Blz: RC school teachers must be like Caesar's wife

Arguments in the case of teacher Maria Roches and the Catholic Church were concluded today in the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh now considering his decision. Appearing for the applicant, attorney Dean Barrow and his associate Magali Marin Young, maintained that their client was the victim of discrimination because she was fired by the Catholic school management simply because the unmarried woman became pregnant. Barrow reminded the court that Benjamin Juarez, the assistant local manager for the church in the Toledo district, had admitted on the stand that Roches's condition was the reason for her release, a fact which Barrow says quote, "made their case". In light of that disclosure, Barrow submitted that Roches was therefore entitled to the relief sought, that is one: a declaration that her dismissal from her job as a teacher in June 2003 was a violation of her rights granted under the Belize constitution, and two: an order restoring her to her job, or the payment of damages. To buttress his argument, Barrow asserted that his client's rights were also violated under Article 11, subsection 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against All Women, a document Belize had signed and ratified in 1990.

In defence of the respondent, Clement Wade, and the Catholic Church, whom he referred to as a silent respondent, attorney Phillip Zuniga took the floor, asserting that the convention does not apply in this case as male and females are treated in the same way. During proceedings on Wednesday, the court heard that an unnamed male teacher was dismissed after it was discovered that he had gotten a female teacher pregnant. However, from the bench, Chief Justice Conteh pointed out to the court that unless unwed, male teachers took it upon themselves to inform management that they had impregnated someone else, no one would be the wiser, whereas in the case of unwed, female teachers, the evidence grows everyday. In another point, Zuniga maintained that Roches's case was quote "misconceived" as her lawsuit should have been directed at the Chief Education Officer and the Ministry of Education. And this is the point that took up a significant amount of the court's time today, as it is Zuniga's contention that in the end, the church is not a public authority. Therefore, any remedy to infringed rights should be sought from the state. "There is nothing in the law that says once you receive public money, the entity becomes a public body," he said. This was an issue that the Chief Justice says, "troubled" him, as it was clear that the church receives considerable public funding for the managing of schools. How then he wondered, could it have nothing to do with the constitution. As for the release letter that Roches received on June twenty-sixth 2003, Zuniga said that on Wednesday, he was "astonished" by Roches's "incredible statement" that despite her upbringing and education, she was not aware of what exactly were Jesus' teachings on marriage and sex. Zuniga said despite the fact that the letter did not provide the grounds on which Roches was released and assistant local manager Benjamin Juarez did not explain management's reasons, is was a reasonable assumption that the church's views on acceptable behaviour with regard to sex and marriage were clear, especially since it was part of Roches's responsibility to teach the Catholic faith. To this, the C.J. pointed out that Jesus' teachings are not confined to a paragraph or two.

When the Chief Justice concluded at around one this afternoon he told the crowded courtroom that he will reserve his decision, but there was no mention of a time frame for his verdict to be handed down.

Maria Roches filed for constitutional redress in March 2004 after she was released from a teaching position at the Santa Cruz Roman Catholic School in the Toledo District after she told management she was pregnant. The Toledo Regional Council and later, an arbitration panel, both concluded that Roches should be reinstated but to this date, the Roman Catholic Public Schools Management has refused to rehire her.

Maria Roches knows Church doctrine because she was raised RC, and she was responsible for teaching that doctrine to her students. Moreover, when she was hired to teach in an RC school, she understood that she was expected to comply with the morals policy that was in place, and that the price for flouting the policy was loss of her job. Therefore, one may not construe any ignorance on Roches's part; instead, one might posit that her refusal to marry after she became pregnant -- in fact, her becoming pregnant at all -- was a wilful and blatant flouting of school policy and Church doctrine. Since Roches has made no claim that she was raped, one may conclude that the sexual relations and the refusal to marry were all entirely voluntary, even though the pregnancy may not have been. After all, skubalon ginetai.

Nevertheless, Roches is asking the Church not just to make an exception for her, but to set aside 2,000 years of teaching so she would not suffer the consequences of a problem which she created for herself. What the Church asked was not unreasonable, especially since Roches is in charge of teaching minors who tend to look up to their teachers. Had Roches really wished to retain her position, she could have done what she ought to have before getting pregnant -- she could have married the father of her baby. However, she chose not to or he chose not to. Either way, she is set at odds with the Church. It is possible that the young man did not want marriage or that he was not in a position to offer it, by dint of having a wife. Nobody knows. All that is known is that Roches would not bend to the Church, but demanded that the Church bend to her.

While I sympathize with Roches's plight, single motherhood is no cakewalk, I must admit that she had options, failed to exercise them proactively, and might well have to exercise one retrospectively and seek employment at another school. It is far better than Roches bend to the Church than that the Church bend to her. Were the Church to do that, then it would, effectively, be rewriting Scripture and its teachings on human sexuality.

Young women like Roches come and go, but the Church -- not just the Roman Church -- and its teachings will abide forever.