Post by mominatrix on Sept 19, 2012 15:08:38 GMT -5
I just want to say that this is hitting me personally, and here's why.
Years ago I was involved with a case that dealt with a secular-subject Catholic school teacher, who was fired for being unmarried and pregnant. Everybody knew that the babydaddy also worked for the school, in a secular role and he suffered absolutely no consequence. Pissed me off then, and still pisses me off now.
I heard all the arguments about her having to abide by Catholic doctrine and being a role model and all that. Yet none of it seemed to apply to the "man", mostly because there was no outward evidence of his transgression.
Not OK. Not at all. These kinds of rules are almost entirely coming down on female teachers. The reality is that a male teacher whose wife was undergoing IVF would be nowhere near fired over it.
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?
Wait, is it now time to try to catch 2V in a sin? lol
Having said that, I actually don't see it as lying because if I am asked to do something that goes against my faith I am required not to do it.
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
Post by livinitup on Sept 19, 2012 15:12:25 GMT -5
I am Catholic. This has been my experience/exposure to Catholic doctrine:
- Weekly Mass - Pre-Cana - Several Spritual Retreats - 1 Year Volunteer Service - College and Grad School - High School
The issue against IVF has NEVER come-up in ANY Catholic venue, worship or lesson I have ever participated. The only vague notion I have that it's "against Catholic doctrine" are news articles that reference some Vatican something or other. Sometimes I follow the link, read the article or go back to the source. It is often very convoluted and in no way clear - even to an interested reader. And almost always contridicted by some priest or nun - either quoted or by writing something that may or may not be authorized. Much of these things are being debated among intellectuals and leaders.
So, no. Some expectation that a teacher, in good standing at a Catholic School should "know" the Catholic rules that could get her fired is complete BULLSHIT.
Becuase saying "Hey, you work for a Catholic institution now, google the rules and follow them" is stupid and unjust.
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 just want to say that this is hitting me personally, and here's why.
Years ago I was involved with a case that dealt with a secular-subject Catholic school teacher, who was fired for being unmarried and pregnant. Everybody knew that the babydaddy also worked for the school, in a secular role and he suffered absolutely no consequence. Pissed me off then, and still pisses me off now.
I heard all the arguments about her having to abide by Catholic doctrine and being a role model and all that. Yet none of it seemed to apply to the "man", mostly because there was no outward evidence of his transgression. Not OK. Not at all. These kinds of rules are almost entirely coming down on female teachers. The reality is that a male teacher whose wife was undergoing IVF would be nowhere near fired over it.
And getting back to the OP, I think this was the issue....outward evidence. I said in another post a big reason why those who use artificial contraceptionn/BCP are not fired is because people don't typically shout it from the mountains...especially in a Catholic school (even though it's probably "known").
I'm not judging this woman. I suspect she didn't know about IVF the more I think about it. However, the fact of the matter is that she offered it up. Once it was out in the open, something had to give.
I hate when we turn this into a male vs female issue. Yep, females are the ones who get pregnant, use fertility treatments, use artificial birth control, etc, etc. It makes sense why it usually affects women more.
Last Edit: Sept 19, 2012 15:26:59 GMT -5 by pedanticwench
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
you're the one who suggested using one sin to replace another one. not me.
I did? Where?
And if I couldn't abide by their rules? I wouldn't let on.
"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."
not letting on would eventually, as is exemplified in the situation we're discussing, lead you to either get caught and fired or would require you to lie.
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
And if I couldn't abide by their rules? I wouldn't let on.
"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."
not letting on would eventually, as is exemplified in the situation we're discussing, lead you to either get caught and fired or would require you to lie.
OK, you guys got me! Wheee! Fact of the matter is...I woulnd't sign it in the first place. I'd get another job somewhere else before agreeing to abide by some other religion. And you all know that's the truth! LOL
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
wait, so you would never work for an organization that was not catholic?
eta: well, what you consider a religious organization
Nope. Not if I had to abide by any religious rules that go against my Catholic Faith. Of course I can't think of anything specific, but I am sure I'd run into a problem.
I hate when we turn this into a male vs female issue. Yep, females are the ones who get pregnant, use fertility treatments, use artificial birth control, etc, etc. It makes sense why it usually affects women more.
It's usually couples who are doing IVF.
and, last I heard, lesbian couples aren't big birth control customers.
the reality is that BOTH men and women are using birth control and fertility treatments. As our mothers told us, "it takes two to tango". Just because men don't carry the babies doesn't mean that they aren't also using the birth control, or going to the fertility clinics. It's just plain wrong to assert otherwise.
I just want to say that this is hitting me personally, and here's why.
Years ago I was involved with a case that dealt with a secular-subject Catholic school teacher, who was fired for being unmarried and pregnant. Everybody knew that the babydaddy also worked for the school, in a secular role and he suffered absolutely no consequence. Pissed me off then, and still pisses me off now.
I heard all the arguments about her having to abide by Catholic doctrine and being a role model and all that. Yet none of it seemed to apply to the "man", mostly because there was no outward evidence of his transgression. Not OK. Not at all. These kinds of rules are almost entirely coming down on female teachers. The reality is that a male teacher whose wife was undergoing IVF would be nowhere near fired over it.
And getting back to the OP, I think this was the issue....outward evidence. I said in another post a big reason why those who use artificial contraceptionn/BCP are not fired is because people don't typically shout it from the mountains...especially in a Catholic school (even though it's probably "known").
I'm not judging this woman. I suspect she didn't know about IVF the more I think about it. However, the fact of the matter is that she offered it up. Once it was out in the open, something had to give.
I hate when we turn this into a male vs female issue. Yep, females are the ones who get pregnant, use fertility treatments, use artificial birth control, etc, etc. It makes sense why it usually affects women more.
...because it is a male vs. female issue. If you don't think that the Catholic church has a long and convoluted history when it comes to women... well, I don't know what to say.
And, in the story I related, one aspect of it that I wish you would respond to is that she would NOT have lost her job if, prior to her pregnancy "showing", she simply went off and had a quiet abortion.
I hate when we turn this into a male vs female issue. Yep, females are the ones who get pregnant, use fertility treatments, use artificial birth control, etc, etc. It makes sense why it usually affects women more.
It's usually couples who are doing IVF.
and, last I heard, lesbian couples aren't big birth control customers.
the reality is that BOTH men and women are using birth control and fertility treatments. As our mothers told us, "it takes two to tango". Just because men don't carry the babies doesn't mean that they aren't also using the birth control, or going to the fertility clinics. It's just plain wrong to assert otherwise.
I'm not sure what IVF entails. However, I also know of women who take birth control without the knowledge of their husbands. So, no, I don't think husbands are automatically "guilty" too.
And getting back to the OP, I think this was the issue....outward evidence. I said in another post a big reason why those who use artificial contraceptionn/BCP are not fired is because people don't typically shout it from the mountains...especially in a Catholic school (even though it's probably "known").
I'm not judging this woman. I suspect she didn't know about IVF the more I think about it. However, the fact of the matter is that she offered it up. Once it was out in the open, something had to give.
I hate when we turn this into a male vs female issue. Yep, females are the ones who get pregnant, use fertility treatments, use artificial birth control, etc, etc. It makes sense why it usually affects women more.
...because it is a male vs. female issue. If you don't think that the Catholic church has a long and convoluted history when it comes to women... well, I don't know what to say.
And, in the story I related, one aspect of it that I wish you would respond to is that she would NOT have lost her job if, prior to her pregnancy "showing", she simply went off and had a quiet abortion.
How's that for encouraging "life"?
You know. I never said I agree with how she was treated. So quit the abortion talk.
Last Edit: Sept 19, 2012 15:45:07 GMT -5 by pedanticwench
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
...because it is a male vs. female issue. If you don't think that the Catholic church has a long and convoluted history when it comes to women... well, I don't know what to say.
And, in the story I related, one aspect of it that I wish you would respond to is that she would NOT have lost her job if, prior to her pregnancy "showing", she simply went off and had a quiet abortion.
How's that for encouraging "life"?
You know. I never said I agree with how she was treated. So quit the abortion talk.
but it's central. the boyfriend wasn't fired because he didn't show up to work with a big belly.
i think mom is trying to be less abortion debate here and more how these rules are inherently sexist
How do you make it not sexist, other than getting rid of their beliefs? I mean, unless the dad admits to being part of the process, they can't prove it.
I know I had a friend deal with this at a catholic high school. She got pregnant and was kicked out. The dad refused to admit it so he stayed. He finally took a test a year later an paternity was proved so he was kicked out too. But before that, they had no proof. They did for the girl. It sucks for women, but the proof is much easier to obtain.
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