Unwed pregnant woman fired from Catholic School

[thessalonian]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/pregnantteacher.suit.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/pregnant...t.ap/index.html[/url]

[inDEED]

I can see that...

It's not about being "forgiving and on valuing life". It's about the "principles contained in the teachers' personnel handbook," that each teacher must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions."

I wholeheartedly agree. I would have backed the firing as well.

[thessalonian]

There is more here than meets the eye it seems as well. She seems defiant. Almost proud of her pregnancy. What kind of an example is that.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

It sounds like a case of her being unrepentant for a public sin. Most people don't get that she's not being fired for what she did, but because she won't repent what she did and has made a choice to live in sin. I can understand her not marrying her boyfriend if she chooses now to break up with him, but if she chooses to keep fornicating with him, then she must be terminated.

[megrc]

It states it in Black and White in the handbook. They had every right to fire her. If they found out that a male teacher was having pre-marital sex, i'm sure they would do the same thing. However it is harder on women. We can't hide it very well once we get pregnant, men however don't have that problem. She should have looked at the handbook before she took the job.

[Carrie]

This has been all over the news here. The (liberal) media is making the school sound awful.

I back the firing as well. The school made their expectations clear in the teacher's handbook, which was to follow Catholic teachings. When a teacher does not abide, firing is acceptable.

[rckllnknny]

1336....

what you wrote..
..is ridiculous.

Edited November 22, 2005 by rckllnknny

[rckllnknny]

and so was firing her.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rckllnknny' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:03 PM']1336....

what you wrote..
..is ridiculous.
[right][snapback]797815[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How so?????

[megrc]

[quote name='rckllnknny' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:06 PM']and so was firing her.
[right][snapback]797817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If your gonna say something, at least defend it.

[tojo]

[quote]NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal discrimination complaint against a Catholic school, charging that it unjustly fired an unmarried teacher for being pregnant.

"I don't understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I'm pregnant and choosing to have this baby," Michelle McCusker said Monday at a news conference to announce the suit.[/quote]

To begin with, you were fired by a school, not by a religion, granted it is a religious school. Furthermore, this doesn't reflect on life values, they didn't say "have an abortion or we'll fire you."

[quote]The 26-year-old preschool teacher was fired last month from St. Rose of Lima in Queens, according to published reports. (Watch what was in her termination letter -- 1:36)[/quote]

She taught preschool. How much more I applaud this decision. Can you imagine the moral confusuion to preschoolers that having an unmarried pregnant teacher would present?

[quote]The Diocese of Brooklyn also was named in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint.

"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," diocese spokesman Frank DeRosa said in a news release.

The handbook says that each teacher must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions."

Lawyers at the NYCLU, which filed the suit on McCusker's behalf, argued that administrators enforced the policy in a way that disproportionately affects women.

"The school used her pregnancy as a marker," attorney Cassandra Stubbs said. "How do they determine if male employees engage in premarital sex?" [/quote]

Is Ms. Stubbs recommending the school take pains to investigate the sex lives of its enmployees? The fact is, Ms. McCusker actions were dealt with because they were causing public scandal, the fact that this scandal was made public by her becoming pregnant, is not fault of the school, but rather is a fault of biologu. Take it up with God.

[quote]
It's not the first time the NYCLU has argued such a case. In 2003, the unmarried director of an after-school program run by a Catholic charity in Buffalo was demoted when she became pregnant. The equal employment commission found that the charity had violated federal anti-discrimination laws, the NYCLU said.

That charity agreed to ban discrimination based on marital status or pregnancy.[/quote]

It is not discrimination if the expectations were clear prior to hiring, as I'm sure they were.

[inDEED]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Nov 22 2005, 10:51 AM']It sounds like a case of her being unrepentant for a public sin. Most people don't get that she's not being fired for what she did, but because she won't repent what she did and has made a choice to live in sin. I can understand her not marrying her boyfriend if she chooses now to break up with him, but if she chooses to keep fornicating with him, then she must be terminated.
[right][snapback]797801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're off here...

She wasn't fired because she's unrepentant. She was fired because she didn't "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions" - ie: she was having sex outside of marriage.

[inDEED]

[quote name='megrc' date='Nov 22 2005, 10:52 AM']If they found out that a male teacher was having pre-marital sex, i'm sure they would do the same thing.[right][snapback]797803[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Unfortunately - I'm sure this wouldn't be the case...

[Theoketos]

[quote name='rckllnknny' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:03 PM']1336....

what you wrote..
..is ridiculous.
[right][snapback]797815[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Hey brother, that was not very respectful. It was an attack.

[inDEED]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:30 PM']Hey brother, that was not very respectful. It was an attack.
[right][snapback]797947[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't think it was an attack...

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='inDEED' date='Nov 22 2005, 03:03 PM']You're off here...

She wasn't fired because she's unrepentant. She was fired because she didn't "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions" - ie: she was having sex outside of marriage.
[right][snapback]797932[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Something tells me if she was truly repentant of her sin then she would be allowed to stay. She didn't agree to marry her boyfriend and I'm assuming she's continuing her sinful relationship with him. It is true that everyone is a sinner, but one conveys the teachings of the church not by not sinning, but by repenting of your sins. I'm sure the firing wasn't just because of her mistake. There are mothers who had children out of wedlock who most certainly are in good standing with the Church and thus would be allowed to teach. It's not the stain of sin that caused the firing, rather it is the scandalous behavoir this teacher has participated in by continuing her sinful relationship unrepentantly.

[Era Might]

First, I think it's a slippery slope when we fire Catholic teachers for failing to live up to the Church's moral faith. "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God". There is not a single teacher in that school who hasn't failed the Lord.

Second, there is no question of scandal here. A teacher's private life is not the children's business. If a child inquires about her private life, eg, whether or not she is married, she can explain that her private life is just that, private.

Third, a child out of wedlock is not a "shame". It is a reminder of a former shame (namely, a lapse in chastity), but a child is never a shame.

If it were a question of a teacher teaching contrary to the Church's faith (eg, she encouraged the schoolchildren to have premarital relations), it would be a different story. But I think it a living shame that a woman can be branded with a scarlet letter and fired for a lapse in chastity.

To be honest, shouldn't male teachers who lust turn themselves in, because they have broken the contract they signed? I don't think so.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Era Might

[tojo]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 22 2005, 04:46 PM']First, I think it's a slippery slope when we fire Catholic teachers for failing to live up to the Church's moral faith. "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God". There is not a single teacher in that school who hasn't failed the Lord.

Second, there is no question of scandal here. A teacher's private life is not the children's business. If a child inquires about her private life, eg, whether or not she is married, she can explain that her private life is just that, private.

Third, a child out of wedlock is not a "shame". It is a reminder of a former shame (namely, a lapse in chastity), but a child is never a shame.

If it were a question of a teacher teaching contrary to the Church's faith (eg, she encouraged the schoolchildren to have premarital relations), it would be a different story. But I think it a living shame that a woman can be branded with a scarlet letter and fired for a lapse in chastity.

To be honest, shouldn't male teachers who lust turn themselves in, because they have broken the contract they signed? I don't think so.
[right][snapback]798016[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with you whole-heartedly, providing that the woman is penitent, if she is not, then she's not an appropriate to rolemodel for Catholic schoolchildren, especially those of preschool age, and all teachers are called to be role models. I'm going to be a teacher, if I fail to be an appropriate rolemodel, I would expect to be subject to dismissal.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Sorry, but the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is to be public. There is no such thing as a private marriage in the Church.

[Era Might]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Nov 22 2005, 05:57 PM']Sorry, but the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is to be public.  There is no such thing as a private marriage in the Church.
[right][snapback]798024[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A marriage must be public. That doesn't mean anyone has a right to know whether you are married or not. A professional relationship is professional. A personal relationship is personal.

Nobody can be forced to disclose a sin they committed, including having a child out of wedlock.