This is a tough situation. On the one hand she signed a Catholic Witness Statement (which by the way, use to be the norm for all Catholic schools years ago). However, we also need to balance this with charity to the individual person.
My own feeling is that she has done the right thing by resigning from her frontline position. However I would hope that the school could have found another way to keep her on the payroll - thus acting in a charitable way by not throwing a pregnant unmarried woman out on the street, so to speak. This might push other women teachers who find themselves in a similar situation into getting an abortion so that they can keep their jobs.

Catholic teachers hopefully understand that they have a professional and personal code to abide by, and by virtue of the fact that they are teaching in a Catholic school, they are to set an example of good Catholic living, which this young woman definitely has not. You can't impart a faith to young people which you yourself are not living. This is the main mandate of a Catholic school.

1. If a male teacher were having premarital sex, he would be able to keep this part of his personal life secret in a way that a woman cannot.

It creates a double standard based on the fact that the woman carries the baby.

2. Getting fired for being pregnant definitely sends the message that abortion is a good alternative.

3. I do not think someone should be fired for being pregnant. There has to be a third option. Perhaps working in the diocese in a less public way until the baby is delivered? This would be an appropriate situation to ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?"

Yes, I agree with you Elizabeth.
The burden is definitely on the woman in this circumstance. Did the father lose his job at his place of employment? What if he were a teacher in another school?

It also begs other questions? What if the pregnancy were the result of rape? Would this fact be spread through the entire school to save face regarding her situation?

What happens to a woman who is separated and divorced during the year? In some circumstances today a woman has no control over the issue of divorce.

We reap what we sow. There are consequences to our actions. I think the embarrassment that this girl has suffered is more than enough so called punishment.

On the one had she made a bad decision by having premarital sex, on the other hand she made a good decision by disclosing her sin and confessing it.

God has forgiven her and the school should forgive her also.

I think they should have an assembly at the school where this is all exposed in the open. The school's leadership could then show why having premarital sex is wrong, because it is irresposible sex and affects oterhs, not becasue sex is dirty, etc., but becasue of God's inifinite love and care for us gave us rules to follow so that we should not get hurt.

They should then show mercy and allow her to keep her job showing her all kinds of support. This is exacly where Catholic teaching and doctrine are not consistent when it comes to pregnancy and abortion.

They should not throw away this opportunity to show mercy and love. None, and I mean none of us is perfect.

The Bible says this about this subject and the Bible should always be our guide in matter of life and faith and conduct.

In the 2nd Chapter of 2 Corinthians we recieved these instructions from Paul on matters like these: "5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes."

What do you say Catholics, will you follow God's Word or the doctrine of men and demons? This is exactly why I have such a problem with the Catholic teaching on the equal weight given to tradition. It is simply wrong and heritical.

Forgive this young girl now and don't destroy her faith in God.

I think it's disgusting, unjust, and uncharitable that she got fired.

I think that sends a pretty clear message that pregnancy is unacceptable and worthy of punishment and will probably lead to women in similar situations to abort to avoid being fired.

No, never, never, never should anyone get fired for that. I don't care about your personal morals, that is ethically wrong.

Yes, the should have fired her. she did not live up to the Catholic Christian Witness Statement and was irresponsible.

@Jasper: Well, would you have preferred she aborted and didn't say anything so she'd keep her job?

I think she did live up to that Catholic Christian Witness Statement in coming clean about the pregnancy and NOT aborting to hide it. She doesn't deserve to be fired for being "irresponsible", I think she was very responsible in coming forward.

@Leah: Especially because gentlemen can't get canned for having premarital sex because there is never any proof.

It's sexist. It's gender discrimination. It's unethical and wrong. Period.

I can understand all of the opinions so far. I am wondering if the Witness Statement specifically states something about Premarital Sex and if a female teacher gets pregnant?!
I would have to agree with Hisman.
My heart is aching that a young, unmarried, pregnant woman is now out of a job.

"Well, would you have preferred she aborted and didn't say anything so she'd keep her job?"

No, I would prefered she follows the rules. She violated them by having pre-maritial sex.

Wow, a lot of good comments. This exact situation happened to a relative of mine. She lost her job and ended up marrying the dad, but he was abusive. Luckily her parents could help her out even though they were not happy about what happened. By the way, the little girl is brillant and a full scholarship to a top university in the midwest. She is also a life guard and has literally save a few lives. So glad this mom didn't about.

I was just reading "ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn. He makes a good point that being pregnant is not sinful. I am catholic and have 3 children in a catholic school. At first, I see why they fired her, but now I am not so sure. What if she was raped? What if this pushed her to have an abortion? Are we really helping here? She should have the support of all of us. We have all made mistakes. And of course our priority should be the innocent child.

Did HisMan just call all Catholics "demons"?

Jill, great question.

I think it's too bad that it'd be a condition of employment, but did she really promise not to get pregnant when she signed the Witness Statement?

I think Carla has a good point - is there specific language addressing pregnancy or is it just a matter of interpretation on the part of the principal, priest, etc?

"What do you say Catholics, will you follow God's Word or the doctrine of men and demons? This is exactly why I have such a problem with the Catholic teaching on the equal weight given to tradition. It is simply wrong and heritical."

Tradition is God's word, my friend. It is Tradition that has recognized that canon of scripture that we all hold so dear. You have a "tradition" of your own, and that is sola scriptura, the unbiblical and unhistorical belief that the bible is the final authority. THAT is a tradition on men. You will not find this being taught in the first, let's say 1400 years of Christianity. Look to history, look at the writings of those who knew the apostles. They are a far cry from some of the things that you hold to. God love you, HisMan.

Did HisMan just call all Catholics "demons"?

I don't think he did that at all, Andrew. You have two choices in life, follow the teachings of God, or follow the teachings of "man" (which are from Satan himself). When this Catholic school fired that woman, whose teaching were they following that made them come to that decision...the teaching of man or the teachings of God? Those who follow the teaching of man are following the teachings of Satan himself. You be the judge of what teachings the school was following.

Hey, Bobby! congrats on being the 1000th commenter!

Woo hoo! I'm the king of the world!

Thank you, Bobby. God bless you.

That was in reference to JLM's comment BTW. I don't just randomly proclaim myself to be king of the world unless prompted to :)

Bobby,
LOL...changing of the moniker time?

You have two choices in life, follow the teachings of God, or follow the teachings of "man" (which are from Satan himself). When this Catholic school fired that woman, whose teaching were they following that made them come to that decision...the teaching of man or the teachings of God?

The Bible, which is the teaching of God clearly condemns certain actions as bad for us and thus offensive to Him.

In these cases, I think repentence and confession should be enough. I think HisMan's approach, which I've seen used is very effective as quelling gossip and letting youth know that certain activities aren't acceptable or glorified, would be a more merciful and God-honoring approach than a resignation.

However, in no way are Catholic teaching about sexuality and abortion incompatible, which eachother or with the Word of God. Incompatibilities would be supporting birth control where babies are avoided like the plague and then condemning someone for not accepting with open arms the baby they tried everything the could not to conceive. This is the Protestant teaching (or lack thereof.) Abortion=bad. Abortive contraceptives=GOOD!

And I hate, friggin' hate that the ability to do a worse thing somehow glorifies doing an already bad thing! "Yes, I was sexually immoral, but I could have hidden my sexual immorality by murderering my innocent, helpless baby. Give me a cookie!" I don't think she deserves accolades for her confession- I think it's just expected. I feel very sorry for her and the embarrassment she will face and am proud of her for not trying to hide it somehow, but this does turn a bad thing into a good thing. Had she not taken that position of authority and example and were simply in the business world, she wouldn't have had to sign a statement and endure explaining to the children that her recent actions do not constitute a good example.

Let's look at this another way:
Imagine for a second that it becomes legal to kill your mistress to conceal your extra-marital affair. Would we praise adulterers who are caught for not doing so? This is what we do with women that exercise bad judgement but don't exercsze worse judgement: Jamie Lynn Spears comes to mind.

I think teen pregnancy and out-of-wedlock pregnancy she be stigmatized because it is bad. (It's bad for women, horrible for the children and for society) But it's the BEHAVIOR that needs to change, not the babies that need to be killed. Some think that be destigmatizing bad behavior we'll have less murdered babies, but really, what we need is a culture change for the better rather than promoting something that's already bad.

Oh, she's back! Praise the Lord!!!!

This is disgusting and hypocritical. Why don't they practice what they preach? This is ENCOURAGING abortion.

Who was it who told me the other day that "if you were good at your job" discrimination isn't a problem?

I think it's too bad that it'd be a condition of employment, but did she really promise not to get pregnant when she signed the Witness Statement?

Thank you for proving my point! It's not a "promise not to get pregnant"- Pregnancy is not a problem. It's not the pregnancy that is immoral, it was the out-of-wedlock sex. The employers in no way said, "Have lots of sex, just don't get pregnant." They said, "Promise to live up to the teachings of the faith" which include sexual morality. Her pregnancy is a sign that she failed to do so. If she weren't pregnant, but caught by her students kissing a married man in a restaurant, etc. the results would have been the same.

Although our sense of goodness is rightfully appalled at leaving a pregnant woman unemployed.

This is disgusting and hypocritical. Why don't they practice what they preach? This is ENCOURAGING abortion.

We should support something bad to keep from having something worse!?! What does that say?

Whoops- I need to keep my mouth shut. I voted for Hillary to keep from getting Obama, so I guess I'm a hipocrite.

congrats Bobby.
I'm glad you clarified you remark - I wouldn't want you to have delusions of grandeur!

I've been following comments on another website re: this story and people appear to be split about 50/50.

The deacon's bench has an interesting post:
http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2008/02/unmarried-pregnantand-fired.html

I do agree with Deacon Kandra's post - Emily knew what she signed and she knew that if something like this happened there were going to be professional consequences. This is a hard lesson to learn but I think many young people are not allowed to experience the consequences of their actions when they are younger by their pablum-feeding, hothouse parents. When something big comes along - well they are truly lost!

At the same time what is disturbing is the allegation that a male teacher in the same predicament was allowed to retain his job. A double standard??
If a school district is going to have a policy like this it has to be applied across the board.

If the Witness Statement states if a teacher engages in premarital sex that results in pregnancy she will have to resign and she signed it does that change anyone's opinion?

Should apply to a male teacher as well.

Forgive this young girl now and don't destroy her faith in God.

Rules are rules. Why is that so hard for people to see? Even God tells us we must live by his rules. If this "destroys" her faith in God, it wasn't there to begin with.

God is not doing this to her. She signed a contract and defaulted. She has to take responsibilty for her actions. She lost her job. It's not like they took her out to the town square and stoned her.

Just curious, where in the bible does it say "Religion is evil"?

Emily knew what she signed and she knew that if something like this happened there were going to be professional consequences.

And you don't think there's any room for mercy? The woman caught in adultery certainly knew that she could be stoned for her actions. By the law, she should have been, but what was Jesus' response to her?

For people that get so much grace and mercy, we have to be willing to extend some. This situations could have been handled mercifully rather than with a stern, "That'll learn ya, ya tramp!"

Rules are rules. Why is that so hard for people to see? Even God tells us we must live by his rules. If this "destroys" her faith in God, it wasn't there to begin with.

God is not doing this to her. She signed a contract and defaulted. She has to take responsibilty for her actions. She lost her job. It's not like they took her out to the town square and stoned her.

If they did take her to the square to stone her, would you oppose it? What about the woman caught in adultery in the Bible. The rules mandated a stoning, but Jesus was merciful to her. I thought "rules were rules."

Tell me, what was accomplished by firing her that couldn't have been resolved mercifully? Why not call an assembly, explain that Ms. Prigge is expecting, have her admit to the children that pre-marital sex is wrong and she made a mistake, but that every baby is a gift from God that deserves to live. What a way to encourage responsibility for actions, teach about sexual morality and reaffirm the sanctity of life!!!

Did firing her accomplish any of these things?

"God is not doing this to her. She signed a contract and defaulted. She has to take responsibilty for her actions. She lost her job. It's not like they took her out to the town square and stoned her."

...should have been italicized, too. Those aren't my words.

"For people that get so much grace and mercy, we have to be willing to extend some. This situations could have been handled mercifully rather than with a stern, "That'll learn ya, ya tramp!"

It would be merciful for them to say to her, "You can have your job back after the baby is born". We don't have all the details in this story. I don't recall reading that they called her a tramp.

I'm confused. She signed a witness statement "where she agreed to set a good example as a Christian in her personal and academic life."

She made a mistake, yes. But does the school fire every teacher (or resign themselves) if they lie anywhere in their personal or academic life, if they get angry and swear at any time in their personal or academic life, think an "unpure thought" at any time in their academic or personal life?

I find it very difficult to believe that ANY of the teachers or staff live a perfect, virtous life. If you are guilty of one sin you are guilty of them all, right?

Her sexual encounter that induced her pregnancy was a one-time act. It just seems to me as though the school finds her growing womb to be not setting a good, Christian example. It was actually the one-time act that got her pregnant.

I thought Catholic's viewed babies as blessings from God? If anything, her pregnancy is a witness to a blessing. Her one time act just beggs me to ask which one of the staff leads a perfect life and is the epitome of a good, Christian example, and which one can cast the first stone?

I am not Catholic so I do not pretend to know anything of Catholic doctrine, but I do think mercy, grace and forgiveness have a place here.

First of all Jacqueline, I do certainly believe in mercy for this young woman but not at the expense of the innocent children whom she had a duty to impart the Catholic faith to through her teaching and example. By all accounts she was an excellent teacher, but has set a poor personal example. For that reason, her frontline teaching job should be relinquished.

I don't advocate her being kicked to the curb, but that some other compromise be made to keep her employed in light of the fact that there is now another human being (her baby) who will be affected.

We also fail to realize how scandalous the behaviour of some Catholics can be. We have seen this with Ted Kennedy, Rudy Guiliani, Mario Cuomo, Kate Michelman and many, many others.
In my daughter's school one young, unmarried teacher told the class that she was going on a trip to Caribbean with her boyfriend. While it's possible they may have had separate bedrooms, it's unlikely. My daughter told me that there was much discussion amongst the students about whether the teacher was "doing it". This is reprehensible and what kind of example does this set?

Absolutely not. I think the higher catholic ideal is protecting life-and that's what this teacher was doing. She could have been a shining example of responsibility and sacrifice. What kind of message of shame is that sending the students?

First of all Jacqueline, I do certainly believe in mercy for this young woman but not at the expense of the innocent children whom she had a duty to impart the Catholic faith to through her teaching and example. By all accounts she was an excellent teacher, but has set a poor personal example. For that reason, her frontline teaching job should be relinquished.

What about those hundreds of priests who molested thousands of children? What kind of example did they set for those children about the Catholic faith? Didn't the priests take an oath?

Were they excommunicated immedately? NO! They were "moved around" to different churches.

I hate to bring this up, but I do see quite a double-standard here.

It would be merciful for them to say to her, "You can have your job back after the baby is born".

What does that say? That being pregnant is the problem, not that the sexual act was wrong. Way the make babies look like the enemy!

How is being a single mother after the child is born a better example to the children she teaches than being a single mother while the child is yet unborn? What's the difference- other than making her be out of work for 6 months? It wouldn't be merciful as much as sending the message that pregnancy is bad, not sexual immorality, but pregnancy. Saying, "as soon as you're not pregnant (which doesn't change the behavior you committed that the Church opposes) you can have your job back" can easily be resolved with 400 bucks and a trip to Planned Parenthood!

Once again: Pregnancy is not the problem. A married pregnancy teacher would certainly keep her job.

"What about those hundreds of priests who molested thousands of children? What kind of example did they set for those children about the Catholic faith? Didn't the priests take an oath?"

They did. It is shameful.

I still hold that it's stupid to fire a woman for having premarital sex and "getting caught" (RE: Getting pregnant) when a man can dink around as much as he wants and he has no physical "marker" of what he did.

This is discriminatory and unethical, regardless of the "message" the school is "trying" to send.

I do certainly believe in mercy for this young woman but not at the expense of the innocent children whom she had a duty to impart the Catholic faith to through her teaching and example.

And what expense is that? What harm is being done to the children if a teacher admits her wrongdoing and receives the mercy that you and I get in the confessional without the public embarassment? She still must endure the natural consequences of pregnancy and childbirth- a lesson to the children that even when God and man are merciful, actions have consequences, but it tells these children that the Church and their authorities can be trusted to love them and think of their best interest rather than harshly setting some sort of example.

What you're telling our daughters is that if they make a mistake, they can expect harsh chastisement rather than mercy! That they are better off aborting their child than repenting and telling those that are supposed to love and support them.

"@Jasper: Well, would you have preferred she aborted and didn't say anything so she'd keep her job?"

That is sooo manipulative!!! So, let me keep my job or I kill the kid? Grow up! She signed a document and she blew it, she was teaching at a Catholic school, what would that be teaching the kids whose parents spend extra to send their kids there?

JLM
Lets stick to the topic. The number of priests who were involved in this scandal is small compared to the thousands and thousands of good priests who have fulfilled their vows faithfully and sacrificially.
I might point out that if you are talking about abuse, a child is more likely to be abused today by a public school teacher (especially a woman) than by a Catholic priest. There are literally thousands of cases in the US public system - and it's been acknowledged that this is a crisis.

The bottom line - she signed a contract. She's a mature adult. She made a choice. Choices have consequences (unless you're a "prochoicer"). The consequence for Emily was that she lost her job. She knew this would happen. She accepted it.
She made a lifestyle choice. If she wants to continue this lifestyle choice then go work for the public system where the impact of her personal choices will be less. No one is forcing her to work in the Catholic school system.

It's the same argument as the cafeteria Catholics who want abortion, contraception, women-priests, liturgical dance etc, etc, etc.
If you want this, join ANOTHER faith. The Catholic faith doesn't have this.

I still hold that it's stupid to fire a woman for having premarital sex and "getting caught" (RE: Getting pregnant) when a man can dink around as much as he wants and he has no physical "marker" of what he did.

If he were caught somehow, he'd be fired too. But there is no way to make this equitable, so they need to dispense with the policy and deal with this on a case-by-case basis.

What you're telling our daughters is that if they make a mistake, they can expect harsh chastisement rather than mercy! That they are better off aborting their child than repenting and telling those that are supposed to love and support them.

I totally agree, Jacqueline! If those girls in her class ever got pregnant, they'd be running to the doors of the abortionist! The abortionists open their doors wide to girls in fear. What a fine example of this fear the SCHOOL set for these children.

They should fire themselves!

@Rosie: But that is EXACTLY what you're doing. You're giving the woman the option of keeping her job by hiding/destroying the pregnancy OR getting canned for making a mistake! I think she's doing the RESPONSIBLE thing by KEEPING THE PREGNANCY and coming out to the school, admitting what happened instead of going off to PP to abort.

It would be teaching the kids that if you keep your pregnancy...especially one that came about in less-than-desirable circumstances...that your life won't be over and you won't be treated like a second class citizen!

Patricia,
My point was the double-standard. The priests took an oath, too. They were not "fired" from their jobs. They were "shifted" to other churches. Did this school try to "shift" this teacher into another job or just kick her to the curb?

If they did take her to the square to stone her, would you oppose it? What about the woman caught in adultery in the Bible. The rules mandated a stoning, but Jesus was merciful to her. I thought "rules were rules."

I don't believe in capital punishment, so I wouldn't have condoned stoning the adulterous woman at the well. I don't think firing was unreasonable considering the fact that she signed a contract and broke the contract. How much did she value her job? Obviously not enough to avoid pre-marital sex. She wasn't considering what was best for her classroom. It's kind of a no brainer.

I find it very difficult to believe that ANY of the teachers or staff live a perfect, virtous life. If you are guilty of one sin you are guilty of them all, right?

The condition of employment wasn't perfection.

"Guilty of one, guilty of all" ? How does that apply?

Her sexual encounter that induced her pregnancy was a one-time act. It just seems to me as though the school finds her growing womb to be not setting a good, Christian example. It was actually the one-time act that got her pregnant.

We don't know if she had sex once or 12 times before she got pregnant. It's not relevant here. (To God, yes, but not to the school).

I don't mean to come across as having no compassion for this woman, because I do. Patricia says it better than I am. Sometimes letting someone deal with the consequences of their actions is the most loving thing one can do. A parent who looks the other way is not doing their child any good in the long run. Look at it as a "character builder".

"If he were caught somehow, he'd be fired too. But there is no way to make this equitable, so they need to dispense with the policy and deal with this on a case-by-case basis."

THANK YOU.

However, i still hold that even though she became pregnant through less-than-desirable (for the Catholic Church and yourself) means, I think it shows GREAT character that she is willing to accept the consequences of her actions and keep the pregnancy. This shows responsibility on her part and I think this would have been a GOOD example to the students that an unexpected pregnancy is NOT the end of the world, however it is not in their best interests to have pre-marital sex.

"How much did she value her job? Obviously not enough to avoid pre-marital sex. She wasn't considering what was best for her classroom. It's kind of a no brainer."

Oh please. I have no doubt she valued her job. I bet she just didn't foresee getting FIRED for KEEPING HER PREGNANCY that came from pre-marital sex...the CONSEQUENCE of pre-marital sex...she accepted the consequence of having pre-marital sex by keeping the baby instead of aborting. The firing was extraneous, unnecessary and unfair.

If a woman is fired for being pregnant because it's obvious she had premarital sex...then the next logical people to fire would be:

1. All married couples using birth control.

2. All non-married couples using birth control.

3. Any non-married teacher co-habitating with someone of the opposite sex (not a church "teaching" explicitely, but certainly doesn't follow the moral teachings of the church in regards to chastity).

4. Any teacher that does not going to weekly Mass.

5. Any teacher that receives Holy Communion with a grave sin on his or her soul.

This list could go on and on.

If we're going to have a "witch hunt" then lets have it apply to all sins, not just premarital sex.

---
And to the person who suggested having an assembly- no way! It is not educationally sound to have an assembly to discuss ONE PERSON'S sex life!

"We should support something bad to keep from having something worse!?! What does that say?"

No I agree that mercy should be shown- if this mistake is going to get her fired, after she did the responsible thing to not abort-then you might as well tell the children at the school that pregnancy is bad and there is no tolerance for those who choose life after a mistake. You don't that it clashes with the Catholic teachings that every child is a blessing, rather than a punishment?

Elizabeth,
EXACTLY!!!

That is sooo manipulative!!! So, let me keep my job or I kill the kid? Grow up! She signed a document and she blew it, she was teaching at a Catholic school, what would that be teaching the kids whose parents spend extra to send their kids there?

No one said this! No one said that she was holding her baby hostage! No one is implying that this would happen- but only that in similar circumstances, the *message* being sent is that it's better for her to abort privately than endure such self-righteous arraignment by folks such as yourself.

Let me ask you- have you ever had premarital sex? Have you ever broken any of the ten commandments? And has God been merciful to you and offered you redemption anyway? I'm sure you've blown it a few times yourself in some capacity- how would you like to be treated?

The staff couldn't possibly sit down together and try to figure out a way to use this for good in their education system?

Isn't that what education is about?

I could think of oodles of ways that this school could have used this situation as a teaching tool, instead of bestowing a ton of fear on all of the girls in that school if they were ever to get pregnant.

No, PIP, I do see that- but I think the first mistake must be recognized for the sake of unholding the virtue of our faith.

I didn't mean to come across the way that did. :)

JLM
I do understand your point and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church's actions in dealing with these priests was reprehensible. I know of several people who were abused by priests. Those injustices have and are being dealt with. The church is taking steps to address this problem and to ensure that only qualified candidates are accepted at seminaries.
However, what is happening as well within the Catholic Church is a greater attempt to call all Catholics, but especially those who are in public life, one way or another, to holiness by their example.

A teacher in a Catholic school is in a special situation because they are expected to teach by example as well as in the classroom. Their lives are more open to scrutiny by the young children because of the day to day interaction. Our young children are precious and they deserve exemplary teachers. By the school keeping her in a frontline position the message is: bad choices don't have consequences. After all, she still has her job. The fact is bad choices sometimes make for bad consequences.
Unfortunately, post-modern life is all about trying to get out of those bad consequences.

"bad choices don't have consequences"

WRONG.

Premarital sex was a bad choice. She got pregnant. There is the consequence. Anything BEYOND that is malicious.

And to the person who suggested having an assembly- no way! It is not educationally sound to have an assembly to discuss ONE PERSON'S sex life!

If that person is an example to many young people, it absolutely is! Otherwise, to allow the person advertising an immorality to continue with no response from the authorities sends a confusion and wrong message to the children. It's the same as a person wearing a shirt that said "I had an abortion" or "I took communion in a state of mortal sin." Even if this person has repented and been absolved, to have an unqualified statement like that (or in this case, a visibly pregnant never-married teacher), would serve to tell students that these behaviors are okay.

Calling an assembly where she explains that the behavior was not okay serves to quell gossip and make a clear message that premarital sex is not morally acceptable. This "one person" is an example to children and she must set the record straight.

By the way, Elizabeth- I completely agree with everything else you said, which is why these things should be case-by-case.

Elizabeth- right on!

Dude this whole conversation reminds me of the scarlet letter.

In one of the districts where I taught the assistant principle was caught having sex with a student and was reassigned to the district office.

Seems like the teacher could have been reassigned rather than fired. I mean being reassigned means she loses her position but not her employment altogether.

The school itself also has an obligation to set a good example to students and it fails in its duty by having a pregnant woman resign. I think that is a bad example for students.

Patricia,
How am I not sticking to the topic? This is another article regarding this topic out of the mouth OF a Catholic:

"Last week an unmarried fifth-grade teacher at a Catholic school in Wabasha, Minn., lost her job because she disclosed she was pregnant.

There are few items that make more appealing headlines than when the Catholic Church stumbles. As this story spread across the nation, every reader picked a side. Most sided with the young woman who chose to be honest and forthright with her employer. She signed a Catholic Christian Witness Statement when she took the job. Her bosses told her she didn’t live up to the statement because she had premarital sex. She was asked to resign and she did.

There is no denying this teacher broke an agreement she signed to be an example of Catholic values. The message she got from her employer showed that the Catholic Christian Witness contract is a one-way street.

If this young woman had chosen to quietly have an abortion and keep quiet about the pregnancy, she’d have a job today.

By being honest, her employer asked for her resignation leaving this pregnant woman with no job or health benefits. What an opportunity this school had to demonstrate a forgiving Christian example. It didn’t have to condone her behavior, but acknowledge that sinners deserve forgiveness and support. The school chose to symbolically stone her.

Given the labor laws of the state, I doubt if this moral contract holds any merit. At age 23 and emotionally stressed to find out she is pregnant, this young woman chose to reach out to her Catholic community. Instead of support she was turned out. The right decision wouldn’t have been easy, but we’ve seen it exercised often when priests stumble.

This woman chose to do the most Christian thing possible. She is choosing to carry this baby to full term.

As a Catholic, my faith has taken a beating as the news of how badly bishops of 50 years ago handled priests who abused children. We are expected to follow the old Catholic axiom of pray, obey and pay.

This lesson is a bitter pill. There was a better solution than to cast this young woman and her unborn child out into the streets. The Catholic Church should be a shining example of compassion and understanding.

This lesson showed us none of that."

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/02/28/jimgalewski/galewski22.txt

"No, PIP, I do see that- but I think the first mistake must be recognized for the sake of unholding the virtue of our faith.

I didn't mean to come across the way that did. :)"

Ah, that's cool :)

Premarital sex was a bad choice. She got pregnant. There is the consequence. Anything BEYOND that is malicious.

Amen, Ari!

Thank you JLM!

Heeeeey! We agree on something! Cool beans!

Look at it from a child's perspective. She's a walking billboard for pre-marital sex. I can only imagine what would be going through those children's minds for 6 hours each day. Should they have to deal with that? Next thing you'll be saying it's OK to hang a picture of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky on the classroom wall. That's a good example for the kids.

Ari-chan,

I bet she just didn't foresee getting FIRED for KEEPING HER PREGNANCY that came from pre-marital sex...the CONSEQUENCE of pre-marital sex..

Didn't foresee? If she read the contract she signed, she knew!

"Oh please. I have no doubt she valued her job. I bet she just didn't foresee getting FIRED for KEEPING HER PREGNANCY that came from pre-marital sex...the CONSEQUENCE of pre-marital sex...she accepted the consequence of having pre-marital sex by keeping the baby instead of aborting. The firing was extraneous, unnecessary and unfair."

Ari-chan: She didn't value her job enough to not have premarital sex. She should have forseen that if she became pregnant she would lose her job. The contract stated this.

Elizabeth:
First all there's no way to police the private things that people do. We are called to be reasonable in these matters. This contract is about giving scandal by the PUBLIC actions of a person.
Therefore, if it's public knowledge that a teacher is living with another unmarried person representing themselves as husband and wife (ie commonlaw) - they should be canned.
If a that same teacher receives Holy Communion either in the parish or during school Masses they should be canned.This is completely sacriligeous.

In both cases, the teacher has decided to put themselves outside the communion of the Catholic Church. That is their decision - which there are consequences to - if they have signed the Witness contract.

These are all very public actions that cause children (and others) to lose their faith and to denigrate the sacrament of marriage and Holy Eurcharist.

By the school keeping her in a frontline position the message is: bad choices don't have consequences. After all, she still has her job. The fact is bad choices sometimes make for bad consequences.

Her bad choice has a lifetime consequence! She has a child, she'll always be a mother. She has to endure (and worse off, her child) all of the issues that come with single parenthood. Her son/daughter won't have a gushing father tucking her in every night. This woman has to do most of the childrearing herself. That's a consequence. She can tell her students that her actions have resulted in bad consequences for herself and her baby. That is a good lesson to teach these children- not that you'll be shamed and caned by those who are supposed to be instruments of Christ's peace.

Think about it this way:

By God granting you absolution in that confessional, is God sending the message that your bad choices don't have consequences? Or are you only so harsh in chastizing bad choices that you yourself wouldn't make?

Priests of the church have the authority to declare God's forgiveness to those who admit to their failings ask forgiveness. It is a sacrament.

There really isn't a common practice of dispensing punishment.

The school should go with the prevailing practice of forgiveness.

Really, Patricia? I never heard of someone losing their faith because the school didn't fire a pregnant teacher.

Ari,

"Cool beans!"

Yum, beans!

"Didn't foresee? If she read the contract she signed, she knew!"

Oh really? Does the contract say, "If you have premarital sex and get caught via pregnancy, we're gonna fire your azz for being an irresponsible harlot"?

Do you have ANY IDEA WHAT MESSAGE THIS SENDS!?

It basically says, it's okay to have premarital sex as long as we don't catch you at it...so if you get pregnant and you abort, we'll never know you had premarital sex and you won't lose your job.

Yeah.

FAIL.

These are all very public actions that cause children (and others) to lose their faith and to denigrate the sacrament of marriage and Holy Eurcharist.

Lose their faith? Please. If anything, they would lose their faith over seeing how the Catholic church preaches forgiveness and then renigs on it. If anything, these kids learn hypocrisy within the church. THAT would send more of a message to me to run like the wind. Forgiveness would make me stay.

"If this young woman had chosen to quietly have an abortion and keep quiet about the pregnancy, she’d have a job today."

Yes, JLM, she could have had an abortion and made yet another bad choice. Thankfully she did not.
She chose to deal with the consequences of her first bad choice - which was not to follow the teachings of the faith and remain chaste until marriage.
God doesn't force us to do this you know. We do have a choice. We are not perfect and he understands this. However, there are consequences.

If you had read my earlier posts you would see that I was not advocating kicking her to the curb.

Ari-chan,
Premarital sex is wrong, it's not OK, it's wrong, it's not OK.!

Look at it from a child's perspective.

Okay, let's!

"Wow, my teacher made a mistake. She went to the Church like we're taught and she was fired, shamed and judged. I better never go to the Church if I make a mistake."

or

"Wow, my teacher got pregnant and didn't abort. So the Church that says abortion is wrong decided to fire her and humilate her rather than support her like they would an non-Catholic who got pregnant. It's better to abort or be a non-Catholic."

Nice messages we're sending, huh?

If you had read my earlier posts you would see that I was not advocating kicking her to the curb.

Were you advocating forgiveness and her KEEPING her job, health insurance, etc???

@Janet: Firing a woman for getting pregnant because of making a bad choice is MORE WRONG.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm downright ashamed of you pro-lifers so quickly throwing this woman under the bus!

Why should women in crisis pregnancies come to us for help if you're going to be so judgemental and mercilous to one of your very own?

And I take note of the fact that that all of you artfully deflected my questions about your personal chastity.

"Didn't foresee? If she read the contract she signed, she knew!"

Have none of you Catholics ever committed a mortal sin? A mortal sin is such because you do it with full consent of your will and you know it's a grave offense to God.

You made baptismal promises at your confirmation. You KNEW what you were doing also when you chose to mortally sin. How has God responded to you?

How sad is it that this women getting caught doing something that you haven't done (or at the least, haven't been CAUGHT doing) makes you so gleefully self-righteous.

Deflect what?

Jacueline,
I totally agree.

You know, it doesn't matter what the church teaches, or what God says...it's all about that little piece of paper she signed. How pathetic!

This whole conversation has left me sick, Pharisees.

"Her bad choice has a lifetime consequence! She has a child, she'll always be a mother. She has to endure (and worse off, her child) all of the issues that come with single parenthood. Her son/daughter won't have a gushing father tucking her in every night. This woman has to do most of the childrearing herself."

We dont' know what Ms Emily's decisions will be -she may give the child up for adoption for all I know. After all she is 23 years old.
The bad consequence that I was referring to and I think you know this but chose to ignore it, was the loss of her job - and not the baby conceived. Be reasonable.

"By God granting you absolution in that confessional, is God sending the message that your bad choices don't have consequences? "

Absolutely not. In fact there may continue to be physical consequences and there will most likely still be some spiritual consequences to my bad decision (of which I've made my fair share of, I'd like you to know). While she is forgiven, she cannot be in a position that may harm the faith of innocent children. Read my post on my children's experience in the classroom.

"Really, Patricia? I never heard of someone losing their faith because the school didn't fire a pregnant teacher."

How do you know this for certain? None of us know the full effect of our actions until after death.

"Oh really? Does the contract say, "If you have premarital sex and get caught via pregnancy, we're gonna fire your azz for being an irresponsible harlot"?

One would presume that she is intelligent enough to figure out that if she got pregnant her job would be rescinded. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Deflect what?

My questions about whether or not you could have ever become pregnant out of wedlock or caught in another type of mortal sin- and how God has responded to you.

@Jacqueline: You know, we disagree almost 90% of the time on things but I have to say, it's been very pleasant agreeing with you on this. :)

"Were you advocating forgiveness and her KEEPING her job, health insurance, etc???"

Read my posts @7:18 am and 12:00

Patricia,
What about the bond that those children had to their teacher in that classroom. I had a teacher in third grade that I adored. She was wonderful! She got sick and left mid-year. I was devastated.

What kind of an effect do you think the loss of this teacher will have on these 5th graders?

Non-Pharisee group hug!!!!!

***HUGS****

"One would presume that she is intelligent enough to figure out that if she got pregnant her job would be rescinded. Ignorance is not an excuse."

And that's discriminatory and sexist! Only the woman could potentially be "punished" and "face the extraneous consequences" of having pre-marital sex. This kind of crap ALLOWS men to get away with pre-marital sex in these instances because they show now physical signs of having had sex!

I think perhaps there is an additional problem we are not addressing here. A small child is in the process of forming a moral code. In doing so his/her moral universe is pretty strict and does not allow much leeway for gray areas nor forgiveness. Adult morality has so much of this that some people cling to moral relativism.

So 'for the sake of the kids' I think this resignation/firing appropriate. If such would mean stoning her, I'd re-think this position.

John, congrats Bobbie

Patricia,

I did read your posts. That didn't happen. Did you read mine?

"By being honest, her employer asked for her resignation leaving this pregnant woman with no job or health benefits. What an opportunity this school had to demonstrate a forgiving Christian example. It didn’t have to condone her behavior, but acknowledge that sinners deserve forgiveness and support. The school chose to symbolically stone her.

Given the labor laws of the state, I doubt if this moral contract holds any merit. At age 23 and emotionally stressed to find out she is pregnant, this young woman chose to reach out to her Catholic community. Instead of support she was turned out. The right decision wouldn’t have been easy, but we’ve seen it exercised often when priests stumble."

So 'for the sake of the kids' I think this resignation/firing appropriate. If such would mean stoning her, I'd re-think this position.

Taking the actual "stone" out of the equation, what's the difference?

What this specific private school is saying to it's employees is that we are holding teachers to a certain level of conduct - we expect you to live a faith filled life in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
If someone feels they can't do this then they need to move on and work somewhere else.
If they feel they can, then great - there should be no problem.
Once again, because of mitigating factors in this situation - the unborn child - there should have been some effort to help this woman remain employed in some capacity.

We dont' know what Ms Emily's decisions will be -she may give the child up for adoption for all I know.

And that's not a consequence? Do you not know how emotionally wrenching and greiving PLACING (not give, place) a child for adoption is on a woman? Her pregnancy is enough of a consequence without you stoning her by taking her job. This accomplishes nothing good. It's simply mercilous and evil. Pregnancy is not a diseases the kids will catch, and she is repentant. Your concern is only valid if she intended to cohabitate and continue to be sexually immoral. She doesn't. Thanks for treating her like she is!

Absolutely not. In fact there may continue to be physical consequences and there will most likely still be some spiritual consequences to my bad decision (of which I've made my fair share of, I'd like you to know).

You've gotten mercy- now show some. Being merciful here hurts no one- Your insistence that she 'pay' absolutely hurts her and the children involved. You're teaching them to steer clear of the Church and her members if there is ever trouble.

While she is forgiven, she cannot be in a position that may harm the faith of innocent children.

She's not- You are. She repented and went to her authorities. She's not continuing in mortal sin. You however are showing the innocent children that they can't get mercy from the Church. Imagine the harm that does to a child's faith. It would certainly create a distate in Catholicism for anyone with half a functioning heart!

we expect you to live a faith filled life in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So, what you're saying, is that the teachings of the Catholic church have nothing to do with forgiveness, love, kindness or mercy?

I always thought that that was the whole crux of faith: We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But Jesus was sent to forgive us for our sins. He taught us how to forgive, love show kindness and mercy.

I thought that the teachings of Christ is what the Catholic church was modeled after. Am I wrong?

we expect you to live a faith filled life in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church

She did. She mortally sinned- SO HAVE YOU, but then she followed the teaching of the Church and repented. But that's not enough for you, is it?

Deflect what?

My questions about whether or not you could have ever become pregnant out of wedlock or caught in another type of mortal sin- and how God has responded to you.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 1:09 PM

You don't know me. I don't pretend to know God's judgement of ANYONE. I am NOT judging her.

First and foremost, this is a CIVIL matter. We have laws in this country that are made for the good of its people, and contract law is an important part of the law.

Now, all I am saying is that she deserves to be fired if she broke the terms of her contract.

That doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for her, or want to help her the best way I can. I would hope her friend and family would be there to support her. Maybe something good could come of this. Maybe these children will think twice before they "lose their virginity" before they are married. If that results 25 abortions to be avoided, that would be good. Isn't a teacher's primary role to teach the children? Many of you act like she's only there to babysit.

And just for the record, Patricia, I went to a Protestant church years ago. The Pastor there was a WONDERFUL teacher. He was loved by his entire congregation. He was a dear, sweet, loving and kind man.

His teenage son and girlfriend engaged in pre-marital sex and his girlfriend became pregnant. The church "kicked the beloved pastor to the curb". He was "fired".

Needles to say, we left that church. Hypocrisy at its finest. I see many parallels of this story to that of the dear pastor of that church.

Let's make something clear: There is a difference between walking in willful sin and stumbling.

Someone who gets drunk at a wedding or on their 21st birthday and repents is different from someone that gets drunk every weekend and brags about it with pictures on their myspace.

Someone that has pre-marital sex and repents if different from someone who takes a depo shot, lives with their boyfriend or otherwise does this regularly.

If this woman said, "I'm pregnant. There's nothing wrong with this. I'm continuing in my lifestyle" firing would be the only appropriate answer, since she would be setting a bad example and confusing impressionable children.

That. didn't. happen. here.

"I thought that the teachings of Christ is what the Catholic church was modeled after. Am I wrong?"

Nope! :)

You don't know me.

I don't pretend to. You also don't know her.

I don't pretend to know God's judgement of ANYONE. I am NOT judging her.

My ass.

Notice how defensive and angry you become when someone questions your virtue and yet you crucify this woman.

"Whoops- I need to keep my mouth shut. I voted for Hillary to keep from getting Obama, so I guess I'm a hipocrite."

Hehehe, Jacqueline, me too :)

S.

@JLM: That's really sad. :(

When I was growing up (I was raised Catholic), we had a jerk-of-a-priest who treated the alter-servers (like myself) like garbage. He never learned our names. He wasn't nice to anybody but the wealthy old people who donated a *lot* of money to the church for it's various remodelling projects.

I mean, for awhile we lacked a "permanent" pastor, and every one of the visiting priests in our church made an attempt to learn the alter server's name during their stay at our church. The jerk that came in as our permanent priest made no such effort.

"Why not call an assembly, explain that Ms. Prigge is expecting, have her admit to the children that pre-marital sex is wrong and she made a mistake, but that every baby is a gift from God that deserves to live. What a way to encourage responsibility for actions, teach about sexual morality and reaffirm the sanctity of life!!!"

This appears to be an elementary school - some of the kids there would be too young (such as a K or 1st grader) for this type of discussion. My Kindergartener would have no idea what sex, pre-marital or otherwise, is, and I really don't think he's ready to learn that right now at a school assembly!

S.

Don't worry, Jacqueline, you're just a demon anyways...

Jacqueline,

Wow. I'm not angry, I only used CAPS for emphasis because you obviously are misreading what I am saying. I don't appreciate the fowl language.

Bobby, John, Patricia, thanks for being the voices of reason in this hate-filled discussion. It has turned into a Catholic-bashing party, so I'm out of here.

Now, all I am saying is that she deserves to be fired if she broke the terms of her contract.

And you've broken your baptismal vows a time or two. Haven't you received mercy?

That doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for her, or want to help her the best way I can.

Well, she certainly appreciates your condemnation and support of her losing her income and benefits.

I would hope her friend and family would be there to support her.

Since her sister in Christ (you) and her Church decides to kick her to the curb? Do you not see this absurdity?

Maybe something good could come of this.

It could have. It could have been addressed publicly as an example of mercy when one repents, the bad consequences of single parenthood, and the sanctity of human life. Instead, your way makes the Church look hipocritical, merciless and wrong and tells kids they better stay far away when they are in need. Oh wait, maybe they'll have "friend or family" right?

Maybe these children will think twice before they "lose their virginity" before they are married.

Or maybe they'll make a mistake, realize you'll crucify them for it, and run to the arms of Planned Parenthood rather than endure your self-righteous condemnation.

If that results 25 abortions to be avoided, that would be good.

Or 25 more of them! After all, didn't Ms. Emily choose life and wouldn't she have been spared this if she'd have aborted?

And when do the ends justify the means? "Sure, we'll stone this adulteress because maybe 25 women won't get stoned by this example." I think Jesus disagrees with you.

Isn't a teacher's primary role to teach the children?

Yes- not be burned in effigy for being a human being who made a mistake.

Ari,
Your story is sad, too.

It only reiterates the need to show kindness, mery and love. None of which the Catholic school did here.

Unforgiveness, chastizement and not showing love can definatley make someone run from their faith or church for that matter.

I truly is a shame.

I'm sorry Jacqueline and JLM I simply don't agree with you.
I just think that fornicating, cohabitating couples have no place in our Catholic school systems.
I just think that teachers who use BC also have no place in our Catholic school systems.
I just think that homosexuals who openly practice and promote the gay lifestyle also have no place in our school systems.
We as Catholics have put up with this crap far too long.
It's time to take back our schools.
My children's Catholic hs has a gay chaplain. He's not treated with any kind of respect. This poor man needs to be in counselling.The children KNOW this man is not well. He makes a sham of morning prayers. My children KNOW they are being fed pablum. He came into the class and taught the children how to use a condom! This is a Catholic school - not PP! This man should be fired but all our pleas fall on deaf ears!

My daughter's teacher is a young woman living with her divorced fiancee. This is totally unacceptable. What kind of example is this to my daughter?
I remember when we actually respected our teachers because they were good men and women.

My kids repect the one man in their elementary school because he is a lovely, handsome, God fearing chaste man who goes to confession regularly and attends Bible class. He is dearly loved - why? Because he's an example for the children to emulate.
How can a teacher teach religion class and the faith if he/she isn't living it. They don't have a clue. You can't impart something you aren't livig.
You want tolerance but at the expense of our children.
I say NO! ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
This woman signed the contract - she KNEW the repercussions. There should be some mercy towards her but she should not retain her frontline position.

"Bobby, John, Patricia, thanks for being the voices of reason in this hate-filled discussion. It has turned into a Catholic-bashing party, so I'm out of here."

Wait Janet. I mean, I know you guys disagree, but I don't see it as being a Catholic bashing party... what post do you have in mind?

@Janet: I hope you realize that Jacqueline is Catholic...*very* Catholic...

And to be honest, I don't see any Catholic-bashing. We're bashing the bad policy of this school...at least I am...due to it's sexism/discrimination.

Wow. I'm not angry, I only used CAPS for emphasis because you obviously are misreading what I am saying.

No, I'm not. You are all about using this woman as an example rather than being merciful. I'm not bashing Catholicism, you're misrepresenting it. Catholicism is Christ's rule on Earth and the administration of grace through sacraments to endure the mission. It's grace and mercy- not "Maybe firing this repentant pregnant woman will teach kids not to have sex!"

And Bobby is always on my side. We have an unspoken alliance. Like Survivor.

@Janet: I hope you realize that Jacqueline is Catholic...*very* Catholic...

Aw, thanks Ari-Chan. I'm so flattered. I'm downright glowing. That made my day!

@Jacqueline: I only speaketh the Troof. :)

Patricia-

I just think that fornicating, cohabitating couples have no place in our Catholic school systems.

I agree! People walking in willfull, unrepentant sin set a horrible example and shouldn't be in frontline positions.

However, this woman made a mistake, admitted it, repented and threw herself at the mercy of the Church- and she got none! I can see moving her to a non-frontline position, but this simple firing her did no good at all- for anyone.

I think you're being overly harsh and assuming this woman was living an openly sinful life and pregnancy was a consequence. She could have made a mistake a time or two- either way, she proceeded appropriately.

Cut some slack!

"Maybe firing this repentant pregnant woman will teach kids not to have sex!"

The school is NOT punishing this woman! They have an obligation to the parents of the students and the students themselves to protect them from scandal. As a private school that's what the parents expect from it. Otherwise, they would presumably send their kids to a secular one.

Anyone or any group that does not follow God's word is following either the doctrines of men or of demons.

The Bible is clear: "1 Timothy 4:1-4, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

However, this woman made a mistake, admitted it, repented and threw herself at the mercy of the Church- and she got none! I can see moving her to a non-frontline position, but this simple firing her did no good at all- for anyone.

I think you're being overly harsh and assuming this woman was living an openly sinful life and pregnancy was a consequence. She could have made a mistake a time or two- either way, she proceeded appropriately."

You have no idea what's been offered this woman behind the scenes! None of us do! We simply do not have all the facts. She may have been hung out to dry or she may not have been.

I have made no assumptions what-so-ever. All I know is that this woman violated the terms of her contract. She's an adult - she presumably understood what she signed. The fact that she came clean about shows she did. She may have had a one night stand or still be with the guy. Who knows?

But again, HisMan, how do you know that God's word is ONLY passed on in written form? Is it unreasonable to believe it could have been passed on through spoken word as well?

This reminds me of my parents "call no matter what" policy. I don't care what mess I might get myself in, I know I could call them rather than get myself in deeper (for example: getting drunk and driving home).

I've never needed to use this, but do you think I would if my big sister had called them and was subsequently punished harshly? All the children at this school know now is that they can't call the Church if they make a mistake, so they get in deeper (for example, getting pregnant and getting an abortion).

Moreover, a couple in the worship team at my previous church got pregnant before they got married. They approached the Pastor who had them address the congregation and confess. The Pastor then said, "That's it! It's over. Forgiven. It was wrong, we all acknowledge it, but now this can't be used to slander Christ, our church body, etc. There is no scandal. It's in the light. It's over!" That was the right answer! Would you suggest we strike membership from this couple? Excommunicate them? That's essentially what was done to Ms. Emily.

Patricia:

Again this is your opinion and not God's intruction on the matter:

I will repeat what God says about such matters: "In the 2nd Chapter of 2 Corinthians we recieved these instructions from Paul on matters like these: "5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes."

Do you get it or not?

They have an obligation to the parents of the students and the students themselves to protect them from scandal

Indeed. Had they called an assembly and handled this internally, the classy, Christ-like way, there would be no newspaper article and no debate. No pro-choicers pointing fingers at us and our supposed hipocrisy. They created scandal!

Patricia- Can't you see that this was the wrong way to handle this? Why defend it?

Make her wear a big scarlet "A" and make her stand on the podium before she goes...so all the kids can have a good look at her.

No HisMan I don't get it!
My post @ 1:43pm stands.
This is not about forgiveness. It's about protecting children from scandal. I'm sure Ms Emily has been forgiven and will receive much help from the Catholic community. I would be the first to offer to help her. I've worked in Birthright and done tons of prolife work. But she has no business now in front of a classroom full of impressionable children.

To Bobby-

And many of the written forms of God's word were removed by Luther when they didn't support his personal interpretation or didn't releive his personal anguish (i.e. prayers for the dead).

I could understand sola scriptura better if it were sola "whola" scriptura rather than sola "summa" scriptura.

She's an adult - she presumably understood what she signed.

So this "piece of paper" trumps God's total forgiveness? I think maybe you're assuming what was actually in that statement that she signed. According to this article, it was just being a good example as a Christian in her personal and academic life.

Isn't having faith a good example of leading a Christian life? Isn't that what Christian life is all about? If she would have aborted, she wouldn't have trusted that God could take care of her throughout the years. She kept the baby and trusted that everything would be ok because of her faith in God.

How is that not being a good example of leading a Christian life? One mistake and you become instantly unfaithful?

Jacqueline,
An assembly is soooo beyond the pale, I can't believe you would even consider this.
I can't imagine making a young woman in Emily's situation stand before hundreds of students and publicy denounce herself.
She has more than enough to deal with.
Not to mention the effect on the children by further exposing them to even more.

It's about protecting children from scandal.

But it DIDN'T. Look at the comments here! Look at the criticism of Catholicism. It created scandal.

And Jacqueline I've already stated at least 3 times on this thread my position on Emily's firing.
I wish you'd actually read it!

"I could understand sola scriptura better if it were sola "whola" scriptura rather than sola "summa" scriptura."

That's quite clever, Jacque :)

And many of the written forms of God's word were removed by Luther when they didn't support his personal interpretation or didn't releive his personal anguish (i.e. prayers for the dead).

Which one's were those?

It doesn't matter what the Catholic Church does - it always creates scandal in the minds of some, you know Jacqueline.
You as a Catholic should know that.
Whatever the position the school took on this matter they would be open to criticism. The school has a policy to follow (which they may or may not change) and it's dictated by the parents and administration.

Anyway, I've had enough of floggin a dead horse! I'm going to hang some drapes.

Ahhh so many comments to read, so little time..I think that many of the arguments everyone is putting forth have merit (except Jaspers's, his lacks all compassion), and it is a tough situation.

The school should show mercy because they ALSO teach that God is a merciful God. It is unfortunate that she made this mistake in judgement (the premarital sex part, not the choosing to keep the baby part) but I don't see how it proves anything to have another unwed, jobless mother out there. We should try to help and stand behind people when they need it the most.

"Which one's were those?"

Uh oh. Let's not go there. We don't want another 1500 post Weekend Question, ehh ? hehe...

Bobby,
Oh, come on....you could be the 1000th commenter again????

:)

The concept that sex and pregnancy is perverted unless some guy in a dress says differently is just plain nuts. Small wonder so many are sexually dysfunctional and prone to acts of perversion. This organization has every right to exhibit to the world exactly what their agenda is. I'd love to see the church defend their self proclaimed right to govern a persons legal sex life and gestational decisions as a condition of employment in a court of law. Especially when so many child molesting perverts have been allowed to keep theirs. It is nothing less than demonizing women. Is this church above the law?

"Oh, come on....you could be the 1000th commenter again????"

LOL. Tempting...

LOL!

Into this boisterous conversation I quickly jump to say this isn't just a Catholic issue.

I'm an evangelical and have observed similar situations in our world.

Here's one: Our church had an elder (leader) whose unmarried daughter became pregnant, and he stepped down. Not sure whether he was asked or volunteered, which would make a difference, I suppose.

But this dilemma is not sola Catholic is my point.

Go study the Bible, just the Bible and then tell me if you're opinion changes.

The comments about Luther reflect a lot of ignorance, however, I do not fully agree with his theology either.

Sin is always, always, always trumped by forgiveness or grace, otherwise God is a loser and Satan is a winner. Who's side do you want to be on?

We preach a doctrine of repentance in the context of God's love and forgiveness. the letter or the law kills but the Spirit gives life.

Certainly they don't have any divorcees on their staff - what kind of example would that set for the children?
Gluttony is a deadly sin. Do they enforce a no-tolerance badonkadonk policy?

I don't mean to come across as having no compassion for this woman, because I do. Patricia says it better than I am. Sometimes letting someone deal with the consequences of their actions is the most loving thing one can do. A parent who looks the other way is not doing their child any good in the long run. Look at it as a "character builder".

Posted by: Janet at March 8, 2008 12:21 PM
.....................................................

Twisted. Women should be punished for having sex unless I approve of her having sex. Why not just stone the woman to death? The Bible supports it.

Jill,
I totally agree! I posted a similar situation that we had in one of our churches years ago...a Protestant one. (March 8, 2008 1:30 PM)

Ari's the only one that seems to have responded to it, though.

I don't see this as Catholic bashing either...We left the church I was at, a Protestant church, for very similar reasons for my opinions are on this article.

I don't really care what church it happens in...if the church centers around Christ and forgiveness, and it doesn't forgive, I'll have the very same opinions on them all.

God's "law" trumps man's "law".

Jill:

That's becausee the Bible addresses directly the qualifications of an elder. Here it is:
Titus: "6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient."

These are not opinions Jill.

badonkadonk policy

ROFLMAO!

JLM, sorry, missed that. Thanks for trying to keep this discussion fair. It's really a generic Christian question.

Read my post on my children's experience in the classroom.

I don't think that kids are going to stop wondering about the implicit sexuality of their teachers anytime soon. When I was in 2nd grade, my teacher got married. I knew this because her last name changed. I was acutely aware that even if she had not had sex before, she had had sex after. We all were. Sex comes up whether it's immoral by your standards or not. I don't think that kids will somehow not be aware of sex if every adult around them is either abstinent or married, because even the concept of abstinence comments by its very nature on the fact of sex within marriage -- it's fairly normal for kids to be aware of sex even if they're not entirely aware of what sex entails, AND even if you don't like it. So if the ridiculous assertion that kids will only wonder about sex if they are presented with immoral sexual examples is set aside, what reason is there to fire this woman? Why not make a POSITIVE example out of her rather than a NEGATIVE one -- instead of saying, "If you do this, we will shun you," say, "Even if you do this, we will forgive you and love you, but we can't undo the consequences that result from your actions."

This sort of hypocrisy -- "Everyone sins, Jesus saves!" "Oh, wait, that sin was really visible, out with you!" -- had a fair bit to do with my eventually becoming disgusted with the church I attended.

LOL FF- good point!!

HisMan,
Thank you for that.
Now it makes sense.

But after we left the church some of the members (a very small few) rang our doorbell, and when we answered it, they were standing there, then they spit on our porch, then left.

Do you know where that came from?

Jill,
Your welcome, and I agree.

"But after we left the church some of the members (a very small few) rang our doorbell, and when we answered it, they were standing there, then they spit on our porch, then left."

Wow, that is SICK.

Excuse me but where's the opinion?

I'm sorry, let me be more clear:

This applies to the girl who was fired: In the 2nd Chapter of 2 Corinthians we recieved these instructions from Paul on matters like these: "5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes."

This applies to Jill's elder:

That's becausee the Bible addresses directly the qualifications of an elder. Here it is:
Titus: "6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient."

They are totally different situations.

This is why the Bible says that we should study to show ourselves approved....dividing aright the Word of Truth...

The pro-aborts on this site speak like fools and a lot of the pro-lifers speak thinking they know God's word and they don't and they grossly missapply it.

JLM:

From the pit of Hell?

LOL FF- good point!!

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 8, 2008 2:49 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you PIP.
I always run the "Big Seven" through my head; lust, anged, hatred, pride, sloth, avarice, and gluttony.

If pregnancy is a physical manifestation of the sin of lust, then isn't obesity a physical manifestation of the sins sloth and gluttony?
WHAT DO WE TELL THE CHILDREN!?

Bobby,
It was sick! I agree. I just don't know where it came from. From what I heard, it is "standard" in few churches to do that when someone leaves the church.

ICK!

The Bible works guys:

We, Catholics and Protestants alike, should have the courage to follow it and vehemently oppose those who teach false dcotrines. What are false doctrines, those that deviate from the Word of God.

Before you can follow it, you need to read and it and study it.

HisMan,
I agree! I have such a hard time with "churches". I don't go to one at this time. If I could find a church that taught the bible ONLY, I'd go in a heartbeat. I just don't know if there is such an animal!

Sola scriptura all the way for me!!!!!

HisMan,
How do you discern false doctrines when the creaters of those false doctrines use the Word of God to create them?

I mean, if you're reading the word of God, and there are opposite interpretations of the same scriptures, how can you know who's interpretation is correct?

anged,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That was supposed to be "anger."

But FF...now that I've gained some weight, I finally have a badonkadonk. I no longer get wedgies...it's been nice. :-p

FF-

I know! The kids will get the idea that pigging out is okay-they are supposed to be perfect examples...it's signed in their contract!

Obviously she doesn't deserve to be fired. Pregnancy doesn't preclude her from doing her job, so this really is nothing but sex discrimination masquerading as "morality."

It's OK, though. I'm sure she'll find a better job. I feel more sorry for the Catholic church. Pretty soon, they'll have kicked out everyone but the pedophiles.

HisMan,
How do you discern false doctrines when the creaters of those false doctrines use the Word of God to create them?

I mean, if you're reading the word of God, and there are opposite interpretations of the same scriptures, how can you know who's interpretation is correct?

Posted by: JLM at March 8, 2008 3:06 PM
...............................................

Not to mention the fact that interpretations have changed over the centuries. Official doctrine gets tossed out and replaced.

JLM, so people came and spit on your porch for leaving the church? WHOA!

Obviously she doesn't deserve to be fired. Pregnancy doesn't preclude her from doing her job, so this really is nothing but sex discrimination masquerading as "morality."

It's OK, though. I'm sure she'll find a better job. I feel more sorry for the Catholic church. Pretty soon, they'll have kicked out everyone but the pedophiles.

Posted by: reality at March 8, 2008 3:17 PM
................................................

I wonder if church members are banned from employing her as well.

We should also have someone go through their purse every morning in case they find birth control pills, a twinkie, or a blank schedule.

Elizabeth,
YES!
It was horrible!

I'm going to do a search now to find out the meaning behind those actions. I totally forgot about it until now, and never was curious as to "why"...I'm obvioulsy glad I left that church, though!

Ick, that's terrible!!! You should have turned the hose on them. lol.

Elizabeth,
LOL! If only I would have thought about it at that time....

"This is not about forgiveness. It's about protecting children from scandal. I'm sure Ms Emily has been forgiven and will receive much help from the Catholic community. I would be the first to offer to help her. I've worked in Birthright and done tons of prolife work. But she has no business now in front of a classroom full of impressionable children."

Exactly!!!

Jill, JLM,
A friend of mine is a public school teacher who was living with her live in boyfriend at the time that she got pregnant, the same thing almost happened but he married her and she kept her job. Public school!!!

Jacque,
"No one said this! No one said that she was holding her baby hostage! No one is implying that this would happen- but only that in similar circumstances, the *message* being sent is that it's better for her to abort privately than endure such self-righteous arraignment by folks such as yourself.

Let me ask you- have you ever had premarital sex? Have you ever broken any of the ten commandments? And has God been merciful to you and offered you redemption anyway? I'm sure you've blown it a few times yourself in some capacity- how would you like to be treated?"

Ari-Chan said it!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the second part, none of your business. Who the heck are you to ask anyway? I seriously would expect better from a moderator, you have been completely out of line. You haven't been very charitable to your fellow Catholics as you have been preaching for it. You are deliberately trying to provoke anger.

Jill, JLM,
A friend of mine is a public school teacher who was living with her live in boyfriend at the time that she got pregnant, the same thing almost happened but he married her and she kept her job. Public school!!!

That is wierd...Public school! I'm wondering what religion the one that was making that decision was. Maybe that was part of the decision?

Rosie, in all honesty, I believe that Jacqueline is just very passionate on this subject. I really don't see her deliberately trying to provoke anger. That doesn't seem like her at all, wouldn't you agree?

I don't think Jacqueline was deliberately provoking anger either.

I think she has a valid point.

In my 3:35 post, the first para. should have been italicized...Those are Rosie's words, not mine. I'm sorry Rosie!

Ari,
This is getting WAY too wierd...we just agreed on ANOTHER thing!!!!!

Jill,
Reading this thread, I think this has become a bash-the Catholic Church session;
If you had maybe indicated in your post that you wanted the discussion to focus on the Christian aspect, things would have turned out differently.
As we all know, Christian faiths are made up of people who are human and prone to mistakes. No Christian faith has the corner on behaving perfectly in every instance or circumstance.
I left this thread because of the vehement anti-Catholic posts and the mocking of my faith.
Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
Interestingly, I noticed that Bobby, a Catholic, never specifically commented on the post at question. I'm curious as to why?

Holy moo cows Batman! :D

Who would have thought that a conservative Christian and a vaguely liberal atheist could agree on something! :-p

I'm going out to shovel my driveway before I can no longer FIND my car!

Patricia, I'm very curious where the Catholic-bashing has occurred. Could you please point out some specific posts that you feel are anti-Catholic?

Who would have thought that a conservative Christian and a vaguely liberal atheist could agree on something! :-p

Stranger things HAVE happened....

"Interestingly, I noticed that Bobby, a Catholic, never specifically commented on the post at question. I'm curious as to why?"

Well Patricia, to me this seems to be a matter of prudence. As a general rule, I try not to take sides on things that fall under that kind of category. For example, since the Church has not made any official declaration on it (and probably never will), I don't take a stance on the evolution vs. ID debate. So it seems to me that Catholics in good faith can have differing opinions on the issue at hand. Now maybe I am incorrect about that, and if you think so, I am open to hearing why. God love you.

If you had maybe indicated in your post that you wanted the discussion to focus on the Christian aspect, things would have turned out differently.

Aren't Catholics Christian???

Interestingly, I noticed that Bobby, a Catholic, never specifically commented on the post at question. I'm curious as to why?

He was too busy sola-scriptura bashing!

(just kidding, Bobby!)

Really, though, lighten up a little, please. It's ok for people of the same faith to disagree. We're not robots, you know?
You brought up very good points from a school's perspective that brought on good debate! It's kindof like abortion...some think it's a moral issue, and some think it's a religious issue.
I think you and Jacquline are just looking at it from a different point of view, that's all!

"Really, though, lighten up a little, please. It's ok for people of the same faith to disagree. We're not robots, you know?"

I agree, however, when someone starts saying things like "You Catholics..." it really ticks me off especially when it is another Catholic doing it. Should one extend charity to only those who don't share you faith or to everyone? Do you see what i'm getting at?

Rosie,

I agree, however, when someone starts saying things like "You Catholics..." it really ticks me off especially when it is another Catholic doing it. Should one extend charity to only those who don't share you faith or to everyone? Do you see what i'm getting at?

I do see your point, in more ways than you know!

I think I changed my mind on this one. If I was the priest, I couldn't have fired this young women.

I don't think they should have hired her in the first place. I think nuns and priests should be the only ones allowed to teach in Catholic schools. If they did it that way there wouldn't be crap like this happening at all.

I think I changed my mind on this one. If I was the priest, I couldn't have fired this young women.

Posted by: jasper at March 8, 2008 4:59 PM
.............................................

OK. Who's impersonating Jasper?

Rosie,

Nuns and priests make mistakes too.

How should the church handle it when they make some mistake?

I don't think they should have hired her in the first place. I think nuns and priests should be the only ones allowed to teach in Catholic schools. If they did it that way there wouldn't be crap like this happening at all.

Posted by: rosie at March 8, 2008 5:35 PM
.............................................

There may not be enough priests or nuns qualified to teach.

Jasper,
What made you change your mind?

I haven't read all the posts because geez there sure are a lot.

First off Wabasha, mn is only 30 minutes from where I live.

Secondly,

No I don't think she should be fired or asked to resign. While I understand their concern I pose one question how do we know she wasn't raped?

I don't agree with firing her. They could have taught their students about mercy and compassion, but they did not. The school not only let the teacher down, but they also let their students down.

Wow, what a thread. And I got a hat tip on the post! I'd like to thank the Academy....

I think that this must have been a difficult decision for all involved in this woman's firing. Unfortunately, it seems to me that firing her for her "sin" has the unintended consequence of punishing her baby, which when it is born, will have an unemployed single mother with no health care benefits trying to take care of it.

I can't remember if this is in the bible or not, but isn't there something in the New Testament about not visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons? Or in this case, the sins of the mother? Isn't one of the main pro-life tenets that abortion is unfairly making an innocent life pay consequences for which it is not responsible?

"How should the church handle it when they make some mistake?"

Like?? You mean if a perverted priest molests a student? Put him in the slammer as far as i'm concerned or a hospital like those stupid women that slept with their students.

@HisMan 2:56,

" 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him." am very curious as to what punishment she endures here. Seems to me Paul is talking about mitigating the punishment ... not absolving her from due punishment. Am I wrong?

John

The school is NOT punishing this woman. She signed a contract and they should follow through.

Even if you are forgiven, you may still have to suffer the ocnsequences or punishments. If I murdered someone, I may be placed in jail, even if I confess to priest.

I wrote earlier about my relative which had this same thing happen to her. She went on to have the baby and was hired to teach at another Catholic school in a different state.

Hey, what about marrying the dad? Where is dad to take responsibility? Does the question change if this was a 'one night stand'? What would be best for the baby, a mom and a dad.

I think that the issue here is scandal not pregnancy. If a male teacher had gotten someone other than his spouse pregnant he should also be forced to resign or be terminated. We must all be held accountable for the example that we set.

As for the second part, none of your business. Who the heck are you to ask anyway?

Because you're bashing this woman as if you have stones to throw- when I seriously doubt you do. Even the most virginal paragon of virtue chaste as a pearl has gotten mercy from God through Christ's passion, so you have no call to self-righteously bash this woman. Share a fraction of the mercy you've freely recieved- or don't expect people not to be incensed at your heartlessness.

I seriously would expect better from a moderator, you have been completely out of line.

It's an appointed position not based at all in merit, so your expectations are misplaced.

Furthermore, I haven't been out-of-line. If I broke a rule, point it out and complain to Jill. You've been holier-than-thou'ing over the stumble of a repentant woman and I've been defending her. I defend everyone who I see unjustly condemned. If someone were coming down on you unjustly or over-zealously, I'd back you up. You're just the aggressor in this instance.

You haven't been very charitable to your fellow Catholics as you have been preaching for it.

Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. The teacher in question is your fellow Catholic, whom you support locking in stocks in the town square for all to mock. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I'm sure she might prefer that over losing her job.

You are deliberately trying to provoke anger.

You're angry because I've pointed out that you, like the teacher in question, aren't perfect and have recieved mercy---and thus you should give mercy. More cliches that come to mind are "What goes around" and "if you can't stand the heat..."

I think that the issue here is scandal not pregnancy. If a male teacher had gotten someone other than his spouse pregnant he should also be forced to resign or be terminated. We must all be held accountable for the example that we set.

I just feel there is more at stake here- She approached the body Christ appointed to deliver His mercy and got none. What does that tell the children?

Furthermore, in all cases, there is a call for mercy when there is mercy available to give. In the case of a serial rapist, we can't be merciful and give him parole because of the risk to others and justice must prevail. But in this case, it could have been handled mercifully rather than coldly or maliciously. This could have testified to the sanctity of life or used to tell children about sexual morality- that we all can make mistakes, and that this is not acceptable, but the Church will not turn you out. Instead, the Church turned her out. In this case a simple, "She broke her contract. Terminate her" does more harm all the way around than good.

It's like Romeo and Juliet when Romeo killed Tybalt for killing Mercutio. The Prince could have ordered Romeo's death as justice for Tybalt, but with 2 kids already dead, banishment was the preferable option. I have no idea what made that example come to mind- but the point is that there is the letter of the law and room for human mercy.

Why not mercy?

The school is NOT punishing this woman. She signed a contract and they should follow through.

But they, the conduit of Christ's mercy, could have abandoned the worldly "contract" in favor of an option that avoided scandal, cared for the woman, set a good example for the students and didn't incite all of this questioning about the goodness of the Church.

But they didn't. They could be technically right- but was what they did morally right?

"Interestingly, I noticed that Bobby, a Catholic, never specifically commented on the post at question. I'm curious as to why?"

Well Patricia, to me this seems to be a matter of prudence. As a general rule, I try not to take sides on things that fall under that kind of category.

But he secretly agrees with me on everything. It's that Survivor alliance I alluded to previously.

@Jacqueline: Oh Survivor... I don't think I ever watched more than an episode of that show.

"Because you're bashing this woman as if you have stones to throw-"

First point out where I did that then we will continue...

"Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. The teacher in question is your fellow Catholic, whom you support locking in stocks in the town square for all to mock. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I'm sure she might prefer that over losing her job."

AGAIN, where?

"Furthermore, I haven't been out-of-line."

Right, asking about my sins isn't out of line, you are soo right.

"You're angry because I've pointed out that you, like the teacher in question, aren't perfect and have recieved mercy---and thus you should give mercy. More cliches that come to mind are "What goes around" and "if you can't stand the heat..."

Where is that even coming from??? Again, it seems like you just want to provoke anger. Sorry,you don't make sense to me at all.

I think I changed my mind on this one. If I was the priest, I couldn't have fired this young women.

Why the change of heart Jasper? Oh and I answered your question on the Fr. Pfleger thread in case you missed it too.

@Jackie 7:14,

"I defend everyone who I see unjustly condemned. If someone were coming down on you unjustly or over-zealously, I'd back you up. You're just the aggressor in this instance."

you do have a gift-for-words ... too bad much of this is inflammatory rhetoric (read above). There is little to call such consequence 'unjust' when she herself signed a paper condemning such activity. Now just who is being 'over-zealous' or 'the aggressor' here?

And you do not know if this was a mistake .... do you? Is this your 'spin'? And you do not know if she is relying on her 'Catholic' identification as being merciful, just to keep her job. Great example, eh? Try toning down your pouting, OK?

There is little to call such consequence 'unjust' when she herself signed a paper condemning such activity.

It may or not be just when it comes to the pregnant woman, since, as you say, she signed a paper agreeing to certain behavior as a condition of her employment.

But pardon me for sounding like a pro-lifer for a sec, but what about the baby? Doesn't firing her unjustly punish the baby by leaving its mother without employment or health care?

I remember the nuns at my old Catholic school. I wish we had more nuns like those in the world. More nuns period. I heard there's like a shortage of priests and nuns.

I want to start going to church again. I mean I know most of you probably think I'm this huge evil hypocrite but at least I want to sit there and listen.

There is little to call such consequence 'unjust' when she herself signed a paper condemning such activity. Now just who is being 'over-zealous' or 'the aggressor' here?

The over-zealous aggressors are those cowards that would hide behind a piece of paper to justify obviously counter-productive measures when productive, merciful measures exist. That's aggressive.

Also- step up and recognize that this may be technically defensible by that piece of paper, but it's nonetheless a poor solution that does more harm than good.

Furthermore- before such broad papers are written and implemented which tie people into solutions with no knowledge about the situations, administrators should be wise enough to think about the case-by-case consequences. It's like those zero-tolerance policies that create undue havok. Sometimes you have to abandon something foolish when you recognize after-the-fact that it's foolish. Swallow your pride, administrators.

What makes this unjust is that the deed is done- not ongoing. What is ongoing is the pregnancy. Those papers are to keep people who live a lifestyle contrary to the faith from being a poor example to children, but in this case, the woman is not continuing to have sex, she just wears evidence of a sexual encounter via her growing belly.

Also, this gives the impression that it's the pregnancy (baby) that's the problem, not the behavior. Had she come to the priest and confessed having pre-marital sex but not gotten pregnant from it, I guarentee she'd have been given absolution and advised to go and sin no more- but that didn't happen simply because of her expanding abdomen.

So hide behind that piece of paper to justify a wrong measure, it doesn't make it any less wrong.

I want to start going to church again. I mean I know most of you probably think I'm this huge evil hypocrite but at least I want to sit there and listen.

I don't know why you would believe we think that at all, Jess. I certainly don't. You are a very good-natured person and genuine from what I can tell.

And you do not know if this was a mistake .... do you?

I know that months prior to her 'showing' she approached her spiritual and work authorities to confess. If she wanted to live in sin, she could have continued until the 4th or 5th month easily, but instead she handled it early and appropriately.

Is this your 'spin'?

Bottom line is- I don't know but neither do you. Sick and sadly, you assume the worst however, when I assume the best (and the facts are on my side with what we do know). Why do you have a stake in believing the worst here? Does it make you feel better about yourself somehow?

And you do not know if she is relying on her 'Catholic' identification as being merciful, just to keep her job.

It doesn't matter what she is- she came for mercy and got none, whereas those that ask for it should be greeted with it when at all possible, considering how rife mercy is dolled upon us by Christ.

Great example, eh?

You are accusing her and you know nothing to do so. Some example you set, Anonymous.

Try toning down your pouting, OK?

I'm not pouting- I'm righteously indignant at heartlessness and possible false accusations. Where there can be mercy, I insist there should be since I get more than my share from Christ.

I quote God,

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." Matthew 5:7

Since I think the compliment to this is "cursed are the merciless, for they will need mercy and reap what they sow," I will continue to "pout" thank-you-very-much.

"I want to start going to church again. I mean I know most of you probably think I'm this huge evil hypocrite but at least I want to sit there and listen."

I have heard some wonderful and inspiring homilies in church that make you go home smiling. It can change your life only for the better so why not.

Elizabeth,
I get a lot of people hear saying that I'm wrong to consider myself a Catholic as I don't believe in some of their teachings (abortion being the big one). I was raised to believe everything the bible says and the Church says is right, but I can't get myself to believe it's stance on sex and pregnancy. I feel a little hypocritical myself. I kind of wish I saw things pro-life, but like I said I just can't do it.

My whole entire family and basically the community I grew up in is pro-life, and if I ever seem more open and accepting of pro-life ideas here that's probably it. Lol, maybe one you pro-lifers is a relative of mine. How weird would that be?

Since I think the compliment to this is "cursed are the merciless, for they will need mercy and reap what they sow," I will continue to "pout" thank-you-very-much.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 8:47 PM
......................

I think that your views on this matter are completely within Christian teaching.

@Jacquie 8:34,

you ain't that old - I am. I have sat for many an hour to hammer out the exact wording of a policy paper. These administrators are doing exactly their job. If they wish leniency then THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY, for not doing the job they are hired to do.

So what may seem a rather simple case of withholding Christian mercy is not a simple matter at all. When teaching mathematics, it helps to start out teaching numbers, not calculus. It seems we are deciding if algebra is OK then ... Is it?

I think perhaps that this solution may not be proper for primary students but your solution seems counter-productive and confusing for such students. For older/secondary-school-students your approach would have more meaning. Much of our reaction will only be OK, if we align the moral lesson with the consequence. Remember that to a child getting a strap to teach morality is all some of them understand.

My sister, a teacher, was confused by a little boy who slammed the face of other little kids into the wall. His Mom refused to accept her son acted so obnoxiously.

What you foresee as a good-Christian possibility, may not be a valid solution at all.

John

Looks like I'm getting into the game late here, but my answer is an unequivocal "no." This reminds me of the National Honor Society debate, when the NHS wouldn't allow a teen mom to be honored. If that teacher had done everything else the same, but had had the pregnancy terminated, the school would have been none the wiser. Now, is that what they would want?

bmmg39,
WOW! I didn't know that. How shameful!

John-

You're right that the age of the kids presents a logistical issue with my solution. The children are young and wouldn't likely understand.

But by that same token- would they understand enough to see a pregnant unmarried teacher as a bad influence, enough to drop their Barbie dolls and Matchbox cars and attempt to get pregnant years before their sex organs even function? Could they understand the symbolic act that poses real harm to this teacher?

Perhaps then, they could issue a statement to the parents explaining this situation, the charity to the teacher and encouraging the parents to speak with their fifth graders relevant to their knowledge of their children understanding of sexuality and comfort level. This is a private school with parental involvement. If parents didn't turn this into a witch hunt, which I doubt they would, certainly they can take into consideration their child's knowledge of sexuality and talk to them about why having sex without being married in not okay, if they see the need.

Even with your critique of my approach, I still fail to see the point of firing this woman. It was not the best and certainly not the only course of action.

I still think blanketed policies that can't be equitably applied simply because of physiology (women can get pregnant as evidence of sexual immorality, men can not) and the need to pry into personal lives to discover indiscretions are completely foolish.

Yes, you pour over your policies to protect yourself and minimize such issues, but can't we agree that this one is a disaster waiting to happen? It's "shooting an elephant." These forms are made to give an "out" to administrators but conversely fetter them to actions that they might not want to achieve. A policy that gives the authority to administrators to fire based on imcompatibilities with Church teaching should not be binding- it should give that option, not impose it.

I may not be as old as you are, but I've worked for years writing policies to protect our non-profit and reconcile these policies to several school districts. Never had a problem. I call bs on this need to fetter oneself to paperwork. They sign indemnity- That is all. So unless this form was poorly written, this school could have shown mercy.

@ Jess

With your intellect Jess, you might find a different type of church to be more amenable to your temperment. The Unitarian Universalists seek to help anyone in their spriritual search and are very accepting of wherever that leads.

@ Elizabeth:

Just read the entire thread - your posts pointing out the flaws in the position of the church and school are spot on - very logical - are you taking a philosophy class?;-)

Just wanted to point out something here:
Fifth graders - Barbies? Probably not. This is middle school in many districts - we're talking 11 and 12 year olds - 14 or even 15 y o. The age of puberty is increasingly lower. Many girls that age can become pregnant (OK, you all obviously know this- it just seems to suddenly be ignored) Even with involved parents, kids are more precocious than in the past - and even if your kids aren't, all it takes is one student in their class who does watch MTV or ....

Elizabeth,
I get a lot of people hear saying that I'm wrong to consider myself a Catholic as I don't believe in some of their teachings (abortion being the big one). I was raised to believe everything the bible says and the Church says is right, but I can't get myself to believe it's stance on sex and pregnancy. I feel a little hypocritical myself. I kind of wish I saw things pro-life, but like I said I just can't do it.

My whole entire family and basically the community I grew up in is pro-life, and if I ever seem more open and accepting of pro-life ideas here that's probably it. Lol, maybe one you pro-lifers is a relative of mine. How weird would that be?

Jess,

I started off being pro-life primarily based on my religious views but I have found that I do not need to even bring religion into it to have a solid position behind my being pro-life.

What exact things do you wish you could see as "pro-life?" It is a broad spectrum, so are you talking specifically about abortion or the death penalty, euthanasia..lol pick one I guess.

Unitarian Universalists are those that believe everything to the extent that it nullifies all beliefs and essentially believes nothing. No creed- just a Sunday potluck with a motivational speaker.

People can disagree with Catholicism and Christianity all day long, but they should at least have some doctrine or stance to buttress their criticisms. I'd rather see someone creating a God that looks like a centaur and sacrificing fruit-roll ups to it who actually has something substantive behind their belief, "Centaur came forth from the Planet Vulcan..." rather than the touchy-feely absence of sense that is Unitarian Universalism.

Atleast Scientologists, although batsh!t crazy, believe something.

Phylosopher-

Touche. Barbies are for younger girls and I've seen pregnant 9-year-olds as a social worker, but I sincerely doubt a private school with that level of parental involvement would have this issue.

I just fail to see how a repentant, pregnant fifth-grade teacher can inspire a crisis of faith and a teen pregnancy epidemic. Taking away their beloved teacher could cause an outbreak of hostility towards the school and the Church, though.

About Unitarian Universalists, I again quote God:

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."

Revelation 3:16

I've seen pregnant 9-year-olds

How sad! Are their parents even around?

@ Elizabeth

My reason for being pro-choice was always that women had bodily autonomy. I used to believe that abortion should be free and on demand at any point in the pregnancy but now knowing what I do about fetal development and such I believe in free abortion on demand up until the point of viability. I see it as, ok the fetus is attached to her and using her body for it's survival so shouldn't she decided whether or not to keep it inside of her or have it removed? I know the abortion industry has screwed over women, but I feel as a whole the majority of humanity fails women (by refusing to see them as strong, talented and intelligent human beings they are). If it were up to me I would reform the whole system.
I just can't see why one person has the right to live inside of another person.

I just can't see why one person has the right to live inside of another person.

So are you admitting that unborn babies are people?

If I was in charge of abortion...
All facilities that performed abortion would be given a set budget. It doesn't matter how many abortions they perform, they will receive the same salary. Therefore no doctor could be accused of promoting abortion to get more money.
There would be laws about counseling. Councilors would have to be certified and it would be the law that they have to inform them of every option including adoption. Women deciding to abort, after a waiting period of 48 hours, would have to sign a form stating that they understand fetal development, they know how developed their child is at the time of abortion including if it has a heart beat or brain function. An ultrasound would be available on demand. Facilities that preformed abortions would be routinely checked at random to make sure they are clean, safe environments.
Women who wish to abort after the first trimester would have to go before a bored of doctors and psychologist to determine if the abortion is necessary for their health and safety.

So are you admitting that unborn babies are people?

Yes I always said they were people. Human beings. Children. Very tiny, submerged children but children. The mothers are people too. If the mother lived inside the fetus I think the fetus should have the right to abort her also.

All facilities that performed abortion would be given a set budget. It doesn't matter how many abortions they perform, they will receive the same salary. Therefore no doctor could be accused of promoting abortion to get more money.

Ironically this would also get rid of a lot of abortion doctors I bet.

Ironically this would also get rid of a lot of abortion doctors I bet.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 8, 2008 10:56 PM

Then less people would be having abortions and both sides would be happy. Vote for Jess this election!

So you view abortion as justifiable homicide then?

Then less people would be having abortions and both sides would be happy.

Oh Jess, you are quite the idealist aren't you? lol.

Yes.
Solely due to the fact that the other person is living inide of a person.

How sad! Are their parents even around?

Nope- There aren't any daddies, and mom works constantly to support the children. There is no supervision. Sexual predators run rampant on these little girls.

Of all the pregnant children I've seen, I'd say less than 5% of them were impregnated by someone their age-Unless it was a sibling or parent, and then it's more like 10%.

Solely due to the fact that the other person is living inide of a person.

Jess, suppose in some whacked out world, I could perform some act that put you, against your will, inside my body. You had nothing to do with this---I am the one 100% responsible for your being inside my body. Don't you think it's wrong for me to kill you simply because I can? Don't I owe it to you, since I put you in dependence on me, to carry you long enough for you to be independent?

Also, don't you think since I performed the act that placed you in my body, that I owe you the time it takes for you to live outside on your own? Wouldn't we say that to a parent that tosses their toddler out on the street?

If it were you, placed inside a woman against your will, would you want to be dismembered?

Why do those kids even have sex? If I were in charge (here I go again!) school days would start a little later and run longer, say till about 5 or 6 and include more wholesome activities in physical ed and art and music classes. Also all children would receive three square meals a day for free. Meals would be a higher standard then what they are serving now. 5 fruits and veggies and 6 whole grains a day.

Solely due to the fact that the other person is living inide of a person.

I'm sorry..I just don't get this..it's not like the baby jumped up there by accident. There is a sequence of events that has to happen for a baby to get there, and choices that have to be made for that to happen. It certainly wasn't the baby's choice to be there. So you hold the baby responsible for the action's of its parents?

Jacqueline, I also said I was against late term abortions because of fetal development. So yes, if I was suddenly transported into you to live for three months you would have the right to remove me through any means possible.

Let's add to that analogy that it's you're not inside a stranger- it's your family, your own flesh and blood.

Doesn't that increase the obligation to care for the person unable to care for themselves?

Recap:

1. An unborn person is a person.
2. The mother put him/her in her body.
3. The unborn person is the mothers son/daughter.
4. The unborn was placed in the woman's body against his/her will.
5. The unborn likely doesn't want to be killed in nasty ways.

How can dismemberment of a person be right, and what reasons could a woman have to kill her own child that she made which are compelling enough to justify killing another person?

All facilities that performed abortion would be given a set budget. It doesn't matter how many abortions they perform, they will receive the same salary. Therefore no doctor could be accused of promoting abortion to get more money.

And I'm sure they would give the women extra special care in lieu of a hefty salary...Jess..have you not read Heather's posts?

Jacqueline, I also said I was against late term abortions because of fetal development. So yes, if I was suddenly transported into you to live for three months you would have the right to remove me through any means possible.

But I put you in my body against your will. Shouldn't you have the right to live, regardless of your stage of development?

The baby isn't responsible. It owes its existence to its mother anyway. It could be aborted, it could be miscarried or it could be born. It was the mothers decision to have sex, or it might not have been, but she did get pregnant, and she gets to decided whether or not she stays pregnant.

No, because without you I wouldn't exist anyway. I can just hope you decide to let me make my own way out of your body.

The baby isn't responsible.

But in essence, you are making the baby responsible by your own argument. The mother doesn't get dismembered or sucked down a vacuum hose..the baby does.

"Jess..have you not read Heather's posts? "

No, what did she say? Who said the salary would be hefty? I amssuming those doctors would preform abortions because they wanted to give these women the right to choose, not for the money.

I amssuming those doctors would preform abortions because they wanted to give these women the right to choose, not for the money.

Hehe ohhh Jess, you are too funny. I wish all people were really as good-natured as you want them to be.

Elizabeth, I know this might be a stretch but think of it this way, if the child is born a Catholic is the child responsible for being a Catholic? Since it is inside of the mothers body it is subject to her will. Maybe it is right, maybe it is wrong, but it's hers.

Elizabeth, so I guess we'd have even less abortions : /

The baby isn't responsible. It owes its existence to its mother anyway.

Can't this be viewed another way- that since I exist because of my mom (against my will), she owes it to me to protect me until I can care for myself?

If anything, the mother owes the baby, not the other way around!

What about rape then?

Why do you think women have abortions Jess? I mean in your opinion what is the chief reason that women have them done? And you can only pick one.

The number one reason? They don't want to be pregnant.

Maybe it is right, maybe it is wrong, but it's hers.

No, it's not. It's not her arms and legs that are torn off by the suction machine/forceps or her skull that's crushed. It's the baby- the separate person that is only in her body through her actions.

To say the right to kill an innocent person belongs to another person is completely wrong. I think you'd agree if you could ever be the one in danger of being that innocent person.

All facilities that performed abortion would be given a set budget. It doesn't matter how many abortions they perform, they will receive the same salary. Therefore no doctor could be accused of promoting abortion to get more money.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's pretty Socialist.
Anyway, Jill makes a mint on her speaking events, and wouldn't make any money at all if abortion were outlawed.
Why is it OK for Jill to profit from the abortion industry, but not the physicians who provide the service?
If the physicians are supposed to provide pro-bono services, certainly Jill could? (It's blood money you know...)

What about rape then?

Rape accounts for less than 1% of all abortions, and is commonly brought up just so people can aschew the fact that over 99% of abortions are performed on women who chose to have sex, created the baby through that free choice, and choose freely to kill that baby.

Even still, a child of rape is still the son/daughter of the victim, still a person with a right to live. However one is concieved, their innate value never leaves.

But it's inside of her, attached to her body.

What about medicated abortion? The baby is detached from the mothers body.

I'm sorry I really can't stop spinning in circles.

Anyway, Jill makes a mint on her speaking events, and wouldn't make any money at all if abortion were outlawed

I bet she'd trade that money is a second to save one baby. All of us who make minor change saving babies have skills that would translate into good money in the business world anyway. We choose to save babies instead.

No, what did she say? Who said the salary would be hefty? I amssuming those doctors would preform abortions because they wanted to give these women the right to choose, not for the money.

Heather posts lots and lots of news stories and such about abortionist's botch-jobs on women (babies too, of course!)

I meant that the salary is hefty now, currently. Putting them on "your salary" would just make them care even less (if that's even possible). The botch-jobs would skyrocket!

The last part....I really don't think there's such thing....

I'm sorry I really can't stop spinning in circles.

Me either...this site keeps me up way past my bedtime. :/

For the sake of continuing conversation- I'll concede rape in this argument: Women can aborted innocent babies conceived by rape (hypothetically).

How can you not say that the remaining 99% aren't a terrible injustice to the unborn person- a woman creates a child then kills the child- how can this not be seen as selfish and evil?

For the sake of continuing conversation- I'll concede rape in this argument: Women can abort innocent babies conceived by rape (hypothetically).

How can you not say that the remaining 99% aren't a terrible injustice to the unborn person- a woman creates a child then kills the child- how can this not be seen as selfish and evil?

Laura, the doctors would be making enough to live decently. Jill would be taxed on whatever money she spends, everyone would for the products they buy (sans food and drug). And if the doctors didn't like it they could become even more extreme pro-life activist and flush Jill out.

how can this not be seen as selfish and evil?

Denial.

I was just about to apologize for keeping you up Elizabeth, lol. But this is seriously fascinating to me.

JLM, if the doctors don't care why not go into a different field of medicine? Did I mention all doctors would be paid the same? It would be like a government job, like a postal worker who gets to see you naked.

Ok, off to bed I go before I fall asleep on the keyboard. Bye all!

Maybe it is selfish. Maybe it's the deadly sin of sloth. But there are other deadly sins that are left for people to commit. We just have to hope they don't commit them. Try to guide them in the right direction.

It would be like a government job, like a postal worker who gets to see you naked.

Strangest mental image ever. lol.

All right Elizabeth sweet dreams ; )

But it's inside of her, attached to her body.

How'd it get there? It wasn't some alien or parasite that worked its way in. She put it in her body.

I'm just trying to find out how killing one's own baby is an acceptable thing.

I don't know your relationship with your mom, Jess, but my mom's feelings of obligation to me didn't end at conception, birth, the teen years, after college, etc. Even though I am a grown woman and take care of myself, my mother still sees my care and protection to be her obligation as a mother. I don't need her to feed me, provide for me, or anything basic anymore but she would say that it's her job to make sure I have what I need.

Now that I want to be a mom, I have to agree with her. My children that I create are owed from me whatever they need. The least of which is a warm womb in which to grow.

Any woman that would reject her child from her womb must be selfish enough to reject all instincts and sense of morality. Can you think of any good reason for a woman to do this?

I bet she'd trade that money is a second to save one baby.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 11:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

She could donate every dime she makes profiting from the abortion industry to a CPC.

That woman who flies in to South Dakota to provide abortions makes no money for her services, why should Jill make a greater profit in the abortion industry than an actual practitioner?

Jacqueline, I love my mother very much, as I do my father, and they still continue to play a major part in my life. But if it wasn't for them, that one time they had sex, I wouldn't be here. So I owe them my life, because they gave me life. That's just a thought that popped into my head right not.

Laura, you can be co-president with me in my new communistic utopia.

Laura, you can be co-president with me in my new communistic utopia.

Posted by: Jess at March 8, 2008 11:56 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't. I love Capitalism even though I really suck at it.
But even when you're President, I'll come by for beers!

You don't love communism? How can you not love waiting four hours in a line to get tickets to get into the line for toilet paper?

So I owe them my life, because they gave me life.

So they can dismember you for that reason? Wouldn't this also be a prime argument for child abuse?

That woman who flies in to South Dakota to provide abortions makes no money for her services, why should Jill make a greater profit in the abortion industry than an actual practitioner?

Because she doesn't profit at all from the abortion industry. No money she receives in exchange for her time comes from the killing of children. To say that Jill profits from the abortion industry is to say that child protective social workers profit from child abuse. No, like Jill, they are doing good to try to stop an evil.

And by the way, Jill raises money for CPC's at these events where she speaks. And before you tell her she should work for free, could you afford to spend the time Jill spends and not get paid?

I used to work in a non-profit to assist the impoverished, and no one absurdly suggested that I give up my salary. I wasn't making money off the poor- I was helping them, for much less than I could have made in the business world.

Now that I want to be a mom, I have to agree with her. My children that I create are owed from me whatever they need. The least of which is a warm womb in which to grow.

Any woman that would reject her child from her womb must be selfish enough to reject all instincts and sense of morality. Can you think of any good reason for a woman to do this?

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 11:50 PM
........................................................

Here is where you get into trouble. Speaking out against immoral actions within your church is your right if your church says you have the right. It is your church's right to discriminate employment against any member it wishes to. Reject and vilify any member in disagreement with their rules and regulations.
You and your church have the right to discriminate within your institution until the cows come home.
No church has the right to impose their belief system upon the citizens of this country.
There is good reason for this.
You stick your dogma into the governing of a nation and that nation will stick government into your dogma. Is that what you want?

You are a perfect example of why Catholic schools are private. HisMan, there are a lot of hookers walking the street and Jesus took one in. Why don't you go round a bunch of hookerrs and bring em home to show the family?

Catholics like to teach their children that it is best to have children in wedlock. And we like our childrens role models to be good examples.

Catholics aren't perfect, but I don't slander other peoples faiths and churches, do you?

You stick your dogma into the governing of a nation and that nation will stick government into your dogma. Is that what you want?

I want the unborn protected, and offered the same rights that born people have. This is not an theocracy any more than finally giving women and minorities their rightfully-owed voting rights.

This has nothing to do with religious dogma. Human beings have the right to live. PERIOD.

Catholics aren't perfect, but I don't slander other peoples faiths and churches, do you?

They're protestants. Yes, protestants. They're protesting the Church. It's the whole of their identity- if they weren't, they'd be called something else.

Sally- laws against theft are based in the Old Testament. Should those be repealed since they're imposing a dogma into the governing of a nation?

How about murder?

How about all the other protections you are afforded?

Does anybody know if she chose to abort? If she did, what would you have done personally to help her feel less desperate? There are a lot of other girls in similar situations. What are you going to do? Keep abortions legal for them and offer them birth control?We fight for the family the way God intended it to be. We fight for marriage the way God intended it to be. People who live in lass houses shouldn't throw stones. And she could have goneto a Catholic charity and they would have helped her through her pregnancy and they would have been happy she did not decide to abort. A slanderer is a lot like a liar.

Jacqueline,
No need to attack the Protestant faith. Even though you feel assaulted you should remember the humility of Jesus and his calling us to be one with anoher.

Jacqueline,
You last few posts have been very powerful agruments for life and protecting the rights of the unborn.

She should have had an abortion.

somg - your words are as vile as your spirit.

She should have had an abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at March 9, 2008 5:03 AM********************* Somg, don't worry. If the abortion industry ever puts you out of business, I'm sure you could find yourself a job scrubbing toilets somewhere.

"Jasper,
What made you change your mind?"

I put myself in the position of the priest who had to let her go, and realized I wouldn't have been able too. Not for being pregnant. Although, I would remind her that she should been married before becoming pregnant. Now, I don't want to sound like too much of hypocrite here since I had pre-marital sex myself.

@Jacqueline,

as you know, he selection of the right words has the power to convey ideas ... new words often form new approaches; old words often only enforce behavior. In the case of abortion the pregnancy is often touted as being a 'mistake' . In using this word we think that pregnancy is somehow an erasable event. And with a 'clean' slate, we can start over. Calling pregnancy an 'accident' falls flat when intent is obvious.

Another option is to refer to pregnancy as an 'oops' (something happened but not planned for ... like slipping on a patch of ice).

This is IMO good because abortion/killing is not considered as an option. We do not consider the killing of adult males who fathered these children as 'killable' ... not an option! Just as a computer might go through options because they have a 'must win' preset. If by 'winning' it says 'elimination of opposition' and under 'elimination', one cited possibility is 'murder'. We have would now have a computerized-system programmed to kill humans ... and most computers will not know about 'rights'.

Somehow we all must learn that killing other humans (even before they are sentient or viable), is absolutely NO OPTION (for our own safety).

John

"A slanderer is a lot like a liar."

Isn't slander lying?

@jasper
You know my Mom (a devout Catholic) told me not to wait for marriage to have sex. She said since sex is a big part of marriage it's better to know if you're good together before you actually get married.

There's something I want to say that I think would help illustrate my point but I don't know if it's appropriate for this blog...

"You know my Mom (a devout Catholic) told me not to wait for marriage to have sex. She said since sex is a big part of marriage it's better to know if you're good together before you actually get married."

so, you want your man to be like a car? You want to "try him out" before bying him?

"There's something I want to say that I think would help illustrate my point but I don't know if it's appropriate for this blog..."

Go-ahead Jess, tell us.

Jess, let's say the man performs well in bed before you marry him, but then after your married, his performance isn't so good, will you trade him in for another? see what I mean? I realize sex is important but marriage has to have a deeper meaning too.

I had a friend who had a boyfriend who "didn't fit". No matter how many times they tried to have sex she would tear and bleed. Same thing happened to me with my last boyfriend. Sex always hurt a bit. He just wasn't right for my body. We even tried lubricant but it stung.

Most women assume bigger=better but for me and my friend the opposite is true. We had to find it out the hard way.

"Just wanted to point out something here:
Fifth graders - Barbies? Probably not. This is middle school in many districts - we're talking 11 and 12 year olds - 14 or even 15 y o.

Wow! Where do you live that 5th graders are 12 or 13 sometimes 14 or 15??? When I taught fifth grade they were 10 turning 11. I maybe had one student that was 11 turning 12. When I taught 7th grade my students were 12 turning 13.

Firing someone because they become pregnant is discrimination. Regardless of how the child was conceived. If a man got another girl pregnant would he be fired. I highly doubt it.

I told my mom about this story because it was so close to where we live. She said two teachers at the catholic school in our town had sex (one was married one was not) The female got pregnant and she wasn't fired.

I don't know Jess, woman's bodies are capable of delivering babies, I don't understand how this could be. But then again, I'm no expert of the female anatomy.

My Mom had to have a c-section because she was too narrow to deliver naturally. Or maybe it was a subconscious thing where I knew he wasn't right for me and my body was manifesting it into physical symptoms.

"Or maybe it was a subconscious thing where I knew he wasn't right for me and my body was manifesting it into physical symptoms."

I agree. maybe you weren't "turned on" enough....

@Jasper: I want to apologize for being rude to you lately. It was uncalled for.

I put myself in the position of the priest who had to let her go, and realized I wouldn't have been able too. Not for being pregnant. Although, I would remind her that she should been married before becoming pregnant. Now, I don't want to sound like too much of hypocrite here since I had pre-marital sex myself.

Posted by: jasper at March 9, 2008 8:13 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

STOP IT!
I really enjoy loathing Jasper, then he has these warm, human being moments.
You're ruining it for me.

No need to attack the Protestant faith. Even though you feel assaulted you should remember the humility of Jesus and his calling us to be one with anoher.

I wasn't. I was a Protestant for 7 years.

Jess, let's say the man performs well in bed before you marry him, but then after your married, his performance isn't so good, will you trade him in for another? see what I mean? I realize sex is important but marriage has to have a deeper meaning too.

Why do you assume that taking sex into account means marriage doesn't have a deeper meaning? You could insert any relationship criteria into that last sentence and come out correct: "I realize sense of humor is important, but marriage has to have a deeper meaning too." "I realize financial attitude is important but marriage has to have a deeper meaning too." "I realize wanting to live in the same city is important but marriage has to have a deeper meaning too." People take all of these things into consideration before they get married, and no one asserts that the marriage is JUST about any one of them. Why assume that taking sexual compatibility into account automatically makes the relationship purely about sex?

I don't know Jess, woman's bodies are capable of delivering babies, I don't understand how this could be. But then again, I'm no expert of the female anatomy.

Delivering babies usually doesn't feel too good. If sex felt as crummy as delivering a baby did, there'd probably be a whole lot fewer babies. Sex with someone who is too large for you can be VERY physically painful for a woman. It's not the death of a relationship, but it's something you'll have to work around.

Sally- laws against theft are based in the Old Testament. Should those be repealed since they're imposing a dogma into the governing of a nation?

How about murder?

How about all the other protections you are afforded?
Posted by: Jacqueline at March 9, 2008 3:31 AM
..............................................

Don't be ridiculous. Laws against theft were created for practical reasons. You surely don't fantasize that Jew's in one tiny little corner of the world were the only ones that figured out that theft leads to revenge and all out disruption of societal structure do you?
You are afforded the liberty to practice your religion. You do not have the liberty to force those practices and beliefs upon anyone else. Separation of church and state.

Why assume that taking sexual compatibility into account automatically makes the relationship purely about sex?

The question is how big a factor should it be? I mean, you're with someone you love- you share the same hopes, dreams, values, you want to spend the rest of your life with this person. So you get married and the sex ain't so great- You have a lifetime with them for who they really are to work around this issue. Would finding out prior to marriage that the sex isn't all you hoped nullify everything else? Of course not (unless your priorities are whacked)- so there is no need for premarital sex.

You are afforded the liberty to practice your religion. You do not have the liberty to force those practices and beliefs upon anyone else. Separation of church and state.

Right! But this has nothing to do with whether or not you can kill your own children.

I can't kill you. You can't kill your kids. Same basic principle.

"I still think blanketed policies that can't be equitably applied simply because of physiology (women can get pregnant as evidence of sexual immorality, men can not) and the need to pry into personal lives to discover indiscretions are completely foolish."

"Yes, you pour over your policies to protect yourself and minimize such issues, but can't we agree that this one is a disaster waiting to happen? It's "shooting an elephant." These forms are made to give an "out" to administrators but conversely fetter them to actions that they might not want to achieve. A policy that gives the authority to administrators to fire based on imcompatibilities with Church teaching should not be binding- it should give that option, not impose it."

"I may not be as old as you are, but I've worked for years writing policies to protect our non-profit and reconcile these policies to several school districts. Never had a problem. I call bs on this need to fetter oneself to paperwork. They sign indemnity- That is all. So unless this form was poorly written, this school could have shown mercy."
Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 9:57 PM

I had a feeling there is more to this than meets the eye. I can see you're angry with whoever wrote that contract because you would have made sure it was different if you had been there. You're angry because, boy, it sure makes the whole Catholic church looks like a bunch of heartless jerks. Am I right? Well, guess what? I can agree with you, it stinks that she was fired. Perhaps the form was poorly written, and that's a shame if it was. If you'd been there, maybe you could have saved her job.

That said, it also stinks that the Catholic Church gets knocked all the time, no matter what they do. And you were poised for attack along with all the other anti-Catholic commenters. (Maybe you didn't notice because you were too busy being angry with me.) After a while I don't think you were even paying attention to which of us was saying what. When you respond to one person's quote and ask a question, is it assumed we should all answer? I said it I thought it was a CIVIL matter, not a church matter. You insisted that the Catholic Church was condemning this girl and that I(we) were guilty by association, neither of which is true. I'm sure you don't agree, but that's how is see it. Peace.

Would finding out prior to marriage that the sex isn't all you hoped nullify everything else?

Certainly not. I would think that finding out that my partner is awful at saving money -- as has happened in my current relationship! -- wouldn't nullify everything else either, but it is something I like knowing before I commit my life to someone. We've worked around it, which is something we'd do if we found out our different approaches to spending after marriage, but it's not like wanting to find out beforehand makes the relationship shallow and lacking deeper meaning by default, or something, as is often implied. If nothing else, I know that we're capable of working around the things we need to work around, and that I know this before marriage doesn't mean the relationship lacks depth any more than it would if I found these things out after marriage.

Janet-

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say or imply anything you claim I did.

Janet-

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say or imply anything you claim I did.

Jacqueline,

God bless you.

How can you not say that the remaining 99% aren't a terrible injustice to the unborn person- a woman creates a child then kills the child- how can this not be seen as selfish and evil?

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 11:36 PM

Because, whether you agree with this or not, modern birth control has separated sex from procreation. Even birth control of the primitive or NFP variety does.

So, the underlying principle is the same one the Catholic Church uses to defend surgical removal of the Fallopian tubes and the ectopic pregnancy - it is not intentional, therefore not condemnable. The same goes for recreational sex - no pregnancy was intended. Problem is, intent is very hard to ascertain.

I want the unborn protected, and offered the same rights that born people have. This is not an theocracy any more than finally giving women and minorities their rightfully-owed voting rights.

This has nothing to do with religious dogma. Human beings have the right to live. PERIOD.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 9, 2008 3:26 AM

Yes, it does Jacqueline. Your concept of personhood rests on a a religious belief in a soul. THe existence of a soul is a matter of faith, the province of religion and metaphysics.
It is not something empirically demonstrable.

In lieu of empirical eveidence philosophers attempt to ascertain what criteria a being must meet before being considered a person.

It is not something empirically demonstrable.

A unique person has a unique genetic fingerprint.

That's pretty objective criteria, not at all realted to religion.

Because, whether you agree with this or not, modern birth control has separated sex from procreation. Even birth control of the primitive or NFP variety does.

Don't be absurd. My point still stands in no matter how far you attempt to remove sex and procreation, those having the sex are responsbile for procreating. So, intentional or not, women create babies by their actions and kill them.

It's the same as if I hit your car with my car on accident. Regardless of whether I intended to, I am responsible for the damage to your car.

You can dilute it all you want, but we're talking basic cause and effect here.

Phylosophizer,

Personhood is only redefined for the purpose of denying certain human beings their rights- Jewish human beings, black human beings, brain-injured human beings, unborn human beings. Why would you feel the need to deny personhood to any group if you were attempting to exploit them?

A human being is defined as a member of the species homo sapiens. They are easily distinguishable from other species by their opposable thumbs, for one.

A human being is always a person. This is not a religious argument, as much as people try to paint it as such.

Phylosophizer,

Personhood is only redefined for the purpose of denying certain human beings their rights- Jewish human beings, black human beings, brain-injured human beings, unborn human beings. Why would you feel the need to deny personhood to any group if you were attempting to exploit them?

A human being is defined as a member of the species homo sapiens. They are easily distinguishable from other species by their opposable thumbs, for one.

A human being is always a person. This is not a religious argument, as much as people try to paint it as such.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 9, 2008 8:30 PM
.........................................................

Personhood has historically been defined by whatever the particular society has deemed a part of that group. What rights have been attributed to that group vary. The line of personhood in the instance of gestation has always been drawn at birth by society. This is the moment a conceptus exists as a separate entity. This is biological fact. When you put away your religious/philosophical constructs you don't have a leg to stand on.

"When you put away your religious/philosophical constructs you don't have a leg to stand on."

why should we put away the Truth when it's on our side. Do deny that life starts on conception?

"When you put away your religious/philosophical constructs you don't have a leg to stand on."

why should we put away the Truth when it's on our side. Do deny that life starts on conception?

Posted by: jasper at March 9, 2008 9:11 PM
...................................................................

Your 'truth' is philosophical construct. Your imagining. What you imagine to be truth relates to you and anyone else that might imagine the same.
Life does not 'start' at conception any more than your car suddenly comes into existence the moment you turn the ignition key.
Conception is the activation of an ovum into creation mode. No sudden baby Jasper. No deity involved.

Clarification JM - I meant that middle schools which have 5th-8th grades where I live would have 11-15 y o (would be attending the assembly someone suggested). The ages of students in various districts can change depending on the population. Schools use initial entry to balance the number of kids in any cohort.

So, a school with an initial entry deadline of, say June 30th would delay some kids compared to a school with an initial entry of Dec 30.

I don't prescribe to a particular religious dogma, but I think we need to take technology into account here. We now know what we do about DNA, development, etc. We now have the technology to keep people alive who would have naturally died. When we look at complex things like personhood, this is taken into account. Is someone without a certain function, but biologically alive, a person? Because this is possible it has to be addressed. Technology has made things a lot more complex than it used to be. This is the same as the viability. Technologically we can keep these babies alive outside the womb. Technology can develop so that this can happen earlier and earlier. If that is dependent on our qualifications of personhood, then is our criteria then soley based on what technology can do for us?

Personhood isn't always comfortable. Giving human rights to people we are fighting with overseas is very uncomfortable to many people (even Bush, apparently, as can be seen by his veto saturday)--but if we regard them as people with innate value then integrity for the person can't be denied. Giving human rights to people who have killed someone is very uncomfortable too...but if they are a person with innate value they should be treated as such.

I ranted a lot. If something doesn't make sense I can clarify ;)

People can disagree with Catholicism and Christianity all day long, but they should at least have some doctrine or stance to buttress their criticisms. I'd rather see someone creating a God that looks like a centaur and sacrificing fruit-roll ups to it who actually has something substantive behind their belief, "Centaur came forth from the Planet Vulcan..." rather than the touchy-feely absence of sense that is Unitarian Universalism.

Atleast Scientologists, although batsh!t crazy, believe something.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 10:22 PM

Jacqueline: Have to point out the obvious, could it be that you prefer a created God because most humans like the familiar?

But seriously, why this need for a creed? Utilizing reason is sufficient - after all, for those who don't just complacently remain in the religion of their childhood, aren't they exercisng reason in choosing which creed or doctrine to believe? One can call it a religious experience, but that's as empirically demonstrable as a soul.

Is someone without a certain function, but biologically alive, a person?

Yes!

Level of functioning, age, race, gender, etc- no attributes of a human being can imbue or remove personhood.

A human being is always a person. Always.

"Life does not 'start' at conception any more than your car suddenly comes into existence the moment you turn the ignition key."

A baby does not suddenly come to life at birth. Birth does not bestow or initiate life. Birth is the result of life that began at conception. During gestation there are varying stages of development in reaching the point of parturition, or birth. Birth is a confirmation of what has been taking place in the womb and an initiation of the life into a different environment, but it does not make non-life into life.

Created God? No- Creator God.

Having a body that claims to be a body but has no common belief is not a body at all.

In my case, I met Jesus Christ at age 19, was led into the Catholic Church by Him at age 26. I came to all my conclusions as an adult, not spoonfed anything in my youth (not that being spoonfed the truth is a bad thing- I intend to spoonfeed my children and hope they are spared the mistakes I made without a protective code of conduct).

The truth is- if you don't stand for anything, you can't be right. Stand for something- right or wrong, but stand for SOMETHING.

"Life does not 'start' at conception any more than your car suddenly comes into existence the moment you turn the ignition key."

Right- the car comes into existence when it's created. When the parts come together.

A life comes into existence when it's created- conception.

Your analogy only works if you say life comes into existence when the soul enters the body, or the brain begins working or something equally arbitrary.

Jacqueline, I checked back in the posts, wondering if I had somewhere commited a typo with you name. Couldn't find one, but if I did, apology from the "flying fingers." Please have the courtesy to reply to my screen name, if that was an unintentional typo...?

But personhood has been historically used to support an orderly society - by giving the approval of that entry to figures of authority - in ancient societies, it was the elders or the fathers. Even in Catholicsm baby baptism/christening and naming is a remnant of this.

Today we give much of that power to the parents - look who chooses the name.

and Sally - in actuality, the line of personhood has only recently in human history become birth. In societies with scarcer resources, an dprimitiv emedical care investing a lot into a fragile newborn didn't make sense for survival. So most had waiting periods for confering personhood - usually with a ritual.

not having a creed doesn't equate to not having shared principles, like these:

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I think those are pretty good things to stand for. And my guess is they wouldn't lead to the hypocrisy that the Emily Pigge debacle is likely to cause the Catholic Church.

Hello PIP:

Yes, good points about technology. Cloning, cloning non-brained humans, artificial intelligence, cryopreservation, end and beginning of life medical interventions are all technologically possible or nearly so - teh ethics needs to play catch up.

Can you explain further what you mean by "based on what technolgy can do for us?"

Why is "the brain working" arbitrary? That seems the least arbitrary.

"A free and responsible search for truth and meaning"

phylosopher,

we have already found the Truth, there is no need to search for it.

...the word "justice" is used often, what is the Unitarian stance on the justice for unborn children?

Phylosopher,

I guess what I mean is, if we focus on the unborn, we now know a lot about them. Many draw an ethical line at viability. If the ability to live outside the womb is viability, and that changes based on the technology that allows the baby to live outside of the womb, would personhood then fluctuate simply based on what technology does.

Many times ethics dilemmas can only be solved on an individual basis. But when we talk about personhood in a broader sense, then we have to paint in broad strokes. What makes a person? If it is certain functions, as I said earlier, we now have the technology to often keep a human being alive without said function--would they cease to be a person? This is the nitty gritty here. What do you think?

"Life does not 'start' at conception any more than your car suddenly comes into existence the moment you turn the ignition key."

Right- the car comes into existence when it's created. When the parts come together.

A life comes into existence when it's created- conception.

Your analogy only works if you say life comes into existence when the soul enters the body, or the brain begins working or something equally arbitrary.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 9, 2008 11:08 PM
...............................

An analogy only works if you are able to define two things that resemble each other. Since the concept of a soul is based in your imaginings rather than the factual, it is useless.
Lets compare conception to an automobile. Until the parts are assembled, you have a pile of possibility. Someone must put those materials together to make the car. But of course extorting someone to do so would be against the law. Pointing to the materials and asserting it is a car will only make you ripe for the funny farm. Do I really need to finish the analogy?

Life does not 'start' at conception any more than your car suddenly comes into existence the moment you turn the ignition key."

A baby does not suddenly come to life at birth. Birth does not bestow or initiate life. Birth is the result of life that began at conception. During gestation there are varying stages of development in reaching the point of parturition, or birth. Birth is a confirmation of what has been taking place in the womb and an initiation of the life into a different environment, but it does not make non-life into life.

Posted by: jasper at March 9, 2008 10:46 PM
...........................................

Gestation is a manufacturing process. Birth is when the product is finished. And then it is either chicken or feathers.

PIP:

Technology can only take you so far, though. Think about the paradox of "cybercommunity."

No, personhood wouldn't change if the fetus could exist outside the womb - if there were an "artificial uterus." The question of ownership and control would be a real mess, but there is another element (at least) that needs to be present - brain function.

Another is relational. Think about personality -I think technology here has given a false impression that the fetus has it. We have a window, but it's a one-way mirror. This is where the birth critieria comes in. Until that relationship is two way, and other criteria are met, it is not a person.

phylo,
Part of a babies personality is it's limited ability to communicate while inside the womb. The baby can respond to stimuli and kick the mother etc. What do you call personality.

@Janet: I hope you realize that Jacqueline is Catholic...*very* Catholic...

And to be honest, I don't see any Catholic-bashing. We're bashing the bad policy of this school...at least I am...due to it's sexism/discrimination.

Posted by: Ari-chan at March 8, 2008 1:47 PM

Yes, that makes all the difference in the world.

Wow. I'm not angry, I only used CAPS for emphasis because you obviously are misreading what I am saying.

No, I'm not. You are all about using this woman as an example rather than being merciful. I'm not bashing Catholicism, you're misrepresenting it. Catholicism is Christ's rule on Earth and the administration of grace through sacraments to endure the mission. It's grace and mercy- not "Maybe firing this repentant pregnant woman will teach kids not to have sex!"

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 1:48 PM

Who's putting words in who's mouth? Check the posts, You are attributing that last comment to the wrong person.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

And I take note of the fact that that all of you artfully deflected my questions about your personal chastity.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 12:58 PM

I'll save that answer for the confessional, thank you.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You don't know me.

I don't pretend to. You also don't know her.

I don't pretend to know God's judgement of ANYONE. I am NOT judging her.

My ass.

Notice how defensive and angry you become when someone questions your virtue and yet you crucify this woman.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 8, 2008 1:34 PM

Your word speak for themselves. Amazing.

Jacqueline,

I come in peace. Maybe someday if you ever have children in a Catholic school you will understand my point of view better. Most young Catholic kids are not trying to decide if abortion is right or wrong. It's not even an option in their minds (that comes later, unfortunately). But they are quite impressionable when it comes to chastity and for that reason, I can't condone an unmarried pregnant teacher remaining in the classroom. It would be embarassing for all parties involved. This would cause scandal to the children and it's them I am most concerned with. The Catholic Church has survived for 2000 years, it will continue to thrive, no matter what the controversy. I would love to hear this young teacher's side of the story, since we haven't heard that yet. Maybe some day we will. This discussion leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I wish I had been smart enough to steer clear of this question. I apologize to you if I offended you in any way. God bless you.

phylosopher,

maybe I'm just getting confused. What do you think defines personhood?

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 9, 2008 3:26 AM

Yes, it does Jacqueline. Your concept of personhood rests on a a religious belief in a soul. THe existence of a soul is a matter of faith, the province of religion and metaphysics.
It is not something empirically demonstrable.

In lieu of empirical eveidence philosophers attempt to ascertain what criteria a being must meet before being considered a person.
Posted by: phylosopher at March 9, 2008 7:47 PM
-------

@ phylo ...,

a 'soul' is that which animates (gives/brings) life to matter. How is this 'religious'? Unless there is no difference between being alive and being dead that you say religion favors life; anyone else (like PC) are indifferent to life.

How come even with this nonchalant attitude to human-life why do they get set that ONLY a living human babe at birth is infused with non-demonstrable 'rights' and are afforded full protection by our (living .... ie. with soul) species? Big, big problem: babies are alive prior to birth. Rights are HUMAN rights not fetal-rights; not person-rights and not sentient rights ... HUMAN rights ... and these apply to living humans ... those post-conception not post-birth.

John

The burden is definitely on the woman in this circumstance. Did the father lose his job at his place of employment? What if he were a teacher in another school?

Yes it is. If the father signed a moral code agreement at his place of employment, he should lose his job too.

It also begs other questions? What if the pregnancy were the result of rape? Would this fact be spread through the entire school to save face regarding her situation?

If she wished to remain employed as a teacher, and wanted to turn her situation (rape) into a teaching moment for her children, then she can stay. As it stands, an obviously pregnant and unmarried teacher is a silent teaching moment which teaches the wrong thing.

What happens to a woman who is separated and divorced during the year? In some circumstances today a woman has no control over the issue of divorce.

Nothing happens to a woman who is separated or divorced during the year. What will get her fired is if she subsequently shacks up or gets remarried without benefit of an annulment.

What do you say Catholics, will you follow God's Word or the doctrine of men and demons? This is exactly why I have such a problem with the Catholic teaching on the equal weight given to tradition. It is simply wrong and heritical [sic].

Hisman,

Which came first, the Bible or the Church?

If a woman is fired for being pregnant because it's obvious she had premarital sex...then the next logical people to fire would be:

1. All married couples using birth control.

If it becomes aparant to the teacher's student's, yes. If a teacher presents to her Catholic school class that birth control is Ok, he/she ought to be fired.

2. All non-married couples using birth control.

Humanae vitae specifically applies to married couples. Unmarried couples are already committing grave sin, compounding it with a rubber barrier is akin (as I explained to my daughter) to stealing someone's wallet after you kill him. So if it apparent to the students that the teacher is committing the sin of fornication then the teacher ought to be fired.

3. Any non-married teacher co-habitating with someone of the opposite sex (not a church "teaching" explicitely, but certainly doesn't follow the moral teachings of the church in regards to chastity).

Indeed. There is the appearance of grave sin.

4. Any teacher that does not going to weekly Mass.

If it becomes apparent to the teacher's students, sure. If a student comes home and says: "Mr. Smith doesn't go to weekly Mass, why should I?", the teacher ought to be fired if he's giving that impression.

5. Any teacher that receives Holy Communion with a grave sin on his or her soul.

If it becomes apparent to the students that this is happening, yes, the teacher should be fired.

This list could go on and on.

Of course it could, but you still have not presented a comparable example. What the teacher is being fired for is not sin, it's scandal. And scandal does not even have to include sin, it only has to imply sin.

Scandal, being public and affecting the faithful (children being the most vulnerable of our faithful), must be punished publicly.

If we're going to have a "witch hunt" then lets have it apply to all sins, not just premarital sex.

It's not a "witch hunt". To complete the analogy, the "witch" in this case is "practicing witchcraft" publicly.

If this woman would address an assembly at school, explain the the children that what she did was wrong, why it was wrong, her promise never to do it again, and explain the consequences of her actions, I believe a suspension without pay while she is pregnant and a return to school afterward is appropriate. It addresses the scandal and turns it into a teaching moment for the children.

Okay, let's!

"Wow, my teacher made a mistake. She went to the Church like we're taught and she was fired, shamed and judged. I better never go to the Church if I make a mistake."

Ok, let's.

"Wow, Miss Smith resigned and we're getting another teacher. I guess she found a better job somewhere else".

Every slave owner was free. Every aborting mother and abortionist is born.

This is the definition of oppression.

promise never to do it again, and explain the consequences of her actions, I believe a suspension without pay while she is pregnant and a return to school afterward is appropriate.

Once again, then pregnancy is considered the problem- and a problem easily remedied with 400 bucks and a suction machine. Pregnancy is not a bad thing.

Being pregnant is not a sin- it was the pre-marital sex, which would be a sin whether or not pregnancy ensued. If a woman confessed pre-marital sex without being pregnant, would you suspend her?

Ok, let's.

"Wow, Miss Smith resigned and we're getting another teacher. I guess she found a better job somewhere else".

See, Tony. The first response is based on the truth and the conclusion you hope the kids would draw is based is not true.

Eventually they'll discover the truth, that Ms. Smith didn't find a better job somewhere else, she was fired.

You can hope they'll be ignorant and make benign assumptions, but the truth speaks for itself.

"Which came first, the Bible or the Church?"

Haha, John Martignoni, right Tony?

Bobby,

That's easy, John 1:1-5. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."

Answer, the Bible has always existed for it is the Word of God which is the Logos or Jesus Christ Himself.

You mean Tony, HisMan. I was quoting him.

YES! Had they not fired her then the contract she signed would have meant nothing.

Not only should the school have fired her, but the church she attends should disfellowship her until her and her "boyfriend" repent of their sexual immorality before they are allowed to fellowship with that church again in accordance with Paul's clear instructions given in 1 Corinthians 5.

Patricia claimed:

"The burden is definitely on the woman in this circumstance."

Hold on a second! The woman is the one that has the final say when it comes to engaging in sex. For evidence of this just check out how many girls get raped each year (100,000s) compared to the number of men who are raped each year (around 0).

The girl has to make the decision to give in to have sex in order for anything to happen. This girl isn't some helpless, idiot teen who was seduced into an affair. It should ALL be on her since her acceptance of sex from her "boyfriend" or whatever she claims he is is the one necessary factor in whether she got pregnant or not outside of marriage.

Generally speaking, if girls today were not such friggin WHORES there would be far fewer circumstances like this to deal with.

If girls will just stop being whores that will fix a large majority of the problems surrounding unintended pregnancy, divorce, adultery and abuse.

Hey Zeke, you know BOYS are friggin' WHORES too, always braggin' about their sexual "conquests".

Maybe...oh...if GENTLEMEN (much like your sorry-ass self) stopped being MAN-SLUTS that would ALSO fix a good majority of the problem.

AND BULL! There are far more than "zero" men getting raped each year. The reason we don't know about it is because MEN DON'T REPORT THEIR BEING RAPED OUT OF SHAME!

Seriously dude, go die in a fire or something. The world would be better off.

I think Zeke is sometimes purposefully over-the-top and just having a bit of fun.

That said, I do think he has been raised by people who have ingrained some pretty hardcore stuff in him..

Most girls are emotionally unstable to begin with

Anyone wonder why the diocese did nothing to the male teacher at Cotter High School who got his girlfriend pregnant? Oh, forgot. He was the head basketball coach and part of the good old boy system.