teaching and not be a huge walking advertisement for poor personal conduct to children.

I'm sure the Pope would absolutely want the church and the diocese to continue to minister to her and show mercy, but there is a point where you have to draw the line.

If the priest running the parish were suddenly found to be a pedophile, should they continue to allow him to be the priest and have access to children in the spirit of Pope Francis's new teachings on mercy? Or is it only in this case that you object?

reply to post by ketsuko


Seems to me that she set a (Catholic) "good example" by 1) Not having been on birth control, and, 2) Making the decision to keep the child. You know she could have used Plan B or aborted the child and kept her job, and no one would have been the wiser.

A little tolerance, realistic outlook and creativity, and the school could have turned this into a teachable lesson for their youth. But, as it is, all that's being taught is hypocrisy.




EDIT: Perhaps if she had been a child molester, she would have only have been transferred.

reply to post by windword


The only one shouting hypocrisy is you, because you don't seem to understand what the word means.

She violated the terms of her contract, something people are fired for every day in the secular workplace. The church isn't condemning her, they're saying that she cannot work for them, because she made choices that reflect poorly on the message that the church wants students to learn, and intentionally violated the terms of her contract.

Which is not merely "don't use birth control" or "don't get an abortion", but don't have sex outside of marriage. We know that she didn't violate the abortion one (which is grounds for excommunication, and obviously would be against their code of conduct,) we know that she did violate the celibacy one, and there is no indication whether she did or did not use contraception.

She was rightfully terminated for willful misconduct -- intentionally violating an employer's rules.

I wonder how they go about catching and firing the male teachers who have sex outside of marriage...?

reply to post by CranialSponge


Well, this guy got fired for announcing that he'd gotten his girlfriend pregnant.

reply to post by adjensen

The only one shouting hypocrisy is you, because you don't seem to understand what the word means.

Uh, apparently not! From the OP's article.

Either we’re pro-life or we’re not pro-life, and firing an unwed pregnant Catholic school teacher is not pro-life no matter how you slice it. I don’t care what her contract said. I don’t buy the notion that children will be scandalized. None of it washes.

Pregnant Montana teacher deserves to keep her job

She violated the terms of her contract, something people are fired for every day in the secular workplace.

It's not about whether or not they "have the right" to fire her, it's about the example they are setting.

So firing Evenson is not only NOT necessary but also undermines the teaching of Catholic moral precepts — which is why Kaveny also says Deacon Greg Kandra’s proposal to blunt the effects of the firing of a single pregnant woman is well-intentioned but falls short.

Kaveny also makes a potent second point: that this kind of firing tends to turn Catholicism into “one more American Christian sect” — more akin to a “Scarlet Letter” Puritanism that looks for reasons to exclude rather than a sacramental Catholicism of “being” that is condemned to keeping you:

“I think the message that firing this teacher conveys to the students is that they, too, are subject to being “fired” from the Catholic community if they misbehave in any way. After all, the little school is probably the main Catholic community they’ve known. For all the talk of love and understanding and forgiveness, in the end, it is a hard and abstract contractual provision–a sign of willing, not being–that counts the most. For all the talk of a rich and humble inner life, it is a wholesome appearance that matters most.” - See more at: davidgibson.religionnews.com...

Which is not merely "don't use birth control" or "don't get an abortion", but don't have sex outside of marriage. We know that she didn't violate the abortion one (which is grounds for excommunication, and obviously would be against their code of conduct,) we know that she did violate the celibacy one, and there is no indication whether she did or did not use contraception.

” … It’s one thing to fire the Spanish and the French teacher, each married to other people, caught canoodling in the broom closet at school. It’s another thing entirely to fire a single teacher, who presumably did not behave inappropriately at school, and whose only evidence of sexual impropriety is her pregnancy–which in our culture, should also be seen as evidence of moral courage. Rather than obtaining an abortion, which would have allowed her to keep her job by hiding evidence of sexual activity, she is going through with the pregnancy.” - See more at: davidgibson.religionnews.com...

It seems that me and my viewpoint are in good company.

CranialSponge
I wonder how they go about catching and firing the male teachers who have sex outside of marriage...?

EXACTLY!

Tsk tsk, Catholic hypocrisy at it's finest!

I am glad a few people understand the issue. It is a question of a social/moral issue in light of the Popes own statements but so many people want to focus on the legality of the employment contract which was never in dispute. Anyone who read the article should know that.

There are cases challenging the legality of teacher firings of catholic schools. Not for premarital sex but for in vitro fertilization. I really do not understand why so many Catholics are hung up on women's reproductive ability when the Pope himself is basically saying they should give the issue a rest.

What is the point in even having a Pope. I guess people only listen to the ones who assist in protecting pedophiles.

It is strange I find myself agreeing with the Pope it seems more so than his flock does. Ironic.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Teachers should be a role model, especially for young potential Catholics. Thank God if she is keeping the baby but having one out of wedlock is not something children should see as an inspiration. I'll be praying that she finds another job where she isn't expected to be a role model and that it pays well.

She signed a legal contract as a consenting adult. She broke the contract. She has to deal with the consequences like an adult.

reply to post by windword

Tsk tsk, Catholic hypocrisy at it's finest!

Like I said, you don't seem to understand what the word means.

It would be hypocritical for the church to teach those students that sex outside of marriage is wrong, while giving this woman a "free pass" and saying that, in her case, sex outside of marriage is not wrong. This is only a "pro life issue" for those who want to raise a stink with the church. And ironic, in your case, as you support abortion on demand.

reply to post by Grimpachi

It is strange I find myself agreeing with the Pope it seems more so than his flock does. Ironic.

That's because you don't understand what the Pope has said, because you just take what is spoon fed to you by the mainstream media.

The Pope did not say that issues of contraception, abortion and sex outside of marriage should be ignored, and he has not one time changed the teaching of the church on any of those issues. What he said was that some people focus on those matters to the expense of all others, and that there are other important issues that should be addressed.

The teaching of the church has not changed, and likely will not change -- sex outside of the sacrament of marriage is wrong, contraception is wrong, and abortion is wrong.

CranialSponge
I wonder how they go about catching and firing the male teachers who have sex outside of marriage...?

Men do no wrong women are the blame for everything. It all started with Eve and went downhill from there.

reply to post by adjensen

It would be hypocritical for the church to teach those students that sex outside of marriage is wrong, while giving this woman a "free pass" and saying that, in her case, sex outside of marriage is not wrong. This is only a "pro life issue" for those who want to raise a stink with the church. And ironic, in your case, as you support abortion on demand.

Nobody cares what you or anyone else thinks is wrong. People are going to do what people are going to do. It's how we react in those situations that makes the difference. In this case the church is behaving hypocritically. You can't be pro-life and then punish women who choose life, and then, expect your view to be respected.

These people aren't pro-life. They're pro-shame, pro-alienation, pro-fear, pro-punishment, etc.

No body is going change their habits or sexual proclivities over this woman's situation. However, I have no doubt that these Idiot hypocrites' actions will be responsible for lots of abortions!

reply to post by windword


You really don't get it.

This woman took a job that required her to agree to live by Catholic teachings. That was her choice -- she could have found a job in the public schools, but she chose this, instead. Then, she intentionally violated those teachings, broke her contract with the school, and was fired for it.

In all of those things, she was in the wrong.

Now, here come you, proponent of abortion on demand, to say that the church should have ignored all of those wrongs, simply because she didn't murder her unborn child.

Rubbish.

What would you say to someone who was pro-life, took a position at Planned Parenthood and counseled women to keep their children, and was fired for it? Unfairly dismissed?