I understand that teachers in a religious school cannot be “seen” to have radically opposed views to the school they are teaching at. For instance, I am not opposed to a religious school requesting their science teachers to subsist from proferring a personal view about creation which isn’t consistent with their religious beliefs.
But as long as a teacher doesn’t broadcast their differing views or lifestyle choices what is the problem? How can a teacher undergoing artificial insemination lose her job because of it in today’s age? Worse still, the reason for her dismissal was that she had done a “grave immoral act.”
There was nothing immaculate about a Catholic school teacher’s conception.
Christa Dias, a former teacher at Holy Family and St. Lawrence Catholic schools in Cincinnati, Ohio, claims she was fired for becoming pregnant using artificial insemination.
Ms Dias was fired in October 2010 when, at five and a half months pregnant, she approached her employer about maternity leave options.
The schools initially fired Ms Dias, 32, for being single and pregnant, Cincinnati.com reports.
When the schools discovered that violated several federal and state anti-discrimination laws, they said she was fired because she became pregnant using artificial insemination.
That, the school said, was in direct violation of her contract.
‘She has a right to her opinion, but she doesn’t have a right to violate her (employment) contract,’ Archdiocese of Cincinnati spokesman Dan Andriacco told the website.
The contract Ms Dias signed called for employees to adhere to Catholic social teachings, including the avowal that having a child without a husband and out of wedlock is a ‘grave immoral’ act.
Tags: artificial insemination, Catholic school, Christa Dias, Dan Andriacco, Education, Holy Family and St. Lawrence Catholic schools, life, maternity leave, News, Parenting, pregnant, religion, Reverend James Kiffermeyer, School
Topical Teaching 
December 30, 2011 at 2:19 am |
Clearly, this school was looking for a reason to get rid of this teacher. I suspect there will be more news on this.
While I don’t agree with what they’ve done, I will say that religions are “clubs with rules,” and if you don’t like the rules, you probably shouldn’t join the club.
With that said, if this news story is completely factual, I think it’s despicable how they are treating this woman who wanted to have a child of her own to love and care for. She will now be out of work with medical bills, a new mouth to feed, and all of her other regular expenses. How the Church could answer the question “WWJD?” with that response is bizarre to me and shows they are totally disconnected from the benevolent, compassionate God they preach about.
They will undoubtedly argue that their teachers should be good Christian role models for their students. Fine. Then they should be, too.
December 30, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
I agree Margaret, yet I feel that the “club” shouldn’t be able to enforce rules of that nature in the first place.
December 30, 2011 at 7:19 am |
Answers to the question “What would Jesus do?” are found in John 4:1-43 and John 8:1-11. It seems to me, in the case of some “religious” groups, they either ignore, or twist, what is written in the Scriptures or they look for rules with which to beat others over the head. Such people in Christ’s day were the Pharisees. They are still with us.
The point about “clubs with rules” is a valid one. As the above comment suggests I think there is much more to the story.
I think we miss another vital point in this discussion. Surely a child has the right to grow up with the benefit of the guidance and example of both mother and father. Not all children experience this, it is true, and some single parents do an excellent job under the circumstances, however, it is one thing to be a single parent through death or divorce and completely another to deliberately set out to be a single parent.
The media are full of stories where children are treated as chattels or commodities, to which one has the right to possess. This is not so. A child is a huge responsibility for parents and not a right as such. As soon as we talk about the “right” to be a parent we cast the child into the framework of goods and chattels.
December 30, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
I agree that children shouldn’t be treated as commodities but that shouldn’t be a factor in firing a teacher.
December 31, 2011 at 7:40 am |
The teacher must have been deluded into a false sense of security. I have worked in both a Roman Catholic and a Christian (Protestant) school. The terms of employment were made clear in both instances. I resigned from both. In the one instance because it was only a 3 day a week job and I couldn’t make ends meet and the other because the principal was a phony who acted like a cult leader. Had I not agreed to the terms of employment I would not have been working in either. What I didn’t know was that the phony principal was a sociopath who left a trail of broken and burnt out teachers in his wake. That had nothing to do with the terms of employment. In time the school board woke up to him and got rid of him. In the meantime I was back in the state system enjoying my work with intellectually impaired adolescents. However, that negative experience equipped me with a kind of radar that helped me identify a sociopath long before he/she could cause any personal damage.
January 5, 2012 at 3:30 am |
OK, first she being pregnant is “flaunting” her personal views as it is a LITTLE hard to hide. So she may not be teaching it in class, but her actions show it.
Second, its a catholic school. I have gone to catholic school my entire life and do not practice any more. I do not think that having a baby this way, single mom or not shoudl ever be a problem. But, the fact is, regardless of whether everyone thinks single mom hood is fine, she breached a contract. I understand she wasnt catholic, but by agreeing to teach at a CATHOLIC school, you agree to uphold those values so as the students can learn the CATHOLIC values at the CATHOLIC school they pay to go to. It is what the parents pay for and what the students learn as part of their religion. I understand there is a freedom of religion and everyone has a right to have a child. But that is why they made public schools. If you dont want to uphold the values of a system like you agreed, teach at a public school.
And as far as WWJD goes, check out project gabriel. They support single, pregnant women and my catholic schools were constantly donating.. It not the fact that she is a single pregnant mom that is the issue, its the fact that she is a leader to CATHOLIC students, and as a leader she needs to uphold the catholic values these students parents are paying for their kids to learn. does this mean that single moms cant be good role models? No. It just means that the catholic religious schools have just as a much of a right to practice freedom of religion as anyone else, and if you dont agree with the values, you can teach somewhere else. She can also get a job with the public schools instead of sueing, or maybe do both if she wants?
I feel this would be different if they had agreed to let her do it, and then fired her anyways, but from my understanding that is not the case.Sorry if you dont feel these rules should be enforced, but rules and rules, they are there for a reason. Every institute has rules, and honor codes every one is expected to abide by. Fact.
January 5, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
I actually agree with many of your points cdubs. Thanks for your contribution!