Fired teacher suing diocese - Page 3

Eleve · #31 Apr 25, '12, 6:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eleve

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I wouldn't expect that a math teacher, for example, is involved in teaching the faith (Pascal's Wager as a topic in decision theory? Goedel's ontological argument as a topic in formal logic?). Language Arts in a public school is not about teaching any faith; it seems entirely possible that a Catholic school could have a language arts teacher whose curriculum is likewise non-religious.

Just to be clear, I have no idea whether teachers in Catholic schools ordinarily act as ministers or teach the faith. I just mean to say that being a teacher and being in a religious school is not in itself the same thing as teaching a faith.

Cider · #32 Apr 25, '12, 6:32 pm

link?

Corki · #33 Apr 25, '12, 6:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cider

link?

Here's one.

http://news.yahoo.com/teacher-fired-...opstories.html

VeritasLuxMea · #34 Apr 25, '12, 6:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eleve

Just to be clear, I have no idea whether teachers in Catholic schools ordinarily act as ministers or teach the faith. I just mean to say that being a teacher and being in a religious school is not in itself the same thing as teaching a faith.

Sometimes they do. In the local school, homeroom teachers do a brief period (say, 20 minutes) of religious instruction every day,

PenitentGrace · #35 Apr 25, '12, 7:13 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25...-her-over-ivf/

Thanks for the link. This link has a little bit more information. She is actually not Catholic even though she teaches at a Catholic school. She also did not know the specific teaching about IVF- which I think is safe to say is really not as well known as the Catholic teaching on abortion and gay marriage. For example, you wouldn't go to your boss at a Catholic school and say, "Hey I need off for a few days because I am getting an abortion." Most non Catholics know what the Church teaches about abortion- especially if they teach at a Catholic school. But obviously this women didn't know the teaching because she informed her principal of it candidly. This was also a private issue that was discussed between her and her boss. I am assuming she wasn't telling her students all the details about her struggle with trying to conceive so I am really not sure that there would have been a lot of scandal- maybe if she was sharing it with staff members? Not sure if she was- the article doesn't say. Perhaps she could have been informed of the teaching and then asked not to discuss the fact that she had had IVF with the students, teachers, and parents.

Should it matter that she was not Catholic and did not know the Catholic teaching about this? I feel that firing her was a bit unfair since she was unaware of the teaching and is also not a Catholic. Catholic schools definitely have the right to expect their employees to uphold the teachings of the church but in this case, I feel like her ignorance was not her fault. So how should Catholic schools prevent these misunderstandings from happening if they want to continue hiring people who are not Catholic? Should Catholic schools hire only Catholics? Perhaps applicants for teaching positions should have to take an exam on the teachings of the church- like the Catholic version of the Praxis or something? What do you think? I am not trying to be sarcastic when I say that by the way.

incense · #36 Apr 25, '12, 7:49 pm

Who is on the EEOC commission? Is it a political appointment by Obama? Are there politics going on? Is the point to bankrupt the Catholic diocese by causing a lawsuit which the EEOC has a pretty good idea that they will lose? Is the point to just bully everyone and use tax dollars to wage lawsuits to do the bullying?

Some of you who are excusing her behavior, is it because you see no problem with invitro fertilization? If you substitute another grave immoral act, like abortion (as someone wrote), or prostitution or bank robbery, would it make the issue clearer?

Rence · #37 Apr 25, '12, 8:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenitentGrace

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25...-her-over-ivf/

Thanks for the link. This link has a little bit more information. She is actually not Catholic even though she teaches at a Catholic school. She also did not know the specific teaching about IVF- which I think is safe to say is really not as well known as the Catholic teaching on abortion and gay marriage. For example, you wouldn't go to your boss at a Catholic school and say, "Hey I need off for a few days because I am getting an abortion." Most non Catholics know what the Church teaches about abortion- especially if they teach at a Catholic school. But obviously this women didn't know the teaching because she informed her principal of it candidly. This was also a private issue that was discussed between her and her boss. I am assuming she wasn't telling her students all the details about her struggle with trying to conceive so I am really not sure that there would have been a lot of scandal- maybe if she was sharing it with staff members? Not sure if she was- the article doesn't say. Perhaps she could have been informed of the teaching and then asked not to discuss the fact that she had had IVF with the students, teachers, and parents.

Should it matter that she was not Catholic and did not know the Catholic teaching about this? I feel that firing her was a bit unfair since she was unaware of the teaching and is also not a Catholic. Catholic schools definitely have the right to expect their employees to uphold the teachings of the church but in this case, I feel like her ignorance was not her fault. So how should Catholic schools prevent these misunderstandings from happening if they want to continue hiring people who are not Catholic? Should Catholic schools hire only Catholics? Perhaps applicants for teaching positions should have to take an exam on the teachings of the church- like the Catholic version of the Praxis or something? What do you think? I am not trying to be sarcastic when I say that by the way.

I think they're going to lose this case because they knew about her first attempt at IVF and did and said nothing. There was nothing different about the second time that got her fired. If they don't have a morality clause carved into her contract, which no one has mentioned on either side, then they will have a tough time.

Dawnia · #38 Apr 25, '12, 8:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

I think they're going to lose this case because they knew about her first attempt at IVF and did and said nothing. There was nothing different about the second time that got her fired. If they don't have a morality clause carved into her contract, which no one has mentioned on either side, then they will have a tough time.

I'm not so sure they will loose. A lot depends on the terms of her contract, any moral code requirements and what she actually told her supervisors about her "fertility treatments." She was also not so much fired as her contract wasn't renewed. As long as they fulfilled their previous contract, they may not be obligated to continue to employ her.

PenitentGrace · #39 Apr 25, '12, 8:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by incense

Some of you who are excusing her behavior, is it because you see no problem with invitro fertilization? If you substitute another grave immoral act, like abortion (as someone wrote), or prostitution or bank robbery, would it make the issue clearer?

No- I was suggesting that it might not be fair to fire her if she truly didn't know that IVF was against Church teaching.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think as many people know about the moral implications of IVF. In general, it seems that there is less ignorance about the wrongness of prostitution or bank robbery.

Rence · #40 Apr 25, '12, 8:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by incense

Some of you who are excusing her behavior, is it because you see no problem with invitro fertilization? If you substitute another grave immoral act, like abortion (as someone wrote), or prostitution or bank robbery, would it make the issue clearer?

I see no problem with in vitro fertilization personally, but as a Catholic, it's a rule of the Church and so I choose to obey the rule in order to be in communion with the Church, and that's about it. I considered IVF before I happened upon this forum a while back. After learning that the Church forbids it, I stopped pursuing it. But I'm happy for those who don't have that same burden, and who have successfully gotten pregnant with the help of IVF. So yes, if the situation was abortion, prostitution or bank robbery, of course the issue would be more clear. But then again, single mothers can be fired from their jobs if there is a morality clause included, which doesn't help single mothers choose life in their time of need.

Rence · #41 Apr 25, '12, 8:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenitentGrace

No- I was suggesting that it might not be fair to fire her if she truly didn't know that IVF was against Church teaching.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think as many people know about the moral implications of IVF. In general, it seems that there is less ignorance about the wrongness of prostitution or bank robbery.

I didn't know about it until I came to this forum, and I attended Catholic grammar school, high school, college and university...

TEPO · #42 Apr 25, '12, 9:28 pm

So glad that the Church forbids ivf... I always thought it was evil -just glad to know my conscience is in line with what is true.

_Abyssinia · #43 Apr 26, '12, 1:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

I see no problem with in vitro fertilization personally, but as a Catholic, it's a rule of the Church and so I choose to obey the rule in order to be in communion with the Church, and that's about it. I considered IVF before I happened upon this forum a while back. After learning that the Church forbids it, I stopped pursuing it. But I'm happy for those who don't have that same burden, and who have successfully gotten pregnant with the help of IVF. So yes, if the situation was abortion, prostitution or bank robbery, of course the issue would be more clear. But then again, single mothers can be fired from their jobs if there is a morality clause included, which doesn't help single mothers choose life in their time of need.

That does not make sense - if you believed as the Church and modern science does that life begins at conception you would not support IVF for anybody else, it destroys fertilized embryos.

Corki · #44 Apr 26, '12, 4:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

I think they're going to lose this case because they knew about her first attempt at IVF and did and said nothing. There was nothing different about the second time that got her fired. If they don't have a morality clause carved into her contract, which no one has mentioned on either side, then they will have a tough time.

What's different is that she knew the Church's teaching by then. According to the article, her discussion with the pastor occurred before she had the second IVF.

So:

1st attempt -- she didn't know Church teaching, principal let her take time off, she did the procedure, nothing happened to her employment.

2nd attempt - she was informed of Church teaching, she did the procedure anyway in spite of now being informed and there were consequences.

If she got fired after the first one, you could say she didn't know. But not after the second one. She made the choice to proceed with the second procedure knowing there were consequences.

Corki · #45 Apr 26, '12, 5:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

That does not make sense - if you believed as the Church and modern science does that life begins at conception you would not support IVF for anybody else, it destroys fertilized embryos.

This is an error that the linked article made too. The reason behind the Church's teaching about IVF isn't that it destroy embryos. It's that it creates embryos divorced from both the marital act, and in many cases from a marriage altogether. The fact that embryos are often left over or destroyed is a tragic consequence but not the reason it's wrong.