Monday, June 3, 2013

That other Ohio teacher

A while back, I wrote about a teacher who was fired by the Catholic school she worked for when she became pregnant out of wedlock due to (presumably) the sin of fornication.  I argued that the Catholic parish and school had lost an opportunity to help her repent of her sinful conduct without showing her the door and cutting her off from her health insurance--that in this complicated world, making it harder for unwed mothers to choose life is not always the best policy for Catholic employers to pursue.

But I find it sickening that a different Ohio teacher just won over $170,000 from the Catholic school that fired her for getting pregnant out of wedlock.  Why am I angry about this one?  Well, as always, the devil--literally--is in the details:
A federal jury awarded Christa Dias $171,000 after finding a Catholic school discriminated against her for conceiving a baby out of wedlock via artificial insemination.

The court case that asked whether Catholic schools can legally fire a pregnant teacher for violating church doctrine came close to a conclusion last week after a day of testimony from the teacher and her former bosses.

Dias, 33, was fired in 2010 for conceiving a baby out of wedlock via artificial insemination. A Christian lesbian who is not Catholic, she taught computers at Holy Family and St. Lawrence schools.
Each year she signed employment contracts generally requiring her to uphold Catholic doctrine.
So this woman essentially lied every single time she signed her employment contracts.  She never had the slightest intention to uphold Catholic doctrine.  She planned to get sperm from a gay friend, manufacture embryos in a laboratory, kill off some of them during the implantation process and eventually implant at least one successfully (unless, being a "Christian lesbian," whatever that means, she actually sought an IVF doctor who would agree to make and implant only one embryo, which is hardly the common practice in the evil artificial child-manufacturing industry), and give birth to a child whom she intentionally deprived of a father.  And she expected the Church to condone all of this and let her continue to teach Catholic children as if she were in any way a fit role model for them.

Compare that to the woman who got pregnant out of wedlock by accident, who tried to make the best of a bad situation by choosing life for her twins, and who went to her school hoping to work out an office job or other behind-the-scenes situation so as not to confuse her students by her pregnancy, and it's easy to see the difference here.  The most obvious difference is that you can't get pregnant via IVF by accident.  It takes a great deal of time and money to manufacture and attempt to implant the human chattel you seek to acquire via a business contract and a scientific manufacturing process.  There is simply no way to claim that you didn't know what you were doing, that you had a momentary lapse in judgment, etc.  IVF is deliberately plotted evil, plain and simple.

And if you're the sort of person who doesn't think it's evil to manufacture children artificially and who has plans to act on that belief, then guess what?  You don't belong working at a Catholic school.  You have no business there.  You will never understand the Catholic Church's deeply philosophical teachings about the meaning of life well enough to have the slightest bit of good to offer a Catholic school child.  You are a bad example to any child whose parents are seeking a religious education, and you are robbing that child of his or her right to be taught by people who aren't moral midgets.

But this sort of thing is why I don't believe those who say that the increasing pressure in society to accept all sorts of evil will not affect churches or religious institutions.  The moral midgets out there can't stand that we don't buy their bovine excrement and then declare it a cause for celebration.  Their greatest enemy is the truth, and they will do their best to stamp out and eradicate those institutions to whom the truth--especially the One who called Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life--is more important than a parade of niceness for their chosen brand of perversion and evil.  This court decision pretty much says that a Catholic school can't expect its teachers to act according to Catholic principles, and we can expect a lot more of that sort of thing from the godless and evil culture which surrounds us.


Catholic Way Publishing said...

Very well said!

GK Chesterton said...

"Compare that to the woman who got pregnant out of wedlock by accident"

I was not aware this was possible.

Red Cardigan said...

GKC, others have said this too, and while it's supposed to be an "Oh, gosh, what a zinger!" thing, I think it betrays a very serious lack in charity among many Catholics--especially many Catholic males--for women who have unplanned or crisis pregnancies.

Oh, sure, it's easy to say, "Don't want to get pregnant? Then keep your legs closed, slut!" as many men (alas, even Catholic ones) seem to do. But I think that our Lord, knowing full well the ugly details of the unchastity of males as well as females (yes, even the grave unchastity of many Catholic men who are perfectly happy to condemn women for getting pregnant out of wedlock on the one hand and demand that their girlfriends "put out" on the other) would call this out for the ugly hypocrisy that it is.

To put it another way: apart from incidents of rape, every out-of-wedlock pregnancy involves TWO people committing the grave sin of fornication. Some of them add the grave sin of contraception to this sin--and guess what? Contraception can and does sometimes fail. But to say that every single couple (couple, remember, not woman alone) who fornicates is therefore planning and intending to get pregnant such that pregnancy is never accidental, unplanned, or a crisis is to ignore the climate in which these grave sins take place.

And that climate largely includes men refusing to man up and take responsibility for the lives they create by their acts of fornication. No, it's easier to point and laugh and shame the woman than to ask where the hell her partner in sin is now--because we know where he is: gone. It's not his problem. Society says so. The culture says so. Even his Catholic male friends may say so. The woman, after all, has "choices." Evil, terrible, desperate ones, but hey, as some Catholic bloggers write: too bad, strumpet. Have fun losing your job at a Catholic school and your health insurance and your parish community and support network and sometimes your relationship with your parents and extended family as well (because they're so ashamed they want her to abort and get mad when she won't). It's what you deserve for even a single sin of fornication, if that's all it took to get you pregnant.

I don't see Christ in that attitude. And I see a great deal of difference between a woman in a lesbian relationship who pursues and uses IVF very deliberately to create a child (yet expects to keep her job at a Catholic school) and a woman who has committed--with a male partner--the sin of fornication and who ends up pregnant and alone. Maybe you don't; maybe you think that the second woman and her child deserve to be pushed to the margins of society and treated like Hester Prynne for the rest of her life, because her pregnancy was not an "accident"--she knew that sex leads to babies, and she chose to give in and have sex anyway, so it's only fair for her to be treated with cold disdain by "good" people. I don't think that way.

sunshine mary said...

I have a rule in my house: no cookies without permission.

Suppose one of our daughters slipped into the kitchen and stole a cookie from the cookie jar. Suppose I caught her. What should I do? Should I say to her, "Well, you took cookies that you were forbidden to take...but gosh, everyone likes cookies! Here, have some candy, sweetie!"

After I rewarded her for her sin, suppose I then turned to my other four daughters who had obeyed me by staying out of the cookie jar and said to them, "Stealing cookies is a sin, girls! Stay out of that jar!"

How do you think they will react, watching their sister eating her stolen cookie and enjoying the goodies I rewarded her with? Must they still obey me? Of course they must! But have I just given them all kinds of motivation not to obey me? Yep.

But supposing instead, when I caught the cookie thief, that I meted out consequences for her sin? Instead of being allowed to keep the stolen cookie, I took it and gave it to an obedient daughter. Instead of giving the little sinner candy, I sent her to bed without dinner or dessert. I'd feel horrible doing it, but how much more likely is it that I will be obeyed by all five of my daughters in the future?

Ma'am, that is what it seems you aren't getting. By rewarding the pregnant unwed woman with a cushy office job, by removing the consequences for her sin (consequences to which she agreed when she accepted the job, I might add), what message have the young women at the school (not to mention society at large) received?

It's not about the lesbian. Obviously lesbians are in desperate sin, and are mentally ill to boot (just because the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM doesn't mean it isn't still a psychological disorder). It was right for the lesbian to be let go. It was also right for the heterosexual woman to be let go.

I understand as a pro-life woman why we tend to want to give all that we can to single mothers so that they don't murder their babies in the womb, but remember that you get more of the kinds of behavior that your reward. In the long run, we create more single mothers raising children who grow up at a terrible disadvantage if we refuse to allow women to experience the consequences of their choices.

Red Cardigan said...

I published your comment, Sunshine Mary, because I really can't believe it myself, and think others ought to see it as proof that it exists.


How often do you call your children "the little sinner," I wonder? Do you think it a term of endearment? I've never used that term myself, because I'd have to ignore the log in my own eye to focus in on the sins of my children.

Apart from that, does it not alarm you at all that the innocent children of this woman are being punished for her--AND THE DAMN MAN'S--sin? If the child in your example was teased and pressured and forced by her brother to steal the cookie, would you laugh indulgently at his sin while sending her hungry to bed? Because every single one of you seems to think its just FINE for the teacher's male counterpart in sin to get to keep everything: job, reputation, income, health insurance--while she and her children are cut off from her livelihood and their health care.

God spare me from such Christians, who think that the Golden Rule means: "Never, ever, EVER forgive a woman for the sin of fornication, ESPECIALLY if she gets pregnant, because it's too embarrassing for us 'good people' to keep her employed and help her to make better future choices. Far better to make sure she KNOWS how evil and wicked she is, and that her children suffer right along with her for the rest of their lives, because we KNOW that's how Christ would handle things."

No wonder we have abortion on demand in this country, if this is the best we "charitable Christians" can do for our sisters when they fall into sin.

Look: if this woman went to Confession the very day after the fornication happened, and with true contrition promised never to commit this sin again, guess what? She's in a state of grace--and still pregnant out of wedlock (and she probably doesn't even know that she is pregnant yet). Is it okay to tell your child, "Oh, I know you're sorry for stealing the cookie, but you may never have dessert again as long as you live under this roof, and must accept a smaller portion of food than everyone at the table, because that is the consequence for your sin no matter how contrite you are about it, and we will call you the Cookie Thief and hang our heads in shame when we speak of you from now on..." or would that be too much? Because that's what you want for this woman and her innocent children. For the rest of their lives.