Harmful Defenses

The “Francis baptism” and the “O’Malley dabbing”, both of which actions I regard as canonically licit, have occasioned from observers who regard themselves as Francis-O’Malley champions some defenses that, I fear, indicate considerable ignorance (not ill-will, just ignorance) on their part about how sacraments and sacramental signs are supposed to work in the Church.

When we argue in favor of a practice we should take care that we don't harm other important practices or principles.

A Founded Hope

I don’t know what priests might be like in Argentina, but I am very sure I have never heard of an American priest withholding baptism from a baby based solely on the fact that the mother of said baby was not married.

The Holy Father did the right thing. Let's try and refrain from poor arguments to explain it.

Discrete Acts

I’m a big fan of “morals clauses” in contracts for Catholic school teachers and I certainly hold for the principle that Pacta sunt servanda (agreements once made should be kept), but I am having a hard time seeing my way clear to the firing of a Catholic school teacher for being pregnant outside of wedlock.

I agree with Dr. Peters that the grounds for dismissing this teacher as it's being reported is pretty tenuous. However, I would argue that the reason for the morality clause is that teachers are not actually private persons. It's because they are public persons (or at least quasi-public persons) that private sins that manifest in the external forum can be grounds for dismissal. Sadly, this means that women will be disproportionately affected when it comes to the sin of fornication.