did they really think this through. or at all?

i hope they at least offered her room in a stable somewhere . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Love thy neighbor.
Compassion.
Tolerance.
Help those in need.

They preach the tenants of the bible, but conveniently leave out any of Jesus' teaching.

Christianity is a cult no different from any other "religion". The powerful keep the flock in order with ignorance, hate and fear, while cherry picking passages that allow them to do whatever the hell they want. The byproduct is millions of people afraid to do what is right out of fear they may upset a vindictive god and spend their afterlife up in hell. Well, guess what? Your hateful, bigoted, narrow minded dogma is creating a hell in this life right now. And not just for you, but the rest of us, as well, because we have to live with the aftermath of your actions.

Grow up! Unwed mothers are not destroying civilization. Gay people marrying each other will not destroy civilization. Abortion will not destroy civilization. But, intolerance, ignorance, hate and narcissism will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

abuse children and you might be able to keep your job!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to be common sense this is about as basic a case of sexual discrimination in employment as can possibly be.

Er, wait--if the Catholic church can legally discriminate in terms of whom they can hire as a priest on the basis of sex---they must have found some sort of loophole already.

Or not. To be priest you have to have the qualification of finishing seminary school, right? And because seminary school is not public, they do not take federal funds, and thus they do not have to obide by Title 9. They can therefore refuse to admit women. So maybe they can argue that no woman is "qualified" to be a priest b/c there is no applicant pool of women who have gone to their seminaries. Whoa! there is a crazy trap!

Or has there just never been a suit filed against them for sex discrimination for disallowing women to become priests ?

Any labor lawyers out there? What's the deal? How can they legally get around any of this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article is misleading. She wasn't fired for not having an abortion. She was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock in the first place.

They are religious school. As a religious school, they are free to be as stupid and moronic as they want.

I totally disagree with EVERYTHING the catholic church stands for (and I do mean EVERYTHING).

But I totally support their right to practice their religion as they want. I just wish they would return the stinking favor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh what a difference a Father would make in this situation. A priestly child would have merited a million or so just to keep mom quiet.
Here, here, we will have nun of that; none in the morning and none in the evening you dirty little whore.
And that is the Black and White of it; we all got frocked.
IM
Belteshazzar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would have fired The Virgin Mary for being unmarried and pregnant.

This is what happens to religion when the priests/ministers take over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"True to her faith, she decided against having an abortion....."

How true to her faith could she be if she got pregnant out-of-wedlock in the first place? If she had really been true to her faith she would not have been fornicating and then this whole situation would never have even come about.

I completely agree with the school and think that they did the correct thing in firing her. The school is trying to instill Catholic values in their students and they are seriously hindered in their ability to do that if they have a pregant-out-of-wedlock teacher in front of their students acting as if she did absolutely nothing wrong. I think that once the woman has the baby if she reaffirms her faith and acknowledges that she was in the wrong, then it would be nice if the school would allow her to have her old job back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article and most of the comments (except for Jamila Akil) show an ignorance of the depth of Catholic philosophy. The primary concern in this case was most likely to avoid scandal, as the Catholic Church defines it. Causing scandal (Catholic definition: Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.) is a gross violation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" by tempting others to sin and thus showing disrespect for the dignity of each person's soul. If the Catholic church gives the impression that it is OK to do whatever you want, especially if it is against their teachings, then their divine basis of authority will be undermined and ultimately lost. Catholicism is about following ALL of Jesus' commands.

I really don't expect most of you to understand this perspective, but it is still important to express the full position of the Catholic Church.

Some others on this post have questioned the Catholic priesthood. Priests are not "hired" by the church, but priests are called by God to represent Jesus himself in offering sanctifying grace to the world. As to the question of male-only priesthood, please don't mock what you don't understand. If you poke fun at what you don't understand, this is the basis of prejudice. Please see this link that explains this position of the Catholic church in full: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father /john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents /hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html.

I invite anyone who wants to rationally discuss these issues in full to respond.

Regards, Andrew

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As far as the contention that the Catholic Church does not use any of Jesus' teachings, please consider Jesus' teaching the gospel of Matthew chapter 18, verse 6: Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.", or Luke 17:1: Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!

These are the basis of the position of causing scandal. The protection of the innocence of children is undoubtedly the primary focus in this case. The conclusion being made here is that prejudice against single mothers is the motivation is a very big assumption, especially since most of you apparently do not understand the historical, philosophical and theological basis of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The teachings of the Catholic church are very deep and require much more thought as to why certain positions are held. Just "throwing stones" may make you feel better, but it is not at the service of justice for all people involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]