Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher

[estesbob]

I wonder why it is that some on here feel the need to question either the quality of my faith or my sincerity rather than address the arguments I make. It seems that even on issues where we agree there exist those who cannot help themselves from engaging in such public speculation. Let us directly address the question of whether the position that I argue in this thread is somehow incompatible with my position here. I contend that they are fully compatible.

The first thread asks a question that is ultimately about the risk of eternal damnation faced by those who, having been exposed to the Catholic faith, fall away from it. I argued in that thread that the risk involved can only be assessed based on information we can never know, such as the individual’s level of understanding, personal intentions and other potentially mitigating factors. Given the wealth of information we are simply not privy to in order to make that sort of assessment, I argued that to hold that there exists greater risk simply by being a fallen-away Catholic as opposed to, say, a Protestant is judgmental in the extreme.

In this thread, we are discussing the proper way in which to handle a teacher who has sinned mortally. I argue that such a teacher or even a student sinning in this fashion merits removal from the teaching establishment in order to both preserve the Christian character of the school and to safeguard those newly forming their faith. The education and proper formation of our youth is a grave responsibility that we ought to take great pains to defend.

The problem, it seems, stems from the idea that I argue against judgment in the former thread and endorse it in the latter. This is not the case and to see why it may be that some need a primer on exactly what judgment is and what it is not.

In forbidding judgment, Christ did not command us to fail to recognize evil for what it is. In that sense, we make judgments every day. We know it is wrong to do certain things and we know that it is wrong for others to do certain things as well. Some of these things that others do compel us to apply consequences to the wrongdoer as a form of admonishment. We do this in the hope that the individual will see the error and repent of it. This is exactly what is being done here in firing the teacher.

The judgment that Christ did forbid is one in which we essentially dethrone God so that we may decide for ourselves who merits damnation and who does not. One may notice that I have not said anything about this teacher’s state of grace or the likelihood that she will face final damnation as a result of her sin. In that other thread, this was most definitely not the case as there were some comfortably consigning large quantities of individuals to perdition based on a flawed aesthetic.

In talking of sins and the consequences that are due for them, it is extraordinarily important that we be exacting in our use of language. We must maintain a clear distinction to the consequences that one must apply to one’s brother in prudence and admonishment and the eternal consequences that are God’s alone to decide on.

Thanks for the reply. I dont agree with you in either thread but at least I know you’re coming from.

I’m glad we’ve cleared up the confusion as to whether there is other other Eric

 

[RWMorris]

RWMorris

Now you’re getting nutty.

I agree Jim that was pretty nutty question I asked. But one more question and I won’t bother you again: In an earlier post you said that violating the terms of a contract is not a mortal sin. You might want to reconsider your position on that. When I sign my name to a contract, I’m basically giving my word I will abide by the terms of that contract. If I break the contract, and especially if I try to force the other party to abide by the terms of the contract after I’ve dishonored it, I am telling a lie. I believe lying is a mortal sin. Do you agree or am I missing the big picture?

 

[Other_Eric]

Thanks for the reply. I dont agree with you in either thread but at least I know you’re coming from.

I’m glad we’ve cleared up the confusion as to whether there is other other Eric

I am happy to clear up any confusion. I am happier still that our disagreement has remained intact across threads. In the maelstrom of upheavals that we must suffer to endure in this life, how comforting it is to know that dispute between estesbob and myself remains constant fixture.

I would include a “smiley face” here, but I hate them.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I agree Jim that was pretty nutty question I asked. But one more question and I won’t bother you again: In an earlier post you said that violating the terms of a contract is not a mortal sin. You might want to reconsider your position on that. When I sign my name to a contract, I’m basically giving my word I will abide by the terms of that contract. If I break the contract, and especially if I try to force the other party to abide by the terms of the contract after I’ve dishonored it, I am telling a lie. I believe lying is a mortal sin. Do you agree or am I missing the big picture?

Mortal sins are those grievous offenses against God, not civil contracts. Contracts are broken all the time, but it doesn’t make the people breaking them, sinners. Ask any lawyer about how common it is to break a contract.

Also, for a sin to be mortal, it must be grave, and committed with full knowledge and consent(free will).

In the heat of passion, the woman, like many human beings, are not necessarily thinking clearly about the offense they are about to commit, and, it has been shown scientifically, hormones may have a stronger driving force than some people are able to overcome. If this were the case, mortal sin is not committed, because they were not acting with free will, which must be present for a sin to be mortal.

Hope this helps.

Jim

 

[childofmary1143]

In the heat of passion, the woman, like many human beings, are not necessarily thinking clearly about the offense they are about to commit, and, it has been shown scientifically, hormones may have a stronger driving force than some people are able to overcome. If this were the case, mortal sin is not committed, because they were not acting with free will, which must be present for a sin to be mortal.

Hope this helps.

Jim

I bolded the part of your passage that I find most interesting. First off I would to ask you who said that and where I can research that in greater detail. My initial common sense tells me to really question it as it would seem to suggest that our bodies can make us do a sinful action (not necessarily mortal) that God wants us to avoid. God created us and he created our hormones as well. Why would he create hormones that could in some situations cause us to sin (again not necessarily mortal)?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I bolded the part of your passage that I find most interesting. First off I would to ask you who said that and where I can research that in greater detail.

There is plenty of research being done on how hormones effect our behavior. I did a quick search on the web and found this one site, but there are plenty of others.

From early fetal life, hormone receptors are present in the hypothalamus of the brain. It is here that they begin organizing brain circuitry, setting the stage for puberty, regulating subsequent adult sexual behavior, and controlling the frequency and intensity of emotional disorders.
mental-health-depression.com/2006/08/02/the-hormone-connection-to-womens-mental-health/

It was actually my confessor, who informed me about the effect of hormones on our behavior. As an example, it is possible that a person who acts out in rage, may not actually have control over it.
So, in a fit of rage, the person is not acting out with free will, and therefore, did not commit mortal sin. According to my confessor, the three conditions for a sin to be mortal, is not necessarily infallible, but a guideline.

Jim

 

[catharina]

There is plenty of research being done on how hormones effect our behavior. I did a quick search on the web and found this one site, but there are plenty of others.

It was actually my confessor, who informed me about the effect of hormones on our behavior. As an example, it is possible that a person who acts out in rage, may not actually have control over it.
So, in a fit of rage, the person is not acting out with free will, and therefore, did not commit mortal sin. According to my confessor, the three conditions for a sin to be mortal, is not necessarily infallible, but a guideline.

Jim

While it’s true that some might be so overwhelmed by mental illness, hormonal imbalances, problems of brain-chemistry, still I have to think you’ve misunderstood your confessor regarding the infallibility of standards used to measure sin as mortal or venial. The standards stay impeccable: what’s up for argument is whether a person is even capable of of acting according to those standards.

In fact, the standards/conditions in themselves allow for such explanation because (for example) some people at some times might not be capable of giving full consent of the will.

 

[estesbob]

There is plenty of research being done on how hormones effect our behavior. I did a quick search on the web and found this one site, but there are plenty of others.

It was actually my confessor, who informed me about the effect of hormones on our behavior. As an example, it is possible that a person who acts out in rage, may not actually have control over it.
So, in a fit of rage, the person is not acting out with free will, and therefore, did not commit mortal sin. According to my confessor, the three conditions for a sin to be mortal, is not necessarily infallible, but a guideline.

Jim

Which is probably why Priests make such lousy Gynocologists.

 

[geezerbob]

The ability to control our actions by our intellect and faith rather than having them controlled by our hormones is one of the things that sets us apart from animals. Sorry, but I just don’t buy that argument. My hormones made me do it. Right.

 

[repo_man]

Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments.

i hope for your sake this is sarcasm.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

While it’s true that some might be so overwhelmed by mental illness, hormonal imbalances, problems of brain-chemistry, still I have to think you’ve misunderstood your confessor regarding the infallibility of standards used to measure sin as mortal or venial. The standards stay impeccable: what’s up for argument is whether a person is even capable of of acting according to those standards.
.

No, I didn’t misunderstand my confessor. He made it very clear and simple to understand.

The fact is, if science does show, that hormones do in fact control our behavior in certain instances, it would then take out free will, and in such cases, a person would not be committing mortal sin.

This isn’t a conclusive statement, but rather, something to ponder. As my confessor said, you should therefore always rely on the confessional, even when you’re undecided about whether you committed mortal sin or not.

His emphasis, was God’s mercy. God knows, the heart, and he knows the hormones as well. When we turn to Him with contrite hearts, he will have mercy on us, regardless of why we sinned.

Jim

 

[catharina]

No, I didn’t misunderstand my confessor. He made it very clear and simple to understand.

The fact is, if science does show, that hormones do in fact control our behavior in certain instances, it would then take out free will, and in such cases, a person would not be committing mortal sin.

This isn’t a conclusive statement, but rather, something to ponder. As my confessor said, you should therefore always rely on the confessional, even when you’re undecided about whether you committed mortal sin or not.

His emphasis, was God’s mercy. God knows, the heart, and he knows the hormones as well. When we turn to Him with contrite hearts, he will have mercy on us, regardless of why we sinned.

Jim

So your confessor is saying nothing new. Without “full consent of the will” due to retardation, mental illness, brain chemistry, hormone flooding, there is no mortal sin.

The STANDARD remains the same.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So your confessor is saying nothing new. Without “full consent of the will” due to retardation, mental illness, brain chemistry, hormone flooding, there is no mortal sin.

The STANDARD remains the same.

The science behind brain chemistry, hormone flooding is new.

Back when Augustine came up with the three conditions for a sin to be mortal, he had no idea about such science, and therefore, it is not fallible, but a guideline.

So, for anyone to make a statement in this thread, that the pregnant teacher, committed mortal sin, is in error.

Jim

 

[childofmary1143]

The science behind brain chemistry, hormone flooding is new.

Back when Augustine came up with the three conditions for a sin to be mortal, he had no idea about such science, and therefore, it is not fallible, but a guideline.

So, for anyone to make a statement in this thread, that the pregnant teacher, committed mortal sin, is in error.

Jim

In order for an action to be a mortal sin:

1. The thought, word or deed must be wrong.
2. The sinner must know this.
3. The sinner must give full consent of it.

If any of those conditions are lacking its not Mortal.

None of us can really know that the teacher committed mortal sin as no one can read her heart. However it is possible that it’s mortal as we don’t know what was in her heart. However its irrelevant to the theme of this thread.

 

[estesbob]

In order for an action to be a mortal sin:

1. The thought, word or deed must be wrong.
2. The sinner must know this.
3. The sinner must give full consent of it.

If any of those conditions are lacking its not Mortal.

None of us can really know that the teacher committed mortal sin as no one can read her heart. However it is possible that it’s mortal as we don’t know what was in her heart. However its irrelevant to the theme of this thread.

I think we’ve gone way off track. The question is not whether or not she committed a mortal sin because the last time I checked is not a requirement that a person had committed a mortal sin for one to terminate their employment. The School had every right to terminate her. Now one may , and many do, disagree with this but the fact is she violated her contract EVEN if she did not know she was pregnant at the time she signed it-which seems pretty far-fetched to me

 

[catharina]

The science behind brain chemistry, hormone flooding is new.

Back when Augustine came up with the three conditions for a sin to be mortal, he had no idea about such science, and therefore, it is not fallible, but a guideline.

So, for anyone to make a statement in this thread, that the pregnant teacher, committed mortal sin, is in error.

Jim

Jim - I can’t imagine why you’re aiming your re-newed lecture at me re this teacher and sin. I’ve never said she sinned mortally OR venially. It’s not the issue at all.

I said that your priest is not giving out ‘new news’ when he says that there can be times when a person might seem to be guilty of mortal sin but is not guilty. That is NOT new news and is held within the standard conditions defining sin.

Stretch your brain a bit and you’ll see that despite newer science and it parts (“hormones,” “brain chemistry,” etc.) there has always been awareness that the mentally ill often miss the standard of “full consent of the will” since their mental functioning is impaired. It’s as true of the soldiers impaired by nerve gas in WWI as it might be of those shell-shocked and combat-fatigued in WWII, those suffering PTSD in the wars since. Issues related to brain function (that lessen cu,pability) have been acknowledged within the Church.

Whatever you might be arguing with anyone else regard ‘sin VS No sin,’ my response is simply that your priest’s news to you is NOT NEW and is acknowledged within the definition itself.

In other words, the standards remain as Augustine taught. They have not morphed into some vague guideline. “Full consent of the will” means exactly that, as always. Might we have a better idea of the fact that the will can be disturbed from this or that? Yes.

 

[agmoose02]

Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments. Sometimes the love of Christ demands we show people to the street. This is a spiritual work of mercy.

Perhaps you should go to confession yourself. Jesus himself welcomes all repentant sinners to the Church for we are all sinners. If it were otherwise there would be no hope. Remember that pride to is a sin and not to be so quick to judge, we all have our issues when it comes to morality. Even Pope John Paul II saw a need to go to confession at least once a week, as a sinner in need of confession did he not have a place in the Church or its educational establishments?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

catharina;

I can’t imagine why you’re aiming your re-newed lecture at me re this teacher and sin. I’ve never said she sinned mortally OR venially. It’s not the issue at all.

I wasn’t aiming it at your, or saying you sid the teacher sinned. I said, it was said in this thread.

Stretch your brain a bit

Thats it, I’m just not thinking as broadly as you.

Whatever you might be arguing with anyone else regard ‘sin VS No sin,’ my response is simply that your priest’s news to you is NOT NEW and is acknowledged within the definition itself.

The science is new and hence, it gives us a different understanding of what constitutes mortal sin. In the past, people thought they committed mortal sin, where in fact, because of scientific discoveries in biology, they did not.

In other words, the standards remain as Augustine taught. They have not morphed into some vague guideline. “Full consent of the will” means exactly that, as always.

The point you seem to missing is, that the consent of the will, may not be present, whereas in the past, before science educated us, we assumed it was and people, stayed away from receiving Holy Communion, or even went to their death, believing they had committed mortal sin, when they had not.

Jim

 

[blessedtoo]

Jim,
What does all this have to do with the issue presented in this thread?

First you asserted that the Church lacked compassion in enforcing a contract the woman signed and agreed to, apparently in sound mind:

Yes, the school has the right to fire her, but in Jesus day, they had the right to stone adulterers as well. The right doesn’t make it ethical or compassionate.

That didn’t take hold so you tried this:

Look up the definition of adultery, then get back to us.

She didn’t commit adultery.

No luck there so how about:

Please provide the piece that states she was four months pregnant, in October of that school year. If this were the case, then she knew she was pregnant when she was hired in September.

Apparently proof didn’t matter because you moved onto this:

This woman did not cause injustice to anyone, other than herself, and of course her child, but that can be remedied through mercy.

And one of my personal faves (accuse everyone else of the same sin!)

My guess is that more people in that school committed fornication in their life, than not. Heck, its probable that its the case for people in this thread as well, especially those giving her a proverbial stoning.

And while other posters are basing their conclusion on the FACTS provided in the case, YOU are crawling into this woman’s mind, thoughts and heart and making assumptions like:

This is her first pregnancy and she’s not married. Many girls in such a situation, do not accept the fact that the reason they missed their period, is because they’re pregnant. So in September, she started working, and hasn’t started her period. She’s hoping that she’s not pregnant, but come the end of September, she still hasn’t started her period, and does a pregnancy test and its positive. Now, what does she do? Probably waits to see if she’ll carry and not miscarry, which happens in many first time pregnancies.There has to some level of anxiety for her at this point, but in October, she finally decides, its real, I’m pregnant and so goes and tells her employer.

AND THIS!

You have to say one thing as far as following Catholic teaching goes, at least this woman wasn’t using artificial birth control.

and this:

No, the odds are great that she was not well aware, in August.

So, your many attempts to prove that this woman, who is pursuing a **law suit **against her employer, bears no responsibility for breaking her contract and should be showered with mercy and forgiveness (which, BTW, does not preclude consequences - you have heard of penance, right?) and allowed to continue teaching young, impressionable children, have failed.

So now, you wish to assert that human beings are so victimized by their hormones and the chemical dysfunctions in their brains that some sins (fornication, perhaps?) can no longer be considered sins.

The science is new and hence, it gives us a different understanding of what constitutes mortal sin. In the past, people thought they committed mortal sin, where in fact, because of scientific discoveries in biology, they did not.

The point you seem to missing is, that the consent of the will, may not be present, whereas in the past, before science educated us, we assumed it was and people, stayed away from receiving Holy Communion, or even went to their death, believing they had committed mortal sin, when they had not.

Amazing. Tell me, does you brain hurt from all the mental contortions?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

blessedtoo

,
What does all this have to do with the issue presented in this thread?

Some people in here made the statement, that the teacher committed mortal sin.

First you asserted that the Church lacked compassion in enforcing a contract the woman signed and agreed to, apparently in sound mind:

No I didn’t . I said the SCHOOL, could’ve shown compassion, and it would’ve done more good than the harm, firing her caused.

That didn’t take hold so you tried this:

This is your twist, not mine. I’ve been debating about 6 different people in here, on various points.

The rest of your post lacks any substance and not worth commenting on.

and;

Amazing. Tell me, does you brain hurt from all the mental contortions?/QUOTE

I find this statement insulting.

Have a nice day
Jim