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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, starLisa, one's brain would have to be fryin' to believe that punishing a woman for being pregnant is pro-life.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much more pro-abortion can one get than depriving a woman of the means to feed her future child for being pregnant?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but if the male teacher had been the unmarried father of the child, would he have been fired?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where does grace enter into this? I think the problem is not that the school discriminated, but that they failed to extend grace.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, you're not listening to anything we say. So I'm going to stop trying to reason with you.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You all are not listening to what you all are saying, so I'm not surprised that you all can't explain your reasoning.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Millions upon millions of RomanCatholic women are having premarital sex, Rakeesh. So the punishment is for being pregnant.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I expect that your interpretation is not actually a reflection of how she feels morally, but rather what she feels would happen publicly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
