Wife Threatened with Infidelity Exposure

[Proserpina]

And the church does NOT have to forgive her. They can fire her because of it. They can fire her for any reason the church sees fit.
United State's Supreme Court case -- unanimous decision issued THIS MONTH:
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

THAT made for some interesting reading!

If I may?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school-v-eeoc/

 

[CJane]

I think anyone who would stay in a marriage - or relationship - after they've been cheated on needs serious counseling. So that applies to OP's husband.

But, I think anyone who would stay in a marriage - or relationship - in which they truly feel that they're being abused needs counseling. So that applies to OP.

And I think that any two people who would put their children through such an obviously toxic, unloving, manipulative and grossly dysfunctional relationship because they're too stubborn or scared or angry to let the marriage die in peace should be throat-punched.

What kind of example is your friend setting for her children? That it's ok to cheat if you do penance? That it's ok to treat other people like crap if you've been wronged by them? That the vows that BOTH of these people took - to LOVE, HONOR and CHERISH each other mean nothing at all? That someday, when they're grown, THIS is the marriage you want them to think of when they're developing their own relationships and need a model?

 

[mistoffolees]

And the church does NOT have to forgive her. They can fire her because of it. They can fire her for any reason the church sees fit.
United State's Supreme Court case -- unanimous decision issued THIS MONTH:
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Absolutely. I think I said that earlier. The church can fire her because her blue shoes clash with the priest's red vestments. Or because they don't like people with brown eyes. Or any other reason - no matter how trivial.

There is no legal issue here.

 

[Ohiogal]

Absolutely. I think I said that earlier. The church can fire her because her blue shoes clash with the priest's red vestments. Or because they don't like people with brown eyes. Or any other reason - no matter how trivial.

There is no legal issue here.

They can also fire her for reasons one might think are protected -- but because the case I mentioned in a prior post was unanimously decided by SCOTUS, there are no protections for ministerial staff -- and as a teacher in a parochial school, she is considered to have a minesterial position.

 

[Silverplum]

Actually, I HAVE signed a contract for a parochial school - as a parent of a student. And I wouldn't have any more expectation of being able to interfere in my daughter's teacher's lives than I have of interfering in your life.

I've signed a contract or two with attorneys -- does that make me one?

I left a loopy hole big enough for a goose to get through: obviously, I was referring to TEACHER EMPLOYMENT contracts, not parent "contracts." But you sign your parent contract all over again, if it makes you happy.

The teachers are being paid to teach - not for their bedroom activities - or lack thereof. Please explain why we should choose to take your choice of gospel text as a command while ignoring the rest.

Have a large bite of a reality sandwich: anyone who teaches children is under INTENSE scrutiny. And at a parochial school more than elsewhere.

Why? I'll have to give you another Bible verse, won't I?

James 3:1 -- Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
New Living Translation

Put that together with the letter to Timothy, and you can perhaps understand my point. If you don't, move along and perhaps try reading the Bible sometime. (Who wrote the letter to Timothy? Your man Paul. )

And comparing what a teacher does with a consenting adult in her own time with priests molesting young children is absurd. There is absolutely no comparison and it says a great deal about you that you'd try to make the two equivalent.

I'd think it shows that I know how grownups and children meet and develop trust.

That you would defend molesters, priests or no -- does it say anything about you? Grow up, son.

And yes, of course, OG is correct about the recent SCOTUS decision. But it was that way all along. Nothing new to see, folks.

 

[Bali Hai]

I've signed a contract or two with attorneys -- does that make me one?

I left a loopy hole big enough for a goose to get through: obviously, I was referring to TEACHER EMPLOYMENT contracts, not parent "contracts." But you sign your parent contract all over again, if it makes you happy.


Have a large bite of a reality sandwich: anyone who teaches children is under INTENSE scrutiny. And at a parochial school more than elsewhere.

Why? I'll have to give you another Bible verse, won't I?

James 3:1 -- Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
New Living Translation

Put that together with the letter to Timothy, and you can perhaps understand my point. If you don't, move along and perhaps try reading the Bible sometime. (Who wrote the letter to Timothy? Your man Paul. )


I'd think it shows that I know how grownups and children meet and develop trust.

That you would defend molesters, priests or no -- does it say anything about you? Grow up, son.

And yes, of course, OG is correct about the recent SCOTUS decision. But it was that way all along. Nothing new to see, folks.

Bali Hai 1:1 -- Those who can, do, those who can't, teach.

 

[Silverplum]

Very well put. Thanks for taking the time to write your post.

.....Well, speaking as a person offered a teaching job at a Christian school, there usually is something written in that addresses these things. The school is usually looking for people who claim to have their same beliefs which would mean they should be living them since a converted person would not live one way in public and another in private. They're setting the example of faith-based living. The Bible condemns any sex with anyone outside of the one-flesh marital union regardless of what liberties they want to take.

The reason the "cast not the first stone" or "judge not" wouldn't fit is because that applies to hypocritical judgment (Matt 7:5). If they're not doing the same sin, then they can speak out about it being sinful. Lev 20:10 required both the man & woman in adultery to be stoned, so just bringing the woman "caught in the act" showed they were not right demanding her death. Additionally, she would have died in her sins unable to receive salvation (condemned to a second death).

The church might be willing to forgive that behavior, but they can't forgive her if she doesn't repent. If it comes out later so the parents demand the school do something, then she'd probably be worse off than if she came forward. Plus, if she speaks up first, she takes the ability of her husband to use it against her. She'll wear herself out trying to figure out if or when he'll speak out, and he may be trying to hurt her since he probably has no intention of seeing his children have to transfer in the middle of the school year. They need to sit down, clear the air, get counseling or figure out where they'll go from here.