Catholic Teacher Fired

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

Don’t forget only vaginal sex is allowed.
[/quote]

If by vaginal sex you mean what is sometimes referred to as “a cream pie,” you sir are correct and have won 10 internets. You can start anywhere you want though.[/quote]

So sodomy is condoned, then? M/F, for the sake of discussion?[/quote]

Sodomy, in the proper manner, refers to finishing the act in the anal cavity. Theologians are undecided on the matter. I haven’t really looked into that part, it would seem to me that it’d follow the same principal, but I really cannot say.[/quote]

So you have to finish, just penetration is not considered sodomy? Damn, I really did not know that. You do learn something new every day. And I’m not being sarcastic at all.

282

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Was she? Seems there’s some court cases to go through.
[/quote]

Exactly. That’s what the crux of this whole issue is, one perceived set of socially endowed rights vs. another perceived set, which the courts will decide on (in a perfect world, for the sake of clarity). And as I read earlier in this thread, I forget who wrote it, I would bet on an out of court monetary settlement by the school linked to a blanket non disclosure agreement. Ultimately an unsatisfying result for us observers, but such is life. Time will tell.
[/quote]

That was me, and I still think that is what will happen. It is a win-win situation. She will receive a bunch of money and the church doesn’t have to risk it’s use of discriminatory practices on whether or not they can claim a person who teaches only secular classes and has no religious responsibilities or training is a minister.
[/quote]

It’s in her contract, even if not part of the faith she cannot openly go against the dogma of the church. There aren’t many things on that list, but abortion and IVF are. She has no case. They don’t make non-catholics follow the faith, but they do make them follow the rules of the institution. If you are being hired by a religiously affiliated institution, your going to have some rules that pertain to the religion. If you work for PETA and they catch you betting on a dog race, your ass will be fired. If you smoke you cannot work for the American Lung Society.
If she worshiped satan, burned a crucifix, proclaimed that she hates the church or God she would have not had her contract renewed too.

For the record, if anybody read the article she wasn’t fired, she just wasn’t rehired. Her contract was up and they did not offer her another one. They are in no obligation to offer anyone a contract and they have a right to refuse contract renewal to anyone for any reason save for blatant racial discrimination.
Even if she was out right fired she’d still have no case, but not getting a contract makes it even less of a case.[/quote]

I have not responded to either of your posts on this because I have already addressed the points you have several times already and am not going to repeat myself anymore. I have done so in other threads, but I have now decided it is not worth my time.

283

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey BC,

Do you recognize this room?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

I am in the 20% also…Something tells me that’s a good thing. [/quote]

Google “Backroom Casting Couch.” Not really worth watching any of the clips, but at least you will understand the reference. It is porn BTW.

284

Where in Canada did you use to live Pat?

285

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Thank you for reminding me,I think you are spot on. What an out of court settlement will say to me, as an impartial, uninvolved party, is that the school (or their lawyers,or both) didn’t think their chances of winning were quite as airtight as some of the posters in this thread have presented. I think it would be a win for the teacher, but you mention win/win, do you really view it as win for the school/ church? You don’t think once the payment is made, they will just be opening the door to more suits of the same kind?
Personally, all these out of court settlements always smack of “Ok, we fucked up, but here’s some cash, so stfu and enjoy it”.[/quote]

I do think it will be a win for the church simply because by the time this gets to a settlement, nobody will care anymore and it will get almost no news coverage, so nobody will know about it and it will not lead to a series of lawsuits like a court ruling would. I guarantee you that this happens more often then we would like to think, but not very many people have the money or the foresight to talk to a lawyer about stuff like employment contracts. This will all get swept under the rug and nothing will change. I, however, and other friends of mine will be bringing this situation up to our students who plan on pursuing a career in education as a warning. I hope more do so as well. I am glad I decided not to accept that position at a Catholic school. [/quote]

True enough. After time, interest fades, and that is that.

286

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, if the court finds against her, do you guys change your mind, end of controversy? She had no right to renewed contract after all? That’s it. Finished. Nothing more to say.[/quote]

From my side, yes. End of. That would be a satisfactory conclusion as far as getting a result goes.

Not that I matter or know the intricacies of the case in the least, just what I’ve read on this thread…[/quote]

If she loses you won’t be able to find the article, it will be two lines on page 88 with no headline saying she lost. That’s how the media rolls.[/quote]

You’re probably right.I think it may be more of a matter of a fading of interest over time, Like DrMatt also alluded to in his reply to me about an out of court settlement being a win for the school/church as well.

It’s all just a sign of the constant dumbing down of society era that we live in…all over the planet.

287

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms[/quote]

Yeah, but those are government endowed rights, not societal.[/quote]

And who do you think forms the government?[/quote]

Aren’t you an advocate for gay marriage?

288

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey BC,

Do you recognize this room?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

I am in the 20% also…Something tells me that’s a good thing. [/quote]

Google “Backroom Casting Couch.” Not really worth watching any of the clips, but at least you will understand the reference. It is porn BTW.[/quote]

Gotcha.

289

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Was she? Seems there’s some court cases to go through.
[/quote]

Exactly. That’s what the crux of this whole issue is, one perceived set of socially endowed rights vs. another perceived set, which the courts will decide on (in a perfect world, for the sake of clarity). And as I read earlier in this thread, I forget who wrote it, I would bet on an out of court monetary settlement by the school linked to a blanket non disclosure agreement. Ultimately an unsatisfying result for us observers, but such is life. Time will tell.
[/quote]

That was me, and I still think that is what will happen. It is a win-win situation. She will receive a bunch of money and the church doesn’t have to risk it’s use of discriminatory practices on whether or not they can claim a person who teaches only secular classes and has no religious responsibilities or training is a minister.
[/quote]

It’s in her contract, even if not part of the faith she cannot openly go against the dogma of the church. There aren’t many things on that list, but abortion and IVF are. She has no case. They don’t make non-catholics follow the faith, but they do make them follow the rules of the institution. If you are being hired by a religiously affiliated institution, your going to have some rules that pertain to the religion. If you work for PETA and they catch you betting on a dog race, your ass will be fired. If you smoke you cannot work for the American Lung Society.
If she worshiped satan, burned a crucifix, proclaimed that she hates the church or God she would have not had her contract renewed too.

For the record, if anybody read the article she wasn’t fired, she just wasn’t rehired. Her contract was up and they did not offer her another one. They are in no obligation to offer anyone a contract and they have a right to refuse contract renewal to anyone for any reason save for blatant racial discrimination.
Even if she was out right fired she’d still have no case, but not getting a contract makes it even less of a case.[/quote]

That was why I posted the question that got lost in the arguement over IVF. I was curious as to how teacher contracts are renewed from year to year (I work under a contract but it is obviously a different situation).

But there is a A LOT of gray in the article about the complaint, she states the church didn’t cover it’s “rules” but if they have backup that they did she doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

The fact she went to her direct superior and informed her of what she was doing and why she needed the days off and the superior didn’t speak up and say “Hold on this could get you into trouble” is one of the many questions I have on this?

290

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms[/quote]

Yeah, but those are government endowed rights, not societal.[/quote]

And who do you think forms the government?[/quote]

Aren’t you an advocate for gay marriage?
[/quote]

Sure

But religion isn’t the root cause of anti-gay bigotry right?

291

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

That was why I posted the question that got lost in the arguement over IVF. I was curious as to how teacher contracts are renewed from year to year (I work under a contract but it is obviously a different situation).

But there is a A LOT of gray in the article about the complaint, she states the church didn’t cover it’s “rules” but if they have backup that they did she doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

The fact she went to her direct superior and informed her of what she was doing and why she needed the days off and the superior didn’t speak up and say “Hold on this could get you into trouble” is one of the many questions I have on this?[/quote]

For non-tenured teachers, schools are required to conduct a review of a teacher when their contract is coming up for renewal. This usually takes place in the form of a review board and the criteria for renewal must be laid out in the employment contract (again, by law). This usually includes such things like job performance, budget concerns, specific downsizing of a department, etc, and the school must specify their reason for not renewing a contract (in essence, not renewing a contract is the same as firing). The same rules for specificity that I described early on in this thread apply here. The school does not get to decide what rules to follow and where, when, and who to apply them to. The criterion laid out in the contracts either apply to everyone (except ministers, they are special, this just applies to lay teachers) or no one, so if they want to put a general clause like “follow Catholic morality,” they have to apply it to everyone, meaning that if the school wants to fire people for not following catholic morals, they have to fire anyone who knowingly violates ANY catholic morals. If they want to fire people for not following specific morals, they have to specify which ones and make their employees aware of them. Basically this comes down to religious rights versus the individual rights of all working American citizens. I tend to side with the individual. My opinion is that the freedom to practice a religion without persecution does not give a church the right to operate a business in the US and hire employees and treat them however they want.

292

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms[/quote]

Yeah, but those are government endowed rights, not societal.[/quote]

And who do you think forms the government?[/quote]

Aren’t you an advocate for gay marriage?
[/quote]

Sure

But religion isn’t the root cause of anti-gay bigotry right?[/quote]

But, as long as it’s not recognized, no rights are being trampled, correct?

293

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms[/quote]

Yeah, but those are government endowed rights, not societal.[/quote]

And who do you think forms the government?[/quote]

Aren’t you an advocate for gay marriage?
[/quote]

Sure

But religion isn’t the root cause of anti-gay bigotry right?[/quote]

But, as long as it’s not recognized, no rights are being trampled, correct?

[/quote]

Sure that doesn’t mean they don’t necessarily deserve the right and it doesn’t make it any less wrong.

294

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Sure that doesn’t mean they don’t necessarily deserve the right and it doesn’t make it any less wrong.
[/quote]

“Wrong?” No rights are trespassed upon.

295

The Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend is very clear: ?The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos or the freezing of embryos, which the Church holds to be incompatible with the respect owed to human life.? Now anyone is free to disagree, but no one is free to accept a job at a Catholic school and make up his own rules. That is why it is so obnoxious to see Emily Herx, the ?victim? teacher, making the rounds on TV trying to gin up public support. She knew when she took her job that as a condition of employment she was expected to serve as a ?moral exemplar? as defined by the Catholic Church.

296

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend is very clear: ?The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos or the freezing of embryos, which the Church holds to be incompatible with the respect owed to human life.? Now anyone is free to disagree, but no one is free to accept a job at a Catholic school and make up his own rules. That is why it is so obnoxious to see Emily Herx, the ?victim? teacher, making the rounds on TV trying to gin up public support. She knew when she took her job that as a condition of employment she was expected to serve as a ?moral exemplar? as defined by the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholicleague.org/catholic-prerogatives/[/quote]

Their definition of “very clear” and the US legal system’s definition are likely two different things. The principal of the school did not know about it, so it couldn’t have been all THAT clear. If it was not specified in the contract and/or it was not made clear to her in her job training (maybe not even then since the contract will trump training in the court case) then it was not “very clear.”

297

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend is very clear: ?The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos or the freezing of embryos, which the Church holds to be incompatible with the respect owed to human life.? Now anyone is free to disagree, but no one is free to accept a job at a Catholic school and make up his own rules. That is why it is so obnoxious to see Emily Herx, the ?victim? teacher, making the rounds on TV trying to gin up public support. She knew when she took her job that as a condition of employment she was expected to serve as a ?moral exemplar? as defined by the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholicleague.org/catholic-prerogatives/[/quote]

Their definition of “very clear” and the US legal system’s definition are likely two different things. The principal of the school did not know about it, so it couldn’t have been all THAT clear. If it was not specified in the contract and/or it was not made clear to her in her job training (maybe not even then since the contract will trump training in the court case) then it was not “very clear.”[/quote]

In Fort Wayne, Indiana the issue for busybodies is the termination of a Catholic teacher who violated Church teachings by receiving in vitro fertilization. Some may wonder what is wrong with this procedure.

^ that is the sentence before it. Sorry that I made it confusing.

298

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend is very clear: ?The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos or the freezing of embryos, which the Church holds to be incompatible with the respect owed to human life.? Now anyone is free to disagree, but no one is free to accept a job at a Catholic school and make up his own rules. That is why it is so obnoxious to see Emily Herx, the ?victim? teacher, making the rounds on TV trying to gin up public support. She knew when she took her job that as a condition of employment she was expected to serve as a ?moral exemplar? as defined by the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholicleague.org/catholic-prerogatives/[/quote]

Their definition of “very clear” and the US legal system’s definition are likely two different things. The principal of the school did not know about it, so it couldn’t have been all THAT clear. If it was not specified in the contract and/or it was not made clear to her in her job training (maybe not even then since the contract will trump training in the court case) then it was not “very clear.”[/quote]

In Fort Wayne, Indiana the issue for busybodies is the termination of a Catholic teacher who violated Church teachings by receiving in vitro fertilization. Some may wonder what is wrong with this procedure.

^ that is the sentence before it. Sorry that I made it confusing. [/quote]

Sorry BC but there is still going to be a lot of gray. Not in the morals of the church (those are very clear and I am not disputing the beliefs). But if she was educated on what the church would terminate her for.

I’m covered under a contract and what I can be terminated, demoted or suspended for is covered in detail (probably more so than Mrs. Herx) and updated regularly. The first three days of the first week of employment are devoted to rules and regulations (which you are then tested on). After that you continue to cover SOP’s (Standard Operating Procedures) for the rest of your academy. And then after that you are tested on them annually (each grade test zero’s in on different SOP’s) until your 5th year of employment. After that any promotion requires re-study of the rules and SOP’s and another test.

That is why I said there is a gray area here, if the church has proof that this was covered with her then she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. BUT if it wasn’t it’s going to be difficult, but like DrMatt said this will never see a courtroom and end in a settlement.

In that though Mrs Herx also has to show that this wasn’t covered with her.

Forgive me if I rambled here.

299

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, if the court finds against her, do you guys change your mind, end of controversy? She had no right to renewed contract after all? That’s it. Finished. Nothing more to say.[/quote]

Since I answered, will you change your mind if the court rules against the school?

300

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, if the court finds against her, do you guys change your mind, end of controversy? She had no right to renewed contract after all? That’s it. Finished. Nothing more to say.[/quote]

Since I answered, will you change your mind if the court rules against the school?[/quote]

Nope. I perceive inalienable rights to be endowed by a creator.