Teacher canned for fathering child out of wedlock

The Boston Herald ^ | April 6, 2006 | Laurel J. Sweet

[Robertsll]

while laying down the law to a couple trying to do the right thing with the mistake they made is ridiculously hypocritical.

Do you realize that the pathetic leaders on the clergy sex abuse cases are not the same people making the decisions about firing teachers who violate their teacher contract?

I want tough practical people leading the Church. I don't want wishy-washy anything goes "leaders".

I hate hypocrisy and for the Church to protect and sheltor child molesters and admit practicing gays into the priesthood

Bishops did not generally move abusing clergy around because they were very often not aware of the abuse taking place. In recent years, a torrent of accusations of sexual abuse of minors by clergy has inundated the Church and society. It is natural to assume that Church authorities were aware of all these accusations and that they ignored them. The press certainly tends to affirm that belief. However, it is far from true.

As we acquire a deeper understanding of sexual abuse, we realize that one of its insidious characteristics was that abusers pressured their victims to keep the matter secret. Moreover, victims were often afraid to talk about it, because they were ashamed or were rightly fearful that no one would believe them, and that they themselves would be suspect.

The result was that a majority of abuse remained secret from Church authorities as well as civil authorities. Unfortunately, in much reporting, today's understanding of the problem of sexual abuse is projected back and used to judge incidents of the remote past.

Were abusive priests shuffled among parishes?

[TBP]

Let's see if I have got this:

While the church does not approve of out-of-wedlock sex, when he offers to make it right by marrying the mother, hte church refuses to marry them. Then because they chose to have her carry the child to term rahter than abort, the church, which says it's pro-life, fires him from his job. Apparently, he could have kept his job if he had helped his girlfriend get an abortion. Great.

[Cheverus]

This article is somewhat bias so I see how that conclusion could be drawn.

Actually, he would have been fired if he had the kid sucked out as well, he was canned for violating a condition of employment which was to abide by the sexual ethic as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[TBP]

he was canned for violating a condition of employment which was to abide by the sexual ethic as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Some of the cardinals don't live by the ethics and teachings of the Catholic church, either.

[Cheverus]

Yes, unfortunately true, but that is for another thread.