An unmarried teacher is charging a Queens Catholic school with discrimination after she was fired for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.
The New York Civil Liberties Union yesterday filed a complaint with the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission on behalf of Michelle McCusker, 26, who was dismissed by the St. Rose of Lima School in Rockaway Beach last month.
The school, which is run by the Brooklyn Archdiocese, told Ms. McCusker it was firing her because she had violated the "precepts and doctrines of the Catholic church" by becoming pregnant out of wedlock. In the complaint, Ms. McCusker and the NYCLU claim the firing was an act of gender discrimination because the school's policy can only be enforced against women.
"The school determined that Ms. Mc-Cusker violated Catholic doctrine only because they discovered her pregnancy," an attorney for the NYCLU, Cassandra Stubbs, said. St. Rose of Lima couldn't do the same for male employees, she said: "For example, does the school question its male employees about their sexual practices? How does the school punish male employees for engaging in nonmarital sex?"
A spokesman for the archdiocese, Frank DeRosa, said teachers at the school are required, as outlined in a personnel handbook, to abide by Catholic teachings, both in words and actions. "This is a difficult situation for every person involved," Mr. DeRosa said, "but the school had no choice but to follow the principles contained in the teachers' personnel handbook."
With her parents standing at her side, Ms. McCusker, speaking to reporters on her 26th birthday, cried as she recalled her short tenure at the school. She was hired in September to teach pre-kindergartners. A month later, she told the school's principal, Theresa Andersen, that she was three months pregnant and did not plan to get married. Ms. Andersen initially "made it seem like it was fine," and told her of a similar situation in which a pregnant teacher got married and was allowed to keep her job, Ms. McCusker said.
Two days later, however, the principal met again with Ms. McCusker and told her that she was being dismissed. Ms. Andersen also sent Ms. McCusker an official termination notice, which, the principal wrote, "was probably the most difficult letter I've ever had to write."
"The way you live your life must witness the precepts and doctrines of the Catholic church," Ms. Andersen stated in the letter. "When a situation becomes evident that a teacher's life cannot witness what the Catholic church teaches, then termination of contract must occur."
"May your child be born healthy, knowing God's loving care," the letter concluded. Ms. McCusker, who lives in Nassau County, said she knew she could be fired when she told the school of her pregnancy, but the dismissal still came as a surprise. "I held the Catholic religion to a higher standard, I guess," she said. "I thought the church was more forgiving than judgmental."
The New York Sun
11 comments:
"Jesus did not ask the woman "Are you repenting of your sins?" at any time. He protected her, comforted her, and told her what she needed to do in the future."
While he may not have said "Are you repenting of your sins?", "Go and sin no more" IMPLIES repentance, else to go out and sin one hasn't repented and continues IN sin.
His real issue was those who would impute sin on another all the while they themselves were sinners. Remember, they had caught her in the act ... perhaps one of them was the other participant - the Lord would know.
A few points here. This women was teaching pre-kindergartners. I don't think there are any abortion lessons being taught either way.
I have to applaud the school for a firm stand. There is a price to pay when we sin. Losing her job was that price. She would have paid a much greater price if she had an abortion.
She choose to defy what she agreed to uphold. She defied the Word of God, The church, her employer and what the parents of her students entrusted (and paid) her to teach thier children.
This is not judgement. It a defense of morals and Christian teaching.
If she agreed to the 'rules' then she must 'pay' the consequences. I totally agree. I work for a 'secular' company that has some stiff repercussions for illegal behavior - even if it is not associated with employment or even on company time. I work there and subsequently agree to those terms.
So you folks would have stoned the woman caught in adultery. Great.
Wow! Now THAT is quite the emotional extrapolation...
"So you folks would have stoned the woman caught in adultery. Great."
You confuse the issue. Christ is God - he knew the WHOLE situation! We are given instructions as to human conduct - we don't know the WHOLE sistuation - God gives wisdom. The adulteress woman if she didn't repent she would suffer the consequences of sin - God is holy and just.
I'm not sure the issue is one of judgment (school/church) or consequences/contracts (woman's behavior in the face of what she agreed to perform) or both.
I did not hear this women sound the least bit repentive. She held the Church to a "higher standard" and the Church holds it's employees and followers to a "higher standard". She went against the Word of God and her response was to get a lawyer.
Not to mention she has no intention of marrying the father. He also should be held accountable for this.
I would not "stone" her for her sin, but removing her from the position seems like a resonable response. Why are Christians shocked when sin breeds disaster?
"I did not hear this women sound the least bit repentive."
Neither did I. Good point!
"She held the Church to a "higher standard" ..."
She held them to her standard - not always a 'higher' one! She wanted them to compromise.
"... and the Church holds it's employees and followers to a "higher standard"."
Whether I agree with thier standard or not - I must acknowledge that they have that standard and to work for them puts me under that standard. I cannot fault them for not compromising.
"She went against the Word of God and her response was to get a lawyer."
Good point. Self justification. When found in the wrong she exercised her own rights - or at least what she thought were her own rights. Mankind's nature hasn't changed; seems very similar to Adam and Eve.
"Not to mention she has no intention of marrying the father."
Which is indication of what is in her heart.
"He also should be held accountable for this."
If he is part of the C.Church, then yes. Unholy behavior is to be purged form the 'lump' becasue a little leaven/sin spreads contamination throughout the rest. If he isn't part of the C.Church then God will deal with him in time.
I would not "stone" her for her sin, but removing her from the position seems like a resonable response. Why are Christians shocked when sin breeds disaster?
I do agree that she did go against the teachings of the Catholic Church, but every one has even a priest. All have sinned the only one who ever lived a "perfect" life was Jesus. The wonderful thing about God is he forgives! We are not to judge, by firing her they did not show the forgiveness of Christ. Yes she made a mistake, but there was no proof that she consitly made this mistake, it only takes once, and just because she’s not marrying the father? That’s what that lady who fired her implied she should do, if the mother knew that a relationship of marriage would not work out with the father, then why would she commit to one? Which would probably end in divorce, another thing the Catholic Church does not agree with. I do agree with the fact that they couldn't uphold this rule to a man, so they shouldn’t to a woman. I not saying that this woman should continue teaching around these children because she is very influential to them, but by firing her they taught these children a worse lesson by far, in saying that they wouldn't show the love of God and forgive. It’s just like the story in the Bible where the man allowed another man longer time to find the money that he owed him, and then that man went out and had someone who owed him money thrown into jail because he could not pay him back the money he owed. God has forgiven those who ask for forgiveness; if we then go out and refuse forgiveness to some one else than why should we be forgiven?
You omit the key to forgiveness - repentance. There is no forgiveness for the unrepentant.
There doesn't seem to be a repentant spirit on the part of the woman - else why would she involve external forces to back her cause?
She may be sorry - that she has to face the consequences of the agreement she was bound to; but I don't see repentance.
I have a problem with assuming just because she lost her job she was not forgiven.
If you commit a crime and are forgiven by the victim that does not mean you do not have to do the time.
She was not told her and her child would burn in hell here. She was fired for breaking the rules she agree to. Go and sin no more!
"I have a problem with assuming just because she lost her job she was not forgiven."
Not my intent. I agree with you the loss of the job is part and parcel of the consequences for breaking the contract.
Even at that she still didn't show signs of repentance. And for this perhaps her removal is 'even more' justified.
"If you commit a crime and are forgiven by the victim that does not mean you do not have to do the time."
This is quite disjointed from the case at hand. Not sure what you are driving at here.
"She was not told her and her child would burn in hell here."
Agreed.
"She was fired for breaking the rules she agree to."
Agreed.
"Go and sin no more!"
And so she should.
My point is that she held the Church to a 'higher' [her own] standard that should have forgiven her. She hasn't been repentant for what she did so why does she expect forgiveness?
The unrepentant go unforgiven.
Post a Comment