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

beezzer
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.

Yes she may have done .... and being catholic the man who impregnated her was

probably was a catholic,, so they would have been sinning together? And there

are probably other single men and women teachers sinning too and getting

away with it .... but on her it shows so she has to go....


How hypocritical .... its not the sin its being found out

reply to post by adjensen


I can recall no example of Jesus suggesting punishment or alienation for a person who has broken a religious law. Also, being pregnant isn't a crime.

At any rate, I thought you guys didn't worry about the "letter" of the law.

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

reply to post by eletheia

And there are probably other single men and women teachers sinning too and getting away with it

And this is the point I've been trying to make all along.

You see, these schools have drawn themselves up one hell of a contract agreement that's going to be very difficult to enforce across the board at ALL times.

So if it can be shown in a court of law that they are not enforcing this agreement across the board and/or are unable to under fair circumstances equally to all contract signees, then they are conducting unfair practices making the contract redundant and thus, null and void.

reply to post by eletheia


The father is irrelevant. He isn't employed by the school and hasn't got a morals clause with them. The only thing the school has to deal with is an employee who broke her contract.

You people keep throwing the word 'hypocritical' around .... but you don't understand what it means.
Either that or anti-Catholic bigotry is blinding people to the only issue in this case .... broken contract.

windword
You're just cherry picking to justify your biases.

... says the person blinded by anti-Catholic bigotry and who refuses to address the FACTS.
FACT - The woman agreed to certain terms and conditions for employment.
FACT - The woman, of her own free will, violated those conditions.
FACT - The school had the right to dismiss her for breach of contract.

THE END.

adjensen


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.)

I don't know enough about that - so I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

However it seems to be common knowledge that it is historical that offending

Priests just get moved around?


In the fact based film that I have been talking about in my posts the

Priest concerned used all the young (fallen? women?) as his own little

private harem.

eletheia

beezzer
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.

Yes she may have done .... and being catholic the man who impregnated her was

probably was a catholic,, so they would have been sinning together? And there

are probably other single men and women teachers sinning too and getting

away with it .... but on her it shows so she has to go....


How hypocritical .... its not the sin its being found out

Don't know.
Don't care.

She agreed to a contract. She violated the contract.

They were in their right to fire her.

It's amusing that those of you who scream "hypocrisy" want hypocrisy from the church to allow her to stay.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. . . .

reply to post by FlyersFan


FACT - The school is publicly punishing, humiliating and alienating this woman in an attempt to use her as an example to other young women who would think that it was OK to get pregnant while single.
FACT - Other young women WILL use this example as a reason to use birth control, and/or get an abortion.
FACT - The school's decision is counter productive to their goal of teaching morality and is, therefore, hypocritical.

Resorting to name calling and other ad ad hominem attacks won't change that.

reply to post by beezzer

They were in their right to fire her.

Yep. And, it's their right to look like puritanical, discriminatory hypocrites and to fight this in court, while tons of young Catholic women assert their rights and run out to get birth control and abortions to avoid the same.

windword
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

FACT - The school is publicly punishing, humiliating and alienating this woman in an attempt to use her as an example to other young women who would think that it was OK to get pregnant while single.

Supposition. They fired her. You are implying that she is being punished, humiliated, and is feeling alienated.

FACT - Other young women WILL use this example as a reason to use birth control, and/or get an abortion.

Supposition. You are inferring what other women will get out of this.

FACT - The school's decision is counter productive to their goal of teaching morality and is, therefore, hypocritical.

Wrong. If they kept her on, in violation of the agreed contract, THEN that would have been hypocritical.

CranialSponge
reply to post by eletheia

 

So if it can be shown in a court of law that they are not enforcing this agreement across the board and/or are unable to under fair circumstances equally to all contract signees, then they are conducting unfair practices making the contract redundant and thus, null and void.

You are absolutely correct here. One of the most important points in employment law is that a company follow its own rules. If it can be shown that this "company" has NOT followed its own rules, then she has a case. So the attorney in this case will need to find a situation in which a teacher has signed the very same or very similar contract, violated this provision of it, and not been fired.

Of course, that's a big "if" and it's completely conjectural. The whole issue revolves around the behavior of both parties toward this contract.

But the fact is that the contract is the point. And it's the only point.

The rest of this is just your feelings, which do not count in a court of law. Have all the feelings you want. Call as many people as you can "hypocrites" and feel smug and self-satisfied that you have done so. But your opinion doesn't count.

reply to post by beezzer

Supposition. They fired her. You are implying that she is being punished, humiliated, and is feeling alienated.

It's an inevitable outcome that we are watching unfold in the media.

FACT - Other young women WILL use this example as a reason to use birth control, and/or get an abortion.

Supposition. You are inferring what other women will get out of this.

That's also an inevitable outcome.

I am dumbfounded that the local Church would fire a pregnant woman no matter what her at-home circumstances. I think back to my life as a student and, to be honest, I couldn't even begin to tell you about the personal lives of my teachers. It never would have fazed me if my teacher had been pregnant. I didn't know their husbands, or if they had husbands. I just loved my teachers, plain and simple, exactly as they were -- married, single, pregnant, not, young, old, man, woman. Little kids don't really get into morality, and older kids, well, again, what are we teaching them about choosing life over abortion? Not a lot if they're seeing their teacher fired for being pregnant and unmarried. That will do more to sway their future actions, I'm sure, than anything else they might have taken from their teacher's situation.

FACT - The school's decision is counter productive to their goal of teaching morality and is, therefore, hypocritical.

Wrong. If they kept her on, in violation of the agreed contract, THEN that would have been hypocritical.

They had options that would make them appear to be less hypocritical. They could have offered to transfer her to a position that didn't include working with children and therefore exposing them to her sinfulness.

If we want people to have their babies rather than abort them, we'd better be able to walk the walk, and firing a single woman who has the courage to bring her baby to term on her own in spite of the trouble she had to know she'd face at her job, isn't walking the walk. It's walking in the opposite direction. I keep trying to look at this from all sides, but I can't see any side of this that makes firing the best answer. Did she violate a contract that said she had to uphold Catholic teaching? Yeah. Then let's go through the lives of every other teacher and see where they did or did not live up to Catholic standards. My guess is they'd be firing the entire staff. We are all sinners. Everyone violates Catholic teaching in one way or another. Why should only the obvious sinners pay the price?
www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by schuyler


Agreed.

These cases will be just as difficult to prove in a court of law in defense, as it is difficult for these schools to enforce their contract agreements in a fair and unbiased manner across the board.

It's highly doubtful that anyone is going to step up to the plate and admit to their indiscretions risking their own employment status, so any lawyer would have their work cut out for them to say the least.

I could care less about religious morality in these cases and, quite frankly, distracts from the issue at hand which is the breach of a contract agreement and nothing more.




But personally speaking, I hope someone at some point will be able to prove unfair practices in a court of law because I feel it's pretty much a given that contract breaking is going on daily with a good percentage of these teachers AND administrators (sex outside of marriage, contraceptive usage, etc).

It's a ridiculous contract to try to enforce on all employees, and I'd like to see someone call their bluff.

My opinion has nothing to do with any like or dislike of any flavour of religion (I'm neutral when it comes to that subject)... It's just a simple matter of: "If you're going to abide by church doctrine in all forms and demand that of all your employees, then you had better be ready to step up to the plate and back up your stance under all circumstances, at all times, in a fair and unbiased manner."

If you're going to draw up a contract and practice the legalities of it, then you had damn well better make sure you word it accordingly to make sure you're covering all of your bases... Then, you had damn well better make sure you follow through with the demand and expectations you set up for all parties involved.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Montana diocese defends firing of unwed pregnant Catholic school teacher

BUTTE – The Diocese of Helena is defending its decision to fire an unwed Butte Central Catholic Schools teacher because she is pregnant

“It’s not easy being a Christian or a Catholic in today’s world,” Haggarty said in a phone interview. “Our faith asks us to do things that right now are not popular with society. I’m really OK, I’m not comfortable, but I’m OK with what’s transpired. Being a Christian is this way; we’re asked to do things that are not popular with our society.”

It really hard to believe these people and take them as sincere when we have these kinds of issues being swept under the rug, so to speak.

Catho lic diocese in Helena, Mont., files for bankruptcy to resolve sex abuse lawsuits

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena, Mont., filed for bankruptcy protection on Friday to pave the way for a $15 million settlement of lawsuits alleging clergy members sexually abused 362 children over five decades, according to a diocese spokesman.

David Clohessy, the executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, criticized the diocese for seeking bankruptcy protection, saying it would allow church officials to keep records closed that might have come out in a trial.

He also said the settlement fell short because it did not publicly name the church officials who shielded and protected predator clergy members.

“Those individuals have to be exposed and punished,” Clohessy said.

www.bishop-accountability.org...

So, yeah, it makes sense that the Catholic Dioceses of Helena would back firing a pregnant teacher, because lord knows, an unmarried pregnant teacher is clearly unfit to teach children.

The hypocrisy here is clear as the nose on the Pope's face!