Another Teacher Gets Fired

Church leaders said McCusker agreed to rules in their teacher personnel handbook, which states "a teacher is required to convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions, demonstrating an acceptance of Gospel values and the Christian tradition."

"This is a difficult situation for every person involved, but the school had no choice but to follow the principles contained in the teachers' personnel handbook," said diocese spokesman Frank DeRosa.

Believe it or not, I understand what the Church is trying to accomplish here, and I even agree with them. Christian morality does not approve of premarital sex. Allowing an unmarried woman who is visibly pregnant to continue teaching could be considered a sign of approval, a tacit statement that premarital sex might be okay. McCusker's continued employment could send a bad signal to the kids at her school.

However, what sort of signal is sent by firing her?

• "There's no forgiveness in the Church."


• "She should have aborted, then she'd be better off."


• "The Church hates sex."

One of the benefits of being slow to a story is that I can benefit from other bloggers who have gone before me. If you think the above comments are harsh, go see what's being said on the I'mNotSorry blog. First, there's Beninato's post itself:

Once again, the "shame" of premarital sex falls squarely on the woman. It is true that men can screw around happily undetected, but let--gasp!--an unmarried woman continue a pregnancy and the cries of OMG SLUT are almost deafening. But as long as that all-important fetus gets born, the source doesn't matter. Unless, of course, the kids find out about it.

This is both annoyingly false and shamefully true. It's false because the Catholic Church would probably be just as quick to fire a male teacher who was having premarital sex. However, it's also true ... because it's so much easier for men to have premarital sex without being caught. As long as we're careful and/or willing to lie, the only way to prove that guys are screwing around is to hit them with a paternity test. Of course, McCusker could have done the same thing, but that would have required the secret abortion that I mentioned earlier....

If you think Beninato is quick to condemn the Church, you should read some of her commenters. "ruthied" opines:

This shouldn't surprise anyone. The Catholic Church is probably THE most miogynistic, hypocritical Christian sect in existence.

"samantha" adds:

I guess it doesn't matter if you decide to continue with the pregnancy. As long as you have sex and you're not thinking of Jesus or bouncing babies, you might as well have had an abortion.

There are other, more moderate voices in the comments, but I picked the most extreme for a reason. These are the messages that the Church sent when it fired McCusker. Admittedly, most of those commenters were looking for an excuse to bash Catholicism ... but why give them the excuse?

---

On the other side of the debate, let's check what JivinJ had to say:

But what kind of example are they setting instead? They obviously don't want their teachers to have sex outside of wedlock but doesn't firing an unmarried pregnant teacher send a clear message to other unmarried teachers who might be engaged in premarital sex or might even be pregnant? They're trying to say "Don't have sex outside of marriage" but it comes off as "You can't be pregnant outside of marriage and work here" since pregnancy is often the only physical sign that informs others that an individual has had sex outside of marriage. If I was an unmarried pregnant woman, losing my job due to the discovery of pregnancy could be one of the deciding factors leading to an abortion.

That's my point exactly. By firing McCusker, the Church sent a message of "don't be pregnant" when it meant to send another message. I'll be the first to agree that the other message (sexual morality) is important, but I don't think it's as important as the pro-life message. It's a mistake to compromise the pro-life message in the service of a less-important message.

Oddly enough, the Vatican would seem to agree with me about the relative importance of these two messages. Abortion incurs latae sententiae excommunication in the Catholic Church. That's an automatic penalty which takes effect as soon as the offense is committed, no need for a trial or anything. (Please note that repentance and forgiveness are possible, thank God!) On the other hand, someone who "gravely injures good morals" is punished with a just penalty, which is still serious, but much less severe than latae sententiae excommunication.

Ironically, it's Canon Law that points to what the Church probably should have done with McCusker. Firing her was the workplace equivalent of an excommunication, and not warranted by the offense. Other options could have included:

• suspension with (or without) pay


• transfer to another job that didn't require contact time with kids


• probationary period for repentance

I'm just brainstorming here, so please don't take those suggestions too seriously. My point is that there are ways to enforce the Church's teaching about sexual morality that wouldn't have created such a conflict with the pro-life message. The Church should have looked for an opportunity to temper justice with mercy and righteousness with compassion. Unfortunately, they didn't, and now they're being sued. Worse than the lawsuit, though, is the conflicted message that has been sent.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing."
(1st Corinthians 13:1-3)

To those words, I would only add: If I speak out for life, yet fail to love those who carry it, my message is meaningless.
(cross-posted to Naaman the Ex-Leper)