Homosexual Teachers in Catholic Schools

[patrick127]

The issue is:

1. The public nature of the sin
2. The choice to openly continue in the sin

I send my kids to a Catholic School and it is a sacrifice that my wife and I gladly accept. Since their tuition is paid by me, I expect to able to control the educational (spiritual and academic) environment they are in. My wife and I view ourselves as the moral compass for our children until they can fully develop their own compass and we choose a Catholic environment for our children’s education.

If one of my children’s teachers publicly identified themselves as a chronic and unrepentant masturbator, adulterer, thief, liar, homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, or any other sin; I would bring that to the attention of the administration of their school and I would expect action. We have many educational options for our children, but we choose the Catholic environment and people who identify themselves by their sin have NO place in teaching positions or leadership positions in any Catholic School.

You do not need to judge the individuals or their sins, but as a parent you do need to use your judgment on where (and with whom) you want your children to spend the majority of their day.

 

[Suslar]

I wouldn’t worry that this teacher will influence anyone in the class to be gay. This teacher can still teach the Catholic faith without mentioning homosexuality. Since homosexuality is against the Catholic religion, she probably won’t speak of it. If the teacher did bring it up, I’m sure you would have an issue with that too. I believe they’re other things more important to worry about. This particular teacher may turn out to be a better teacher than another person. We could be concerned about all teachers teaching our children. When you think about it, we really don’t know anyone that well. A devout Catholic could be just as bad to teach class as anyone else. We hear all sorts of things happening, you don’t know who they really are other than what they seem to be.

It’s not a matter of a teacher influencing a child to “be gay.”

What is at issue would be a teacher pretending to live a moral life according to the laws and norms of the Catholic Church.

It’s just completely incongruent to SAY “yes, I believe in all the Church teaches and promise to uphold Church standards and morals” . . .but then DEMONSTRATE by public actions that your words mean nothing. Kids are not stupid. They get it when people are lying to them. And in a case like this, kids can be misled into thinking they are free to pick and choose what parts of Catholicism they want to believe. It’s the whole moral relativism thing. . . . . and I for one would not like my kid picking up that damaging thought process in elementary school!

 

[ddarko]

The issue is:

1. The public nature of the sin
2. The choice to openly continue in the sin

I send my kids to a Catholic School and it is a sacrifice that my wife and I gladly accept. Since their tuition is paid by me, I expect to able to control the educational (spiritual and academic) environment they are in. My wife and I view ourselves as the moral compass for our children until they can fully develop their own compass and we choose a Catholic environment for our children’s education.

If one of my children’s teachers publicly identified themselves as a chronic and unrepentant masturbator, adulterer, thief, liar, homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, or any other sin; I would bring that to the attention of the administration of their school and I would expect action. We have many educational options for our children, but we choose the Catholic environment and people who identify themselves by their sin have NO place in teaching positions or leadership positions in any Catholic School.

Well put .

God Bless

 

[PatriceA]

The issue is:

1. The public nature of the sin
2. The choice to openly continue in the sin

I send my kids to a Catholic School and it is a sacrifice that my wife and I gladly accept. Since their tuition is paid by me, I expect to able to control the educational (spiritual and academic) environment they are in. My wife and I view ourselves as the moral compass for our children until they can fully develop their own compass and we choose a Catholic environment for our children’s education.

If one of my children’s teachers publicly identified themselves as a chronic and unrepentant masturbator, adulterer, thief, liar, homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, or any other sin; I would bring that to the attention of the administration of their school and I would expect action. We have many educational options for our children, but we choose the Catholic environment and people who identify themselves by their sin have NO place in teaching positions or leadership positions in any Catholic School.

You do not need to judge the individuals or their sins, but as a parent you do need to use your judgment on where (and with whom) you want your children to spend the majority of their day.

Absolutely!

 

[StarFireKK]

I am not sure that logically follows either.

If there is a 50% chance that a kid will get abused in a Catholic School and 80% chance in a public School, it does not logically follow that one should send a child to a public school.

Rather, one should try to reduce the 50% chance in Catholic Schools. That’s the easier and feasible alternative.

Unfortunately, kids are kids. They tend to go with peer pressure. Most parents are not even stay at home parents and don’t have any clue what they learn in school till its too late.

There is also a difference between compassion and condoning. If a child is sitting there while his class mate gets racially abused by another student and remains best buddies with the abuser, that is condoning the behavior. The correct thing to do then is to first get the other friend to understand what is wrong. If he refuses to give up his view and continues to abuse, even breaking up the friendship is good.

Similarly, thats the case with the teacher problem.

Actually the attitude is not “eeek, you are struggling with sin”. It is “eeek, you are saying that is OK for you”. Do you see the difference?

There is a difference between someone trying to become a better person and someone enjoying the sin.

The parents can decide WHO THEY want to teach their children in their place as well. So as a result, the parents of Catholic Schools simply throw out anyone they don’t like teaching their children.

Sure. At the same time, it also helps the child to have a supportive environment. You are making this instead an exclusively parent teaching issue. It is not. Environment plays a MAJOR role in formation of children. It is a Psychological FACT.

The goal with children is to PREVENT them from screwing up. With somethings in life, like sexuality, once you go down an evil path, it is mighty hard to turn back.

Prevention is BETTER than CURE.

God Bless

I didn’t realize we were talking about abuse. I thought we were talking about a teacher that may or may not have an improper same sex relationship with her roommate.

I don’t really care what the percentages are for abuse. They don’t make the parents feel any better when their child is on the wrong end of that percentage- no matter that school. Besides statistics can always be manipulated and the numbers mean nothing unless you know how those numbers came about.

I’m not going to get into the public school abuse debate because that’s not really the point of this thread. My personal opinion for reducing the abuse has nothing to do with relying on our teachers.

I understand that parents can decide who they want to teach their kids…up to a point. Once you place the child in a school system, public or otherwise, you are giving part of your authority to that system. There is always the choice to remove the child but as we both pointed out- no system is perfect. (Here that system told the parents there was nothing to act on.)

Yes, environment matters. But no matter how much you shelter your kid they are eventually going to have to go out in the big world and deal with all the sinful influences. This is not a teacher that has brought her partner into the class and is outright discussing her lifestyle with the children. This is a teacher that might be homosexual and is a perfect example for a “teaching moment” for the parents. They can sit their child down and explain- tailor to their understanding of course- their views of such a lifestyle.

It is possible. I grew up in Topeka, KS- the home of the infamous Fred Phelps. My parents had to explain to me what “gay” meant and what those weird cartoons of two men were all about when I was 6 years old. My parents were honest with me they said “We do not believe this lifestyle is right, in fact we believe it is very sinful. But that is not how everyone understands it, just like not everyone understands you shouldn’t steal or lie. But even though we do not agree with their choices we do not hate them, we do not make fun of them, we do not shun them because they are still people and still God’s children.”

I understand your point about “thinking sin is right?” But I think it is fairly obvious that this teacher is not a Catholic. Once you allow non-Catholics to teach in the Catholic school I think you are already losing that battle. Which is why I don’t really see the point of Catholic schools- if you aren’t going to have Catholic teachers why bother?

You made the comment “most parents don’t know what’s going on until it is too late.” Well, whose fault is that? I’m sorry but writing a check to the school does not absolve you the responsibility to make sure your kids are being taught the things they need to know. When your kid gets misinformation in school it is up to you to sit down and correct that information.

I would like to point out that the OP has not told us that the teacher’s lifestyle has ever made it into the classroom. I would be arguing the other side if that were the case.

 

[Rosella]

Today, I heard there isn’t anything they can do.

More accurately, there is not anything they WILL do.

It’s no accident homosexuals are ending up working in all sorts of Catholic institutions. They get a job. They hope you fire them. Then in come the ACLU, anti-Catholic lawyers, anti-Catholic media, etc. Your principal is scared to death of that hoopla. So, the next best thing happens for the homosexuals, they become entrenched and spread their values among Catholic youth, molesting a few no doubt along the way. This has only happened hundreds of times, it should not be shocking. It is a deliberate plan of the left.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

More accurately, there is not anything they WILL do.

It’s no accident homosexuals are ending up working in all sorts of Catholic institutions. They get a job. They hope you fire them. Then in come the ACLU, anti-Catholic lawyers, anti-Catholic media, etc. Your principal is scared to death of that hoopla. So, the next best thing happens for the homosexuals, they become entrenched and spread their values among Catholic youth, molesting a few no doubt along the way. This has only happened hundreds of times, it should not be shocking. It is a deliberate plan of the left.

And in other news Tupac Shakur and Elvis Presley are alive and in detainment cells at Groomslake AFB…

Seriously, lay off the conspiracy theories

 

[LaSainte]

I am not sure that logically follows either.

If there is a 50% chance that a kid will get abused in a Catholic School and 80% chance in a public School, it does not logically follow that one should send a child to a public school.

Rather, one should try to reduce the 50% chance in Catholic Schools. That’s the easier and feasible alternative.

Unfortunately, kids are kids. They tend to go with peer pressure. Most parents are not even stay at home parents and don’t have any clue what they learn in school till its too late.

There is also a difference between compassion and condoning. If a child is sitting there while his class mate gets racially abused by another student and remains best buddies with the abuser, that is condoning the behavior. The correct thing to do then is to first get the other friend to understand what is wrong. If he refuses to give up his view and continues to abuse, even breaking up the friendship is good.

Similarly, thats the case with the teacher problem.

Actually the attitude is not “eeek, you are struggling with sin”. It is “eeek, you are saying that is OK for you”. Do you see the difference?

There is a difference between someone trying to become a better person and someone enjoying the sin.

The parents can decide WHO THEY want to teach their children in their place as well. So as a result, the parents of Catholic Schools simply throw out anyone they don’t like teaching their children.

Sure. At the same time, it also helps the child to have a supportive environment. You are making this instead an exclusively parent teaching issue. It is not. Environment plays a MAJOR role in formation of children. It is a Psychological FACT.

The goal with children is to PREVENT them from screwing up. With somethings in life, like sexuality, once you go down an evil path, it is mighty hard to turn back.

Prevention is BETTER than CURE.

God Bless

Actually, of you read an excellent book called “Parenting with Love and Logic”, you will see that when it comes to being a parent, one of the best things that can happen to your kids is to have them screw up, because THAT is precisely when they learn the greatest lessons that will last them a lifetime. Of course, you teach them faith and morals and right behavior, but when you let them mess up on their own, they get the greatest benefit and they actually remember these lessons and take them to heart even decades later. Experience is the best teacher, and when your kids screw up, you are there to put the lesson into context and help them take as much away from it as possible.

I see this as the main difference between homeschooling and going to an actual school. Homeschoolers are so afraid to let their kids screw up or be confronted with the real world that the kids never get any experience dealing with the real world and never learn the lessons they should be learning. It’s like someone sitting you down and TELLING you how to play basketball for 5 years every day as opposed to handing you a basketball and letting you try for yourself, while coaching you through it. Sure, you’re going to miss some shots, but you will actually learn how to play the game in practice as opposed to in theory only. Who do you think stands a better chance in the big game, the one who was merely TOLD how to play or the one who actually had some practice?

 

[sw85]

I’m surprised to see nearly all my points have already been made by someone in this thread. But I’ll add to the chorus, anyhow.

So basically, you’re saying that if you can’t SEE the sin outwardly, it’s ok?

Well… yeah. The issue here is scandal: corrupting the moral sensibilities of the young by exposing them to perversion and presenting it as normative, rather than deviant.

Masturbating or looking at porn is one thing, especially if done in secret and later repented (and yes, teachers with regular and badly-concealed porn or masturbation habits ought not to be teaching in Catholic schools). Living openly in sin is quite another; for one thing the former are necessarily one-time deals individually, the latter a continual process of open rebellion against the moral law. You can argue she didn’t *present *her sins as anything, but even failing to conceal them is scandalous enough. And obviously, she *did *fail to conceal them or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Suppose one of her kids had found out?

Concerned parents have a right to worry about their kids being exposed to such. I would rather my children be properly ordered to love what is good than have the (entirely civil) right of homosexuals to shack up and live in sin protected because the alternative might, what, hurt their feelings?

Anyway, it just makes me mad when I see so much hostility towards the sin of homosexual activity, but hardly any whatsoever towards the sin of masturbation or porn use.

I’m not talking about for teaching jobs, just in general. People will come on here and talk about homosexual activity as though being the worst sin in the world. There will be multiple threads all over this forum with questions like “should I be friends with a homosexual?”, “should I go to a party where a homosexual will be present?”, “should I refuse my services to a homosexual individual?”

It seems to me there’s a good reason for that. For one thing, while there’s a widely acknowledged (again, entirely civil) “right” to masturbation and porn use, nearly everyone outside a relatively small minority of degenerates regards masturbation and porn as distasteful and something not to be discussed, much less romanticized. They are, as ddarko said, entirely private sins.

By contrast modern society positively exults homosexual behavior. It borderline worships it. If it seems that Catholics are overly concerned with homosexuality, perhaps it’s because the incongruity between the Church’s attitude toward it and society’s is so strikingly pronounced.

Again, that goes back to what I said above regarding scandal. To sin in private is one another; to make a lifestyle of it quite another. Masturbators and consumers of porn, by and large, do the former, and homosexuals the latter.

As ddarko said, I think the solution there is to get tougher on society’s acceptance of masturbation and porn, not go easier on society’s fetishization of homosexuality. Granted, there’s less we can do about masturbation and porn, except perhaps censor porn; both are already mostly solitary habits largely shunned by polite society.

I wouldn’t worry that this teacher will influence anyone in the class to be gay. This teacher can still teach the Catholic faith without mentioning homosexuality. Since homosexuality is against the Catholic religion, she probably won’t speak of it. If the teacher did bring it up, I’m sure you would have an issue with that too. I believe they’re other things more important to worry about. This particular teacher may turn out to be a better teacher than another person. We could be concerned about all teachers teaching our children. When you think about it, we really don’t know anyone that well. A devout Catholic could be just as bad to teach class as anyone else. We hear all sorts of things happening, you don’t know who they really are other than what they seem to be.

The concern is not that she’ll “influence anyone . . . to be gay.” (I don’t know that anyone really believes such a thing is possible, anyway). The concern is that merely by being a practicing homosexual she will be presenting a sinful lifestyle as normative and thus inducing scandal.

 

[LaSainte]

I think this scandal thing is a poor excuse for discrimination against a particular type of sin. The teacher is a second grade teacher for crying out loud. There is NO WAY that any of these kids are going to see this woman’s Facebook page (which is now set to private) or have any kind of discussions in class about marriage or sexuality. It is a non-issue, really, as much as it would be a non-issue if the parents were aware that she used contraceptives because one of them saw her at the drug store picking up a prescription. In fact, I would ventureto say that the real scandal here will be caused when the kids are picking up bits and pieces of gossip from the parents themselves.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

I think this scandal thing is a poor excuse for discrimination against a particular type of sin. The teacher is a second grade teacher for crying out loud. There is NO WAY that any of these kids are going to see this woman’s Facebook page (which is now set to private) or have any kind of discussions in class about marriage or sexuality. It is a non-issue, really, as much as it would be a non-issue if the parents were aware that she used contraceptives because one of them saw her at the drug store picking up a prescription. In fact, I would ventureto say that the real scandal here will be caused when the kids are picking up bits and pieces of gossip from the parents themselves.

I agree, except for that first sentence. Scandal must be a consideration, and not just for the kids. If adults see the Church apparently condoning sin, that is very problematic. As to whether or not it is an issue in this case, we do not know. We have not been given enough information. That is an issue for the administration of the school and the local diocese to decide.

Without knowing the content from her page that was printed and shared, we do not even know if the accusations are even well founded or if they are speculative. The fact that she made her page private is only evidence that she wants to keep her private life private. Gossip can be very prevalent in small communities, and therefore in many private schools. It is ugly. I have been both a student and a teacher in private schools, and in my opinion, there is generally a better atmosphere for kids to learn and also for spiritual growth- but it is easy to gossip and without firm leadership squashing rumors, rumors can be devastating.

 

[Corki]

I think this scandal thing is a poor excuse for discrimination against a particular type of sin. The teacher is a second grade teacher for crying out loud. There is NO WAY that any of these kids are going to see this woman’s Facebook page (which is now set to private) or have any kind of discussions in class about marriage or sexuality. It is a non-issue, really, as much as it would be a non-issue if the parents were aware that she used contraceptives because one of them saw her at the drug store picking up a prescription. In fact, I would ventureto say that the real scandal here will be caused when the kids are picking up bits and pieces of gossip from the parents themselves.

I see it as **more **of an issue since she is teaching a younger grade. Second grade in most Catholic schools is prep year for First Confession and First Communion. A person publically living a lifestyle that is antithcal to the Catholic faith is essentially unqualified to prepare students for their Sacraments.

In an older grade, the case might be made that she could avoid teaching religion and be qualified to teach Math or History - unless, of course, the school or diocese had a morals clause in their teachers’ contracts.

 

[ddarko]

I didn’t realize we were talking about abuse. I thought we were talking about a teacher that may or may not have an improper same sex relationship with her roommate.

I don’t really care what the percentages are for abuse. They don’t make the parents feel any better when their child is on the wrong end of that percentage- no matter that school. Besides statistics can always be manipulated and the numbers mean nothing unless you know how those numbers came about.

I’m not going to get into the public school abuse debate because that’s not really the point of this thread. My personal opinion for reducing the abuse has nothing to do with relying on our teachers.

My point was not about abuse specifically. It was to make the point that saying “By doing X I have 50% chance of success, by doing Y I have 10% chance of failure” does not mean both options are the same. To say so would be a illogical conclusion.

I understand that parents can decide who they want to teach their kids…up to a point. Once you place the child in a school system, public or otherwise, you are giving part of your authority to that system.

Hence why the Parents have the RIGHT to choose what the system looks like.

There is always the choice to remove the child but as we both pointed out- no system is perfect. (Here that system told the parents there was nothing to act on.)

Just as their is the choice to remove a child, there is a choice to remove the teachers if their public life does not coincide with the positions the school stands for.

Yes, environment matters. But no matter how much you shelter your kid they are eventually going to have to go out in the big world and deal with all the sinful influences. This is not a teacher that has brought her partner into the class and is outright discussing her lifestyle with the children. This is a teacher that might be homosexual and is a perfect example for a “teaching moment” for the parents. They can sit their child down and explain- tailor to their understanding of course- their views of such a lifestyle.

A “teaching moment” always exists. You don’t need an example to teach a student that murder is bad or rape is bad. Same here.

The point of forming a child correctly is that ONCE proper formation is received, he or she has the discipline and knowledge to choose RIGHT from WRONG.

The problem with most schools these days is that they go for cure than prevention. As a result, student while at some point realize their actions are wrong cannot correct it because they LACK the discipline.

It is possible. I grew up in Topeka, KS- the home of the infamous Fred Phelps. My parents had to explain to me what “gay” meant and what those weird cartoons of two men were all about when I was 6 years old. My parents were honest with me they said “We do not believe this lifestyle is right, in fact we believe it is very sinful. But that is not how everyone understands it, just like not everyone understands you shouldn’t steal or lie. But even though we do not agree with their choices we do not hate them, we do not make fun of them, we do not shun them because they are still people and still God’s children.”

Well I think your parents went a little early on you to go at age 6. That it-self shows a problem. You have a 6 year old kid who is now exposed to something that does not even concern him. An average 6 year old has no sexual attraction or has ANY idea what it means.

I understand your point about “thinking sin is right?” But I think it is fairly obvious that this teacher is not a Catholic. Once you allow non-Catholics to teach in the Catholic school I think you are already losing that battle. Which is why I don’t really see the point of Catholic schools- if you aren’t going to have Catholic teachers why bother?

I agree. There is no point to having NON-Catholic teachers in Catholic schools.

The solution is NOT to stop Catholic Schools but to get them back on track.

You made the comment “most parents don’t know what’s going on until it is too late.” Well, whose fault is that? I’m sorry but writing a check to the school does not absolve you the responsibility to make sure your kids are being taught the things they need to know. When your kid gets misinformation in school it is up to you to sit down and correct that information.

A parent could easily argue that they are paying the school for that. Let us say the parents pay for math classes. If the teacher is teaching false ideas on mathematical theory, then do you think the parent should stay quiet and re-teach at home?

I think the parent is very much justified in removing the teacher and getting a new one.

Same with schools. When a parent gives the authority to the School over their children, that is a GREAT responsibility. The school must do everything to make sure they give that child a GOOD education in all aspects.

I would like to point out that the OP has not told us that the teacher’s lifestyle has ever made it into the classroom. I would be arguing the other side if that were the case.

The teacher’s life style is a public affair. Whether it made it to the class room or not, it has the possibility of causing scandal.

That is the concern here.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Actually, of you read an excellent book called “Parenting with Love and Logic”, you will see that when it comes to being a parent, one of the best things that can happen to your kids is to have them screw up, because THAT is precisely when they learn the greatest lessons that will last them a lifetime.

Oh the POP psychology books these days.

See how illogical that claim is. What happens when the kid starts getting addicted to Cocaine? Do you think that is a lesson worth learning considering the rehab time, the possibility of falling back again etc?

Some “life lessons” can come at the cost of loss of life. What about those cases?

So NO. A child screwing up is the WORST thing that can happen. Good can come out of it since God can bring about GOOD from every EVIL. BUT it does not mean we should allow them to screw up.

Prevention is better than cure.

Of course, you teach them faith and morals and right behavior, but when you let them mess up on their own, they get the greatest benefit and they actually remember these lessons and take them to heart even decades later. Experience is the best teacher, and when your kids screw up, you are there to put the lesson into context and help them take as much away from it as possible.

Experience is NOT the best teacher.

Do you think a person needs to get raped before they LEARN that it is bad to get raped?

People who make assertions like “Experience is the best teacher” are suffering from Hindsight Bias.

I see this as the main difference between homeschooling and going to an actual school. Homeschoolers are so afraid to let their kids screw up or be confronted with the real world that the kids never get any experience dealing with the real world and never learn the lessons they should be learning. It’s like someone sitting you down and TELLING you how to play basketball for 5 years every day as opposed to handing you a basketball and letting you try for yourself, while coaching you through it.

Your comparison presents one favorable case where self-learning is important. In general self-learning is not always beneficial. That is my point.

So for you to give me specific examples does not prove what I said wrong.

Sure, you’re going to miss some shots, but you will actually learn how to play the game in practice as opposed to in theory only. Who do you think stands a better chance in the big game, the one who was merely TOLD how to play or the one who actually had some practice?

Once again, that is just one example.

Not all things fall in to such favorable examples. Thus, there is no general truth that “Experience is the BEST teacher”. The correct truth is that “Experience is the best teacher in SOME cases”.

So there is nothing wrong with homeschooling. The parent can DECIDE which things require experience for learning and WHICH things DON’T.

God Bless

 

[LaSainte]

Oh the POP psychology books these days.

See how illogical that claim is. What happens when the kid starts getting addicted to Cocaine? Do you think that is a lesson worth learning considering the rehab time, the possibility of falling back again etc?

Some “life lessons” can come at the cost of loss of life. What about those cases?

So NO. A child screwing up is the WORST thing that can happen. Good can come out of it since God can bring about GOOD from every EVIL. BUT it does not mean we should allow them to screw up.

Prevention is better than cure.

Experience is NOT the best teacher.

Do you think a person needs to get raped before they LEARN that it is bad to get raped?

People who make assertions like “Experience is the best teacher” are suffering from Hindsight Bias.

Your comparison presents one favorable case where self-learning is important. In general self-learning is not always beneficial. That is my point.

So for you to give me specific examples does not prove what I said wrong.

Once again, that is just one example.

Not all things fall in to such favorable examples. Thus, there is no general truth that “Experience is the BEST teacher”. The correct truth is that “Experience is the best teacher in SOME cases”.

So there is nothing wrong with homeschooling. The parent can DECIDE which things require experience for learning and WHICH things DON’T.

God Bless

Your knowledge of this subject isn’t great. I’m guessing you don’t have children.

 

[PatriceA]

Your knowledge of this subject isn’t great. I’m guessing you don’t have children.

Oh I disagree. ddarko has pretty much said everything I have thought on this thread, but so much better than I could have. Doesn’t matter if they have children or not, I do, and they’ve been thorough and spot on in their comments.

 

[ddarko]

Your knowledge of this subject isn’t great. I’m guessing you don’t have children.

Why don’t you address the objections I made in that post?

They had nothing to do with having or not having children. They were merely pointing out incorrect logic in your reasoning.

God Bless

 

[Elizabeth502]

A couple of quick things.

The issue in Catholic schools is not “sin.” The issue is role-modeling. Catholic teachers are expected not to cause scandal by their lifestyles, whether that’s homosexual coupling or unmarried cohabitation. And if you think that even young children don’t talk about these things, they do. For one thing, young children are curious. As a teacher, my students have always asked me (a) if I’m married, (b) if I have a children, and even (c) if I have a boyfriend.

It makes no difference whether the teacher is Catholic or not; it’s what the teacher represents by his or her lifestyle that is important. And yes, teachers are notified ahead of time, that this private institution has specific standards teachers are expected to comply with, and as an institution which includes the teaching of morality, that school can legally and ethically fire a teacher for not abiding by that.

As late as the 1960’s – I know that sounds so ancient now – public secular schools also had morals clauses, and that included varieties of scandalous behavior such as divorcing a spouse and quickly marrying a person you’d been having an open affair with.

As to homeschooling, there seem to be some myths and prejudices on this thread, by those with possibly limited acquaintance with the varieties of homeschool options. I would know because I have been a homeschool consultant, facilitator, and teacher in public and in hybrid settings, for a variety of ages, situations, and cultural backgrounds.

 

[LaSainte]

Why don’t you address the objections I made in that post?

They had nothing to do with having or not having children. They were merely pointing out incorrect logic in your reasoning.

God Bless

Fine. I can tell you from experience, that children learn better through what is termed “Natural Consequences” than just about anything else. This is actually how God Himself teaches us.

Let me give an example. We have a swimming pool and a 2 year old. When we go in the pool, I would tell him over and over again “Don’t go pat the second step, you’ll fall in!”. He is a very smart boy and understands everything I say, but wants to do everything, as he says, “like a big boy”. In order to ensure that he didn’t go past the first 2 steps, I would have to be right on top of him all the time, constantly telling him not to go in, constantly pulling him back from the edge when he DID try, and even raising my voice and being harsh with him about it to reiterate the point (some parents use swatting or spanking even). This would happen a LOT, and I could never let my guard down for a second. In fact, the second I would look away or turn my back, he would be headed into the pool, because the consequences of his actions come from ME, not from the action itself. If I’m not looking, or if I don’t know about if, the consequences are not there.

What do I as a parent do? Let him fall in and be right here to pull him out. Do you know how many times it took him to go under, on his own, to realize that Mommy was right? ONE. ONE TIME. Now he plays happily on the first or second step for hours if I let him, coming in and going out without ever going to the third step. If he wants to go deeper, he says,“Mommy help you?” and I take him in. He is not afraid of the water by any means, but he now knows his own limitations and understands WHY it was important to listen and obey what I had to say on the matter.

The consequence was a NATURAL one. It didn’t come from anything I did or from punishment, and I certainly didn’t PREVENT it from happening, losing the lesson altogether. This lesson has carried over into almost every warning I give him now. When I say “Be careful, don’t fall”, he knows what it means whether he is by the pool or on a slippery floor or has climbed too high onto a chair, and his behavior adjusts immediately.

I have used this with hot things as well. I told him the concrete was too hot to step on without shoes and that he would burn his feet. He stepped on it and I immediately picked him up and comforted him when he cried (it wasn’t that hot, just unpleasant). Now, he doesn’t touch ANYTHING if I say it’s hot, from the stove to a candle, because he knows what it feels like to be burned and doesn’t like it. if I hadn’t done it this way, if he had NEVER been burned, I would have to watch him lime a hawk and the second my back was turned, he would do it anyway. Kids need to learn that consequences come from the actions themselves, not from me as a parent.

It also builds a huge amount of confidence in their ability to make their own decisions and it builds a huge amount of trust between parent and child because he knows that I’m telling the absolute truth and that I am always right there to help and comfort him when he DOES make a mistake, but that I also trust him to do some things on his own and make his own (sometimes bad) decisions.

Of course this doesn’t apply to letting your child seriously hurt themselves, but you understand how over the years, this type of parenting
Leads to confidence, trust and good decision-making skills on the part of the child/adult.

Again, this is exactly how God parents us. He tells us what is right and what is wrong and then lets us decide for ourselves, and accepts the Natural Consequences of our decisions. Through trial and error, we hopefully learn that God knows more than we do and that He has our best interests at heart, so that when it comes to the really big things, we don’t feel the need to experiment for ourselves because we can put our trust in Him and know that it os well-founded. By the time it’s time for us to choose Heaven or He’ll, we are fully prepared and have the knowledge and experience to make that choice. It’s good enough for God and it’s good enough for me

 

[LaSainte]

Why don’t you address the objections I made in that post?

They had nothing to do with having or not having children. They were merely pointing out incorrect logic in your reasoning.

God Bless

Fine. I can tell you from experience, that children learn better through what is termed “Natural Consequences” than just about anything else. This is actually how God Himself teaches us.

Let me give an example. We have a swimming pool and a 2 year old. When we go in the pool, I would tell him over and over again “Don’t go pat the second step, you’ll fall in!”. He is a very smart boy and understands everything I say, but wants to do everything, as he says, “like a big boy”. In order to ensure that he didn’t go past the first 2 steps, I would have to be right on top of him all the time, constantly telling him not to go in, constantly pulling him back from the edge when he DID try, and even raising my voice and being harsh with him about it to reiterate the point (some parents use swatting or spanking even). This would happen a LOT, and I could never let my guard down for a second. In fact, the second I would look away or turn my back, he would be headed into the pool, because the consequences of his actions come from ME, not from the action itself. If I’m not looking, or if I don’t know about if, the consequences are not there.

What do I as a parent do? Let him fall in and be right here to pull him out. Do you know how many times it took him to go under, on his own, to realize that Mommy was right? ONE. ONE TIME. Now he plays happily on the first or second step for hours if I let him, coming in and going out without ever going to the third step. If he wants to go deeper, he says,“Mommy help you?” and I take him in. He is not afraid of the water by any means, but he now knows his own limitations and understands WHY it was important to listen and obey what I had to say on the matter.

The consequence was a NATURAL one. It didn’t come from anything I did or from punishment, and I certainly didn’t PREVENT it from happening, losing the lesson altogether. This lesson has carried over into almost every warning I give him now. When I say “Be careful, don’t fall”, he knows what it means whether he is by the pool or on a slippery floor or has climbed too high onto a chair, and his behavior adjusts immediately.

I have used this with hot things as well. I told him the concrete was too hot to step on without shoes and that he would burn his feet. He stepped on it and I immediately picked him up and comforted him when he cried (it wasn’t that hot, just unpleasant). Now, he doesn’t touch ANYTHING if I say it’s hot, from the stove to a candle, because he knows what it feels like to be burned and doesn’t like it. if I hadn’t done it this way, if he had NEVER been burned, I would have to watch him lime a hawk and the second my back was turned, he would do it anyway. Kids need to learn that consequences come from the actions themselves, not from me as a parent.

It also builds a huge amount of confidence in their ability to make their own decisions and it builds a huge amount of trust between parent and child because he knows that I’m telling the absolute truth and that I am always right there to help and comfort him when he DOES make a mistake, but that I also trust him to do some things on his own and make his own (sometimes bad) decisions.

Of course this doesn’t apply to letting your child seriously hurt themselves, but you understand how over the years, this type of parenting
Leads to confidence, trust and good decision-making skills on the part of the child/adult.

Again, this is exactly how God parents us. He tells us what is right and what is wrong and then lets us decide for ourselves, and accepts the Natural Consequences of our decisions. Through trial and error, we hopefully learn that God knows more than we do and that He has our best interests at heart, so that when it comes to the really big things, we don’t feel the need to experiment for ourselves because we can put our trust in Him and know that it os well-founded. By the time it’s time for us to choose Heaven or He’ll, we are fully prepared and have the knowledge and experience to make that choice. It’s good enough for God and it’s good enough for me