www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News pregnant teacher fired by Catholic school

An unmarried pregnant teacher at a Catholic school in New York City was fired. She was fired because she was unmarried when she became pregnant. The Catholic school required all teachers (including this woman) to sign a contract including, among other things, a promise to abide by Catholic moral teaching. By having sex outside of marriage, she broke Catholic moral teaching. Therefore, the school fired her for breach of contract.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the teacher, alleging violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Here is a link to the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/pregnantteacher.suit.ap/index.html

Now, here is my question: Is this the wisest policy of the Catholic school ?

I don't think so. By firing this teacher, I think that Catholic school is sending a message that it is better for an unmarried pregnant woman to either get an abortion or be shunned. That is not a "pro-life" message.

Yes, it's a sin to have sex outside of marriage; and it's important to take a stand against that.

But, it is even more important to support the pre-born and to show compassion to their parents.

So, couldn't the school have used this as a "teachable moment" ? Couldn't the school have clearly condemned premarital sex, but couldn't it have then declared that the whole school community would pull together to welcome this new baby and to help this new mother ? The teacher's punishment would be shame, but she would remain employed -- and able to support her new baby. And, by condemning the sin but by loving the sinner and the innocent new baby, everyone would get a very powerful, Catholic, pro-life lesson of the Gospel and its love.

That's my opinion. What's yours?

-- John

Most Catholic schools have similary policies. If you convert let's say from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, you may be fired, too.

John:

This seems to be within normal practice in Catholic schools. Some years ago a teacher in our area was fired. She was Lutheran but entered into a marriage with a man who was Catholic and divorced, but who did not have an annulment. She was fired for being in an objective state of adultery with a man the Church considered married to another.

I don't think her lawsuit will get very far. She had a contract that required her to live up to Catholic teaching as a model to her students. She breached her contract. What more can be said?

BOB

What I thought hilarious(ly sad) was that this teacher said after action was taken: "I just don't understand."

Don't understand? Doesn't she read and write and comprehend basic rules and guidelines? If she is a teacher, I would assume so. And the teacher handbook for St. Rose of Lima School clearly outlines this type of behavior as grounds for job dismissal.

It would've been more honest of her to say "I disagree," or "I know I agreed to follow the handbook guidelines, but I lied;" saying she didn't understand is just B.S.

Logos Teen

I agree with the school 100 pct and applaud there actions. This is not about forgiveness, it's about upholding Catholic standards of morality which the teacher unfortunately chose to ignore.

I agree with Teen and Lawrence.

Dan L

Does the Catholic Church condemn anyone, married or unmarried for getting pregnant? No, it does not. But that is exactly what this is being construed as. And frankly, using the evidence (pregnancy) to reason backwards that she is therefore guilty of fornication so we should fire her makes any action on the part of the School against her *look* puritanical. Obviously the woman is guilty of fornication or she wouldnt be pregnant.

Is this school using this reverse reasoning to justify her firing? I hope not. Or maybe this is just the spin the media is putting on it.

Regardless of the rules of the school and her contract nobody has the right to fire anyone because they are pregnant. I think John is right on the money. The better way to handle this would have been to show the generosity of the Church in mercy.

Now had this woman been caught in the act of adultery then maybe....but then I think the gospel says something about that too.

Jason a sinner

Teen and Lawrence, I agree this is not about mercy but about upholding Catholic morality and therefore this is justified. However, given the circumstances I think prudence is required on how to go about this.

This is just the kind of thing that ear marks us Roman Catholics as uncharitable. We wait til there is a baby in the picture before we act. Then WE look like the cruel mean charicature that the media likes to paint.

Disagree if you will, I don't care.

And further I think its uncharitable to mock the woman when she says "I dont understand". She's unmarried, and she pregnant, and she just lost her job. What do you think she's going to say? Do you really think that she's going to have the fortitude to say I sinned and I deserve this?

Jason a sinner

What is it about American catholics that think they can believe anything and do anything without being disciplined by the Church?
This teacher, or any teacher even a male who publicly rejects or lives contrary to Church Doctrine or Morals and let me add has signed a contract, should be dismissed. The onus is upon them to live a life worthy of a Christian especially when they are to be examples to the students they teach.
Stephanos I

It is no wonder that the Church is in the state it is when we have such blatant disregard for the authority of the Church. I remember some time back when the discussion came up about deviant clergy and everyone calling for their removal or discipline, and all the lament about the deplorable laxity of the Bishops and their moral obligation to protect the doctrine and moral standard of the Church. Now we see the end result. The Laity too have to be held accountable for their actions. Like it or not!

If this lady were working in a back office somewhere answering telephones or having very limited public contact, then I think perhaps it could have been handled differently. BUT she is in a very public position and the fact that she is unmarried and pregnant was probably known to everyone in the school. Her contract required her to uphold standards because she is a role model for the children (and their parents). It is unfortunate, but I guess I agree with the way it was handled.

In the strange world we live in, she might be succesful in her lawsuit. Contracts don't mean anything anymore. Anyone who has tangled with the American legal system knows that ANYTHING is possible!

It wouldn't supprise me if she was not a ploy of the ACLU, just another way of attacking the Church.

We have ahd similar issues in Australia with teachers in Catholic school living in what are called here de facto reationships (called common law relationships in some places) getting the sack when they are found out. They then try to embarras the Church to get their job back. However they read their contract and signed it. It is their obligation to stick to what they agreed to to in the first place. No one forced the to take the job.

Well now - what can one say.

I have a degree of sympathy for the dismissed teacher

BUT

when she got the job she was issued with a contract she had to sign and return. Presumably she did comply.

Is she now shouting "it's not fair" because she didn't read her contract ?

She knew what the Church's teaching was.

She knew what she was doing [ I hope ]

She really can't shout unfair now.

Yes , agreed she is going to have problems - so this is where the Church can and should help.

However they cannot be seen to be making an exception for one person in this case - that would certainly open the floodgates.

Anhelyna - who says you really must read binding legal documents before you sign them

With all due respect, I find this attitude toward this case to totally miss the point.

I don't mean to single out Anhelyna or anyone else.

But I do think it is emphasising the wrong point in this case. The point isn't sin; the point is mercy.

Did the unmarried pregnant teacher break the moral teaching of the Church? Yes. Did she thereby break her contract? Yes.

But, what about the baby? What crime did the baby commit? What contract did the baby break? None. The baby is the innocent party in all of this. And by dismissing the mother from her job, the baby is being condemned for something it didn't commit. Until we Catholics can see that being pro-life means more than being anti-abortion, we shall continue to lose the war between the culture of life and the culture of death.

As for the unmarried pregnant teacher . . . I agree with Roman Redneck's post. There is Gospel precedent for this kind of situation:

"But early in the morning, He [Jesus] arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to Him, and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What do You say?' They said this to test Him, so that they could have some charge to bring against Him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger. But when they continued asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone at her.' Again He bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So, He was left alone with the woman before Him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She replied, 'No one, sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.' (The Gospel according to St. John, 8: 2 - 11)

Jesus did not condone the sin. However, Jesus did not condemn the sinner. Can't we do likewise ?

-- John


Once a woman was caught in adultery

John

I'm in agreement with you - wholeheartedly.

BUT - who was responsible for this This is where it goes adrift

I'm sure that if she had gone to the authorities they would have provided some help and support but by bringing in Civil Liberties folk the impression is given that she is shouting "I've been treated unfairly " - in truth she hasn't , she broke her contract and therefore has to face the consequences.

Yes sadly her wee infant is suffering too - but how do we deal with that ??.

I'm equally certain that if she had been permitted to stay in the classroom situation there would have been a large outcry too - screaming about the "immoral behaviour of teachers who are teaching our youngsters"

I can't help feeling that in a situation like this there are no winners and everyone - no matter what their position is - is a loser.

I'm sorry for the teacher and her child - and now that everyone and their grandmother knows the story - that child is marked out .