You know epphd, I can give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know. However, it sounds like there are teacher in-services about Catholic doctrine and I would suspect that these sorts of topics would have been touched upon. Or maybe I should say, should have been touched upon...
But then again you don't even have priests teaching Catholic doctrine at Mass....
Her EMPLOYERS had to go research Catholic doctrine to figure out that this was a fireable offense. How is it reasonable that she, a non-Catholic, should know?
Um, I did just say that I can give her the benefit of the doubt here. I think catechesis in the (especailly American) Church is abysmal in general.
And lyss: Seriously?
Moxie/epphd: I see what you are saying. Actually the Catechism isn't the best place to go for perfect descriptions of every sin. I said it was a good place to start. There are references to the actual documents in the footnotes too...which are the best places to go. There are 2,000 years worth of doctrine in the Catechism....pretty impressive that we even have such a concise source in our Church to begin with, but yeah, not perfect.
So, for IVF the best place to go would be to the actual document Lumen Gentium. There the gravity of the sin is quite clear. And yes, I can see how it may not have been clear enough to this woman. I would argue that once again the Church failed in catechesis. I think the CHurch should make things plain as day and I think that they could have here.
I also recognize that not everyone can get fired for every sin. Someone mentioned artificial contraception. I think most Catholic institutions "know" that many of their employees (incl Catholics) use artificial contraception but no one is asking for days off, etc as a result of that. It is truly private.
The more I think about this I feel like there is more to the story.
I lived in that dioces for 6 years. It's notoriously nuts. The bishop is always in a fight with the head of nd and he dies it by going super Conservative, This is one reason why I turned down a job teaching at a local catholic school there. They wanted me to sign a contract like that and I was not comfortable with it. At least the school was VeRY upfront about the contract and walked me through what it entails.
OK, so it sounds liek they are very upfront and clear about expectations. Now I'm starting to go the other wayagain in my assessment of this woman's actions.
Andplusalso, I'm guessing she found out at some point during her IVF the it WAS "against teaching" but as a non catholic who didn't do many catholic tenets, I'm guessing she didn't automatically assume it was a fieable offense. They basically waited until after she did it, researched the hell outta it, and decided then to do away with her. She didn't at that point have the ability to do anything about it.
What if she went to confessional and asked for forgiveness over it? Would that have made a difference??
I lived in that dioces for 6 years. It's notoriously nuts. The bishop is always in a fight with the head of nd and he dies it by going super Conservative, This is one reason why I turned down a job teaching at a local catholic school there. They wanted me to sign a contract like that and I was not comfortable with it. At least the school was VeRY upfront about the contract and walked me through what it entails.
OK, so it sounds liek they are very upfront and clear about expectations. Now I'm starting to go the other wayagain in my assessment of this woman's actions.
Well to be fair, the school that Irish applied to was very upfront and clear. It's not clear if the school where this woman worked was the same way. Also - I just scanned the article but - was this her second IVF and the school knew about the first one and she wasn't fired? I feel like I am getting that gist from the comments here but am not clear on that one.
My first instinct here was actually to side with the Church and the school. You don't have to teach there if you don't want to abide by their rules. BUT I see what Momi is saying and like her explanation of how Title VII would apply/not apply to employees of religious schools.
Finally - until recently (past two or three years?) I had no idea the Catholic church was against fertility treatments such as IVF. We discussed abortion, death penalty, stuff like that ad nauseum in my years of Catholic education but this never came up. I considered applying to catholic schools to teach post-college and would have signed an application or employment contract that contained the language this teachers did without even considering that it included fertility treatments. I'm not saying that ignorance is an excuse, but I also don't think it's a given she understood from the get-go that this was a fireable offense.
I lived in that dioces for 6 years. It's notoriously nuts. The bishop is always in a fight with the head of nd and he dies it by going super Conservative, This is one reason why I turned down a job teaching at a local catholic school there. They wanted me to sign a contract like that and I was not comfortable with it. At least the school was VeRY upfront about the contract and walked me through what it entails.
OK, so it sounds liek they are very upfront and clear about expectations. Now I'm starting to go the other wayagain in my assessment of this woman's actions.
That's still not a guarantee that they came out and said, "IVF is expressly forbidden."
So her options are to either just go teach somewhere else or remain without children? There are hundreds of applications for each teaching position, some places in the 400's, I've heard. Saying she should just not work there is an unjust oversimplification. And there are bound to be other sinning employees or members of the congregation.
I agree with you about the job market and that it's an oversimplification. However, for a Catholic, the options are as follows:
- fertility treatments which do not divorce procreation from sex (if she had moved on to IVF it appears these did not work for her) - adoption - remaining childless
So, there are several options. I get annoyed when people are upset that the option they WANT isn't listed. Do something against your religion, leave the church, whatever, but those are the church's beliefs and they sure aren't changing them.
As a non-Catholic, she had the added option of not working at the school. Work at a different school, change careers, decide to be a SAHM. Whatever.
The option she didn't have was defying her employer's rule, which she agreed to, and then blabbing about it. Seems simple enough.
I do like Momi's Title VII explanation, though. However, I feel defensive of the Church due to my Catholic education! The Church is there. It's not going away. It's not changing its beliefs due to the whims of society. Take it or leave it.
Post by laurenpetro on Sept 19, 2012 14:34:22 GMT -5
does anyone else think this was just as easy way to get rid of the teacher? not that i would put it past them but this seems like a silly thing for the church to fall on its sword over, FWIM? i mean, i'd get it if she was cheating on her spouse or something like that.
I agree with you about the job market and that it's an oversimplification. However, for a Catholic, the options are as follows:
- fertility treatments which do not divorce procreation from sex (if she had moved on to IVF it appears these did not work for her) - adoption - remaining childless
So, there are several options. I get annoyed when people are upset that the option they WANT isn't listed. Do something against your religion, leave the church, whatever, but those are the church's beliefs and they sure aren't changing them.
As a non-Catholic, she had the added option of not working at the school. Work at a different school, change careers, decide to be a SAHM. Whatever.
You're still oversimplifying. "Just adopt." That doesn't work because of costs and because it is so difficult and treacherous to adopt in this country. "Just do something that doesn't require IVF." Some people's infertility DOES require IVF as the only means of producing a child. And as those options which have legitimate barriers to them, the only othe rchoice is to remain without a child, and that is simply cruel. I've already stated that you can't just simply go and work at a different school. That's like saying to someone without insurance "Walp, I guess you'd better just get a better job, then." And change careers? That's a viable solution?
No one is addressing the hypocrisy of not vetting all sinners in the congregation and faculty, which I see as one of the primary problems in this case.
I don't understand why people are supporting that non-Catholics must live like Catholics.
Well, the best way to avoid this problem is to only hire Catholics. Oh wait, that's not allowed either.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Well, the best way to avoid this problem is to only hire Catholics. Oh wait, that's not allowed either.
That's not the best way to avoid this problem.
sigh
The reality is that if a religious institution is dipping its toes into non-religious ventures, then the rules that apply to non-religious institutions apply to them. Plain and simple.
You want the gobument's hands off your religion, keep it in the religious realm.
You're still oversimplifying. "Just adopt." That doesn't work because of costs and because it is so difficult and treacherous to adopt in this country. "Just do something that doesn't require IVF." Some people's infertility DOES require IVF as the only means of producing a child. And as those options which have legitimate barriers to them, the only othe rchoice is to remain without a child, and that is simply cruel. I've already stated that you can't just simply go and work at a different school. That's like saying to someone without insurance "Walp, I guess you'd better just get a better job, then." And change careers? That's a viable solution?
No one is addressing the hypocrisy of not vetting all sinners in the congregation and faculty, which I see as one of the primary problems in this case.
I don't understand why people are supporting that non-Catholics must live like Catholics.
Well, the best way to avoid this problem is to only hire Catholics. Oh wait, that's not allowed either.
or they could do this crazy thing and recognize the rights of others.
Well, the best way to avoid this problem is to only hire Catholics. Oh wait, that's not allowed either.
That's not the best way to avoid this problem.
It's my opinion and I still think it is the best way.
I would actually be fine with Jewish schools requiring teachers to be Jewish and Mormon Schools requiring teachers to be Mormon. It just seems to be the logical thing to do.
The reality is that if a religious institution is dipping its toes into non-religious ventures, then the rules that apply to non-religious institutions apply to them. Plain and simple.
You want the gobument's hands off your religion, keep it in the religious realm.
Well, since Catholic Schools teach ....the Catholic religion, then IMO it is a religious institution.
It's my opinion and I still think it is the best way.
I would actually be fine with Jewish schools requiring teachers to be Jewish and Mormon Schools requiring teachers to be Mormon. It just seems to be the logical thing to do.
...because for every one Jewish or Mormon school in America there are... what? 50? 100? Catholic schools. And you just happen to be a Catholic who works in Education.
If you were in a situation where the vast majority of non-public school jobs required to you abide by the teachings of a religion you didn't adhere to, how would you, personally, feel about that?
ETA: And what's so wrong about the secular vs. non-secular distinction? If you're involved in teaching religion, you need to be an adherent. If you teach math, maybe not so much.
It's my opinion and I still think it is the best way.
I would actually be fine with Jewish schools requiring teachers to be Jewish and Mormon Schools requiring teachers to be Mormon. It just seems to be the logical thing to do.
...because for every one Jewish or Mormon school in America there are... what? 50? 100? Catholic schools. And you just happen to be a Catholic who works in Education.
If you were in a situation where the vast majority of non-public school jobs required to you abide by the teachings of a religion you didn't adhere to, how would you, personally, feel about that?
I'd find another (public or private) school to work for. And if I couldn't find another job? I'd suck it up for a job. And if I couldn't abide by their rules? I wouldn't let on.
It's my opinion and I still think it is the best way.
I would actually be fine with Jewish schools requiring teachers to be Jewish and Mormon Schools requiring teachers to be Mormon. It just seems to be the logical thing to do.
...because for every one Jewish or Mormon school in America there are... what? 50? 100? Catholic schools. And you just happen to be a Catholic who works in Education.
If you were in a situation where the vast majority of non-public school jobs required to you abide by the teachings of a religion you didn't adhere to, how would you, personally, feel about that?
ETA: And what's so wrong about the secular vs. non-secular distinction? If you're involved in teaching religion, you need to be an adherent. If you teach math, maybe not so much.
...because for every one Jewish or Mormon school in America there are... what? 50? 100? Catholic schools. And you just happen to be a Catholic who works in Education.
If you were in a situation where the vast majority of non-public school jobs required to you abide by the teachings of a religion you didn't adhere to, how would you, personally, feel about that?
I'd find another (public or private) school to work for. And if I couldn't find another job? I'd suck it up for a job. And if I couldn't abide by their rules? I wouldn't let on.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
It's my opinion and I still think it is the best way.
I would actually be fine with Jewish schools requiring teachers to be Jewish and Mormon Schools requiring teachers to be Mormon. It just seems to be the logical thing to do.
You know that wouldn't work for Catholic schools, because they'd never be able to hire enough teachers. Especially not at the tiny salaries they're paying.
I know I'm late to this party, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this woman (catholic or not) didn't know about IVF not being ok. She didn't sign an agreement that specifically said "IVF is fireable." She signed something that said she'd uphold the tenets of Catholicism. I personally know a Catholic who wasn't aware that IVF was against the rules .... and a few times people in this thread said something like, "well she should have checked." Checked what? Everytime she put on red shoes, she should check to see if it's against Catholicism? Everytime she ate fish on Saturday or got her nails done? I mean, how do you know *what* to check? My friend - and call her a "bad" catholic if you want, whatever - she seriously truly had no idea that something that would assist her & her husband in creating life could be against this hugely pro-life institution. It just didn't even occur to her.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
I'd find another (public or private) school to work for. And if I couldn't find another job? I'd suck it up for a job. And if I couldn't abide by their rules? I wouldn't let on.
isn't that lying?
apparently lying about it is OK.
So, every married teacher at a Catholic school that isn't having a baby annually... they're perfectly OK under these rules. But this teacher, who just wants to create life. Not so much.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
I don't care who I offend but a crucifix in a math class is creepy.
try having it in bio.
Neither are creeepy. One shows what happens when you get an addition question wrong and the other, science, is something Catholics believe in. We aren't fundies
my bio teacher had a halfway decent argument for evolution within the bible. something about how the definition of a day could be different from the bible to what we now consider a day. i wish i had paid more attention.
Neither are creeepy. One shows what happens when you get an addition question wrong and the other, science, is something Catholics believe in. We aren't fundies
no, but it takes quite a stretch to make the bible fit with what we now know to be fact.
Post by crazytalk on Sept 19, 2012 15:07:57 GMT -5
re: lying .... that's what makes me guess that she really didn't know it was a no-no. I went through so many rounds of fertility treatments, and my boss and 1 of my coworkers knew what I was dealing with. I was close with them, and we chatted about personal things because we've worked together for 10 years. If she did all that, and then on the SECOND round of IVF got fired .... I mean, wtf? They probably could have mentioned it during or after the first round, saying "hey fyi, this is against our religion, you know the one you agreed to uphold. Don't do it again."