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

beezzer
Did she violate the terms of her contract?

YES.

She agreed to the contract. She broke the terms.
No one forced her to agree to the contract. No one forced her to break the terms.
Therefore, the situation is one of her own making.

Bigots blaming the Catholic church for this womans poor decisions ... they are the hypocrites. They scream for special rights for the woman (not to be held to the agreed business contract) ... but at the expense of the rights of the Catholic church to run their church schools as they see fit. That's the hypocrisy. And it's unconstitutional.


SHE broke the terms of her contract. THE END.

reply to post by beezzer

Did she violate the terms of her contract?

Not the point. Not the issue.

"Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." Luke 11:46 NIV

reply to post by adjensen

Who cares?

Who cares how many young Catholic women will opt for abortion rather than endure the public punishment of being an unwed mother? Who cares how many women are "forced" into Catholic hypocrisy out of fear of an unwanted pregnancy. After all, from what I know of Catholicism, guilt IS their greatest mainstay.

She agreed to the contract. She broke the terms.
No one forced her to agree to the contract. No one forced her to break the terms.

Except that their policy is totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus, making their actions hypocritical.

If these schools are demanding a strict following of the moral clauses in their contractual agreements, then they should be subjecting each faculty member to a lie detector test on a monthly basis to ensure that any and all single unmarried teachers are being celibate and not participating in sexual relations outside of marriage.

Here's a hint for these school administrators: If one of your teachers is "living in sin" with their significant other, chances are, they're having sex before marriage. Thus a full investigation should take place on each of these teachers, including a searching of their home to find any and all forms of contraception (also a sin) that might be in the home and any other signs (like a shared bedroom) that may indicate sex is taking place.

If they are only waiting until somebody gets knocked up, then they (the administrators) are not following through with their own agreements to ensure the strict following of these moral clause contracts with their staff members.


Sound ridiculously over-the-top ?
Yes, yes it does.

But if they're going to demand a strict moral following of church doctrine, then they need to follow through with said church doctrine for ALL faculty members, both male and female alike, and not just the ones who get pregnant or get someone pregnant.




Come to think of it....

This contractual moral clause agreement is a great idea and something they should be doing with their Catholic priests too... This way the church can legally fire them the minute any one of these priests break said agreement (ie: diddling alter boys).

I think we've just discovered a solution to the pedophilia problem in the Catholic church here folks !

reply to post by CranialSponge


You apparently didn't read my reply to you yesterday, but yes, males are also terminated for breaking the code of conduct, and if said code includes "not shacking up", they can be fired for that, as well.

It's a contract, for pete's sakes. If you sign it, you're obligated to uphold it, and if you don't, it's grounds for termination, whether you're male or female, old or young, Catholic or not.

adjensen



The most effective way for Catholic abortions to stop is for people to start following church teaching and remain celibate until they are married,

Does that apply to the Priests as well?

reply to post by windword

Except that their policy is totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus, making their actions hypocritical.

Since you are not a Christian, I suppose such ignorance is understandable, but no, their policy is not contrary to the teachings of Jesus. They did not condemn her, they fired her for violating the terms of her contract.

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32 NIV)

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:6-11 NIV)

Jesus taught repentance and getting beyond sin, not ignoring it, as you would have the church do.

reply to post by adjensen


There are Catholics that disagree with you.

Catholic law and theology professor Cathleen Kaveny — recently at Notre Dame but now at Boston College in yet another coup for the Jesuits — argues at Commonweal magazine’s blog that under traditional Catholic teaching on law the school had no obligation to fire Evenson:

“Everyone knows that St. Thomas Aquinas says that an unjust law is no law at all, but rather an act of violence (actually, Aquinas’s reasoning is much more subtle on this question, but that is for another day). But he also says something that gets far less attention: a law that imposes a burden unequally upon members of the community is also an act of violence–even if it furthers the common good … “

- See more at: davidgibson.religionnews.com...

reply to post by adjensen


Yes, I read it.

But you're example is showing another situation where someone is getting pregnant.

I'm saying these schools and churches should be enforcing their contract agreements BEFORE that happens. They need to be ensuring that their staff members are practicing celibacy (if not married) and unprotected sex (if married), by way of regular investigations in order to catch and fire all contract breakers.


Edit to add:

Otherwise the contract agreement is redundant and not applicable to ALL contract signees at ALL times.

reply to post by eletheia

Does that apply to the Priests as well?

It applies to everyone.

A priest who has sex with a parishioner and then hears that person's confession is immediately and automatically excommunicated from the church, and only the Pope can un-excommuncate them. For other sexual infidelities, priests are often de-frocked (removed from the priesthood, though they can still remain in the church.)

reply to post by adjensen

Matthew 7:1-5

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Matthew 15 1'9
And why do you transgress the Commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.' But you say, 'If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!

reply to post by windword

There are Catholics that disagree with you.

Who cares?

There are Catholics that agree with me. Woo-hoo. We can do this all day.

The church is not going to change its teaching to accommodate moral relativists like you, period. If a teacher doesn't want to live by Catholic rules, s/he should not apply to teach in a Catholic school.

reply to post by windword


Neither of those is, in any way, applicable to this situation.

Geez, give it up.

reply to post by windword


She violated the terms of her contract.

As a result, she was fired.

You can hate catholics all day long. It doesn't matter.

She violated the terms of her contract.

reply to post by CranialSponge


So, you believe that the church should be invading peoples' privacy? Following them home from work, peeping in their windows and subjecting them to unreasonable searches and questioning?

Or is that just a straw man to try and derail the actual issue?

Because, yes, people have been fired from church schools for just cohabiting, and thousands of priests have been fired from churches for not remaining chaste.

reply to post by beezzer


That is not the point. I'm not arguing their right to fire her. I"m arguing that their decision to fire her, inevitably, will encourage young pregnant Catholic girls to get an abortion to avoid the public humiliation and punishment that this women has been put through, simply for getting pregnant. At the very least, it will encourage young Catholic girls/women to get on birth control.

Since their actions are actually counter intuitive to their stated moral goals, I'm calling hypocrisy.

You can call it Catholic hate all day long, but I have cited a few Catholics, and there are many, many more on, that also disagree with the school/church and also find their actions hypocritical.

reply to post by adjensen

Neither of those is, in any way, applicable to this situation.

Of course they are. You're just cherry picking to justify your biases.

Once again, in rebuttal to the argument of the school's legal right to fire this woman:

But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers.

Are you going to try to convince us that this quote doesn't apply?

reply to post by adjensen

unreasonable searches and questioning

It's not unreasonable searches and questioning when a contract is involved.

In a court of law, if these people can show that the school administrators are not enforcing the contract agreement with ALL staff members at ALL times, they have a possible case of "estoppel" at the very least, by way of showing a lack of contract adhesion and thus, descriminatory practices.

Contract agreements are not as simple and cut and dried like you guys are trying make them out to be.

Contract adhesion must be applicable to ALL contract signees at ALL times... otherwise it's unfair practice.

luciddream



now them are fightin words!
Also bringing feminist hypocrisy into the thread.since another member posted how a man got fire for getting his gf pregnant, but let the fly over the head)

Are you living in a world where women are screwed over in divorce settlement, child custody and child support.. oh wait thats men getting screwed over.

As always women gets off scott free

I know of many more women that have been screwed over than men ..... However in

the post you are referring to I was making comments on a fact based film the

subject matter of which was not dis similar to this thread and had left me feeling

very disturbed.


I did see the post about a man getting fired for getting his gf pregnant .... but I also

saw the post of the woman being fired for getting pregnant and the man who got her

pregnant also got her job! How's that for justice and moral equality?


Funny how men and women can be both be promiscuous and sin in the eyes of the

church, but the "sin" only ever "shows" up on the woman!


Where is all this CHRISTIAN compassion? and forgiveness? for the frailties of human

nature The confession of sins and the forgiveness? ... I DONT SEE ANY

reply to post by windword


As I said earlier, no one was condemning her, which is what Christ taught against.

By your logic, Jesus never had an issue with anyone sinning, which we know is not the case -- he specifically taught about turning away from sin, not ignoring it.

You guys keep bantering back and forth about religious moralities, which has nothing to do with these cases.

These cases boil down to a claimed breach of contract, which is what you folks keep falling back to in your posts.

So if you want to discuss contract legalities, then let's talk contract legalities.



Edit to add:

This is why I tossed in my first original question... which had nothing to do with sexism (but you all assumed that).

buster2010
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.

What if this was a immaculate conception?
Would the rule still apply?