Today's National Catholic Reporter brings news that a diocesan school superintendant in Montana fired a teacher because she was pregnant out of wedlock. Michael Sean Winters comments on this case and threads the needle with a both/and response - it is proper to condemn the action yet forgive the actor (sounds like a way to get people back into Confessionals). You can read his comment here. http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/judgment-or-mercy-montana
My response follows:
The fool in Montana is erring in that he chose the culture of shame (and sending a message) rather than encountering the teacher as a person (the question of whether the violation of social norms is sinful is for another day and depends on whether the she and the father live as husband and wife before each other and therefore before God). One wonders if he would fire someone who got pregnant in a civil marriage (civil marriages also being condemned by the Church) or whether the person pregnant was a student.
Does this twerp even begin to get the fact that the demonization of sexuality when practiced by unmarrieds and especially by teens is an incentive to use abortion services (and contraception)? If we welcome life we must welcome sex. The appropriate action in this case is to have a baby shower and arrange for maternal leave (paid maternal leave). Christ himself was conceived outside a marriage. Would he expel a 12 year old pregnant Mary?
Likewise, on the gay marriage question - if the Church accepts the civil marriages of its staff members who are heterosexual - though such marriages are not accepted by the Church, then any rejection of civil homosexual marriages is based on HOMOPHOBIA - not adherance to teaching on sex.
For the local angle - I noted in a column at the start of the school year about 3 years ago (may have been 4) that the local public high school provided day care services on sight to teens who had babies, while the Catholic higch school not only provided no such support, it sent the students home while they were showing (and presumably encouraged adoption rather than keeping the child) - and would expel any girl (or cooperating father) who resorted to abortion - even with the anti-sex message given by the School.
What part of the fact that if you want to embrace Life you must also accept sexuality don't these geniuses understand?