Nun Accused Of Knuckle Sandwich Threat

[mlchance]

Brad:

Umm. Sexual assault is so inappropriate he should have been immediately expelled if no adequate forms of punishment are possible (by the school) or given (by the parents) Fortunately, it is what ultimately happened - but it should have been response #1.

According to you. Of course, being an armchair quarterback is exceptionally easy, isn’t it? It entitles you to all the moral outrage without having to shoulder any of the actual burden. How convenient for you.

Of course, since you think that threatening people with bodily harm is a God-like act that is part and parcel of a commitment to serving our Lord, you can forgive those of us who think that your opinions on this matter are not worthy of serious consideration.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Brad]

otm:

You seem to pass off anger and threatening speech as no big deal; then you remark as to how many children show no respect.
A good deal of the problems we have with kids out of control is the fact that parents have not demanded rtespect from their children. Another element of the problem is that parents haven’t shown any respect to their children.

This conversation has gotten way beyond what I am trying to say.

Let’s review

1. I would never say to my kid or any other kid “I’m going to knock you teeth out”
2. I agree the teacher made a mistake
3. I don’t believe she was really going to do it and I don’t think she could do it even if she tried
4. All parents and teachers make mistakes, especially when children disobey repeated. In a classroom setting there are some teachers that discipline and some that do not - a particular teacher in a particular moment is dealing with disrespectful children perhaps because other teachers do not “demand respect” or because administrators do not allow any discipline of any kind. The case above is a classic example - where an 8th grader thinks sexual assault it ok and the teacher can’t do anything to stop it - this is appaling that he would get to this grade level and think that.
5. Respect is demanded through enforcement of consistent discipline when demanded and love at all times.
6. As you said, a good deal of our problems is with children whose parents do not demand respect. What is a teacher to do when the child is disrespectful, the parents do not care, and the administrator will not allow any discipline? Will you ever consider these aspects of the situation - these facts that are unknown?
7. Do you have children? What forms of discipline do you/have you used? What do they respond to the best?

 

[Brad]

otm:

Here we differ. I say that God didn’t make any threats. He made promises. There is a hugh difference; a threat is something you say to attempt to change another’s behavior, with no real intention of carrying out. A promise is just that; continue, and this will happen; and when it continues, the promise is kept.

Yes, I think that a kid who slugs another should not be threatened; there should have been rules in place that the child was acquainted with the first day of school ( and reinforced by repitition periodically), and when the slugging started, the punishment should have been inflicted immediately. I absolutely would not threaten that child. I would carry out the promise I had already made.

You can differ if you would like but that doesn’t make you correct.

Look at the OT covenants - the promises were double sided - God fufilled his part of the covenant either way. The covenant bearer decided whether he/she would fufill their part. If they did, they received the blessings. If they did not, they received the curses - both laid out beforehand. Now you may call a curse a curse and not a threat - but I fail to see the differenct. And I don’t think all the Israelites that were killed by the Levites saw the difference either.

Similary, in the NT, thanks be to Jesus, we aren’t physically killed if we consume Jesus in the state of sin, but we do bring spiritual damnation on ourselves (the curse/threat).

Specifically related to child rearing, God says “spare the rod, spoil the child”. Does anyone spank a child without a prior warning? That is what I mean by a threat.

What punishment is adequate for a kid slugging another kid and breaking his nose or eyesocket? Again, I am suggesting that the rules put in place before the incident are threats. They are to the kids. They certainly don’t think of them as arbitrary words on paper - they think of them as actions to be carried out that will adversely affect them.

 

[Brad]

otm:

Your hyperbole is showing…

That was the intent. Thanks for noticing. To a 69 year old nun, I don’t know if jail is a much better alternative however.

otm:

And that is part of the difference. I did not make threats to my kids. I made promises. I kept my promises.

I did not threaten them with bodily harm; I did not threaten to knock their head off, or beat them to a pulp, or slap them silly, or beat them like a bad dog, or choke them, or strangle them, or any other such violent act. I didn’t need to. They knew what was expected of them; they knew (and experienced) the consequences of bad behavior. They also knew when they did right, or did well, as I was lavish with praise. They weren’t perfect, but I was constantly told of how well my children minded and behaved (to which I often replied “That is because they are not given an alternative.”, which often drew some funny looks).

In the heat of the moment, Sister might have yelled at the child, or threatend (i.e., co intention of carrying it out) to send him to the principals office. I can deal with that. Threatening violent bodily harm of the nature she threatened? She’s a bully.

I never threaten my children with bodily harm either because I would never hurt them in any way.

However, I’m not perfect. I have made threats that I later determined were too severe for the crime and did not fully follow-up with the threat. I’m human - they still mind quite well.

If you mean to tell me that you never told your child “If you do X, then I will do Y” or “If you don’t do X then I will do Y” AND you never once failed to follow up on one of these “threats” then you shall be rewared THE MOST PERFECT PARENT AWARD - and you best start writing books because you can make a great deal of money.

However, none of us should be punished for imperfection or somebody’s assumptions. If we were, we’d all be in the slammer.

Let me reiterate - I don’t think what she said was correct. But I don’t think it justifies firing or criminal charges. That is what I see on the face of our limited facts - you see the same facts and are ready to imprison her because you assume there is something else. I hope you don’t try to prosecute me in my imperfections someday.

 

[Brad]

otm:

This started as a nun threatening a child who was going up the wrong stairs. That is not a physical attack on another student.

That IS my point. Where is the fervor against kid on kid violence as it is being expressed here against a Sister that made a figure of speech threat - which might have meant “you are going to be in big trouble”?

otm:

I fail to see that the comments showed any lack of will to stop students from assaulting other students. Furthermore, to stop that, you don’t threaten to knock their teeth out. You separate the students and have the admninistration apply the appropriate punishment, which also does not involve knocking their teeth out, or threateining to knock their teeth out. It usually involves suspension or eviction.

I wasn’t suggesting Sister’s comments would stop kids from beating up other kids.

I don’t know if you’ve done any studies on this, but, generally speaking, kids that are suspended or expelled do not have adequate discipline at home - as a result, them leaving school is not usually a bad alternative in their eyes - my guess it does nothing to change their behavior, only their circumstances - which they then use to prey on a different group of children.

This IS a problem no? There is quite a bit of child violence - don’t know if you’ve noticed.

 

[Brad]

otm:

Would you care to quote published studies showing that parents in most cases do nothing, or is this just one more urban myth?

You want me to quote a parent that admits to doing nothing to stopping his kid from acting up?

This is called observation. Kids that act up generally have worse discipline at home than kids that do not act up. You admitted this previously.

If you do want proof - read the previous posts. After sexual assault, the child was suspended for 3 days. Then he was suspended for another day when he and HIS PARENTS failed to show up for the mandatory meeting with administrators. The parents did not care enought to show up for the mandatory meeting.

In the kids eyes - zero punishment - as shown by his eventual expulsion from the school.

 

[Brad]

otm:

and therein lies much of this discussion. Too many people see it as an either/or; threaten the child with inappropriate physical violence, or there will be no rules at all and total chaos.

I spent two years in a Jesuit high school. None of the priests or scholastics I had stooped to the level of threatening physical assault on any of us. The dean of discipline on occasion meted out physical punishment (we called it “spats”) as seen as necessary. No one was threatened with having their teeth knocked out. Most of us walked a straight line; those that didn’t were “encouraged” to get back in line; one or two couldn’t manage that, and they managed to go to another school.

Discipline can be managed in an appropriate manner that respects the integrity of the student. People who resort quickly to physical punishment and unnecessary and inapproriate threats rarely have the control they think they have over the child, and almost never get the respect they think they deserve.

My teachers didn’t use physical punishment either. They used unprofessional comments. That is what I was talking about. Not sure what you are talking about.

 

[Brad]

mlchance:

According to you. Of course, being an armchair quarterback is exceptionally easy, isn’t it? It entitles you to all the moral outrage without having to shoulder any of the actual burden. How convenient for you.

Of course, since you think that threatening people with bodily harm is a God-like act that is part and parcel of a commitment to serving our Lord, you can forgive those of us who think that your opinions on this matter are not worthy of serious consideration.

– Mark L. Chance.

You certainly can stretch conclusions to fit your presuppositions can’t you? I never said that what she said was ok. I just don’t think it warrents firing or jail time.

And now you are angry with me and don’t even want my opinion because I am appalled that an 8th grader was sexually assualting girls - that he would even think he could get away with it shows a huge lack of respect for authority and a depraved thought process. The policy for sexual assualt should be immediately expelled. And, if it were my daughter - the kid better not come near her or me again.

This has nothing to do with convenience or armchair anything - it has to do with morals - right and wrong - another thing we as a society fail to teach our kids.

 

[mlchance]

Brad:

You certainly can stretch conclusions to fit your presuppositions can’t you? I never said that what she said was ok.

Yes, you did. Admittedly, you’re now back-pedaling, but, even still, let’s look at some of your defenses of the sister’s actions:

Brad:

God made plenty of threats.

Brad:

Sometimes you have to talk to kids in their language so they understand - they don’t always use professional language.

Brad:

To not defend this sister who has committed her life to the Church, is deplorable.

IOW, the sister in question was imitating God; therefore, her actions are just. Her unprofessionalism is not only excusable, but to not defend her unprofessionalism is deplorable.

Brad:

And now you are angry with me and don’t even want my opinion because I am appalled that an 8th grader was sexually assualting girls…

Angry? Not a bit. You’re giving yourself too much credit.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Emmy]

Brad:

There are other ways. Explain them to the kid who gets his nose bloodied by a school bully for wearing the wrong clothes.

Ofcourse that bully should be disciplined but not by
threats of physical harm or even by physical harm.

Emmy

 

[fix]

If there is no more to this story than what is reported then I think most reasonable people would conclude it is an overreaching by the DA, which would not be an unusual thing for many DAs offices.

An older nun makes an off the cuff remark and ends up facing the penal system??? Crazy.

All these posts seem a bit zany to me. Brad made some very good points. No one has said a nun should literally forcefully avulse a child’s teeth.

How did so many generations make it through life without all this hand wringing over one remark. Gimme a break.

 

[fix]

If there is no more to this story than what is reported then I think most reasonable people would conclude it is an overreaching by the DA, which would not be an unusual thing for many DAs offices.

An older nun makes an off the cuff remark and ends up facing the penal system??? Crazy.

All these posts seem a bit zany to me. Brad made some very good points. No one has said a nun should literally forcefully avulse a child’s teeth.

How did so many generations make it through life without all this hand wringing over one remark? Gimme a break.

 

[Brad]

fix:

If there is no more to this story than what is reported then I think most reasonable people would conclude it is an overreaching by the DA, which would not be an unusual thing for many DAs offices.

An older nun makes an off the cuff remark and ends up facing the penal system??? Crazy.

All these posts seem a bit zany to me. Brad made some very good points. No one has said a nun should literally forcefully avulse a child’s teeth.

How did so many generations make it through life without all this hand wringing over one remark? Gimme a break.

Thank you for the sanity check. It was prettly lonely here for a while.

 

[Brad]

Emmy:

Ofcourse that bully should be disciplined but not by
threats of physical harm or even by physical harm.

Emmy

I agree. Physical harm is no answer. However, there must be some type of discipline that is so fearsome to the bully that he doesn’t think of doing it.

 

[Brad]

mlchance:

Yes, you did. Admittedly, you’re now back-pedaling, but, even still, let’s look at some of your defenses of the sister’s actions:

IOW, the sister in question was imitating God; therefore, her actions are just. Her unprofessionalism is not only excusable, but to not defend her unprofessionalism is deplorable.

Angry? Not a bit. You’re giving yourself too much credit.

– Mark L. Chance.

I’ll try one last time. We seem to agree on other topics but can’t seem to even come close here - Perhaps we are not understanding each other. Hopefully, by God’s grace, this will help.

I will repeat again - I never said what she did was ok and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t say that I did. Each of the statements that you quoted were not in specific defense of her actions. I have a tendency to defend the ideal - to defend a concept that may provide greater benefit for us all than just analyzing one specific situation for which we have limited knowledge. That is what these statements were about. I apologize if anyone saw them differently.

Let’s look at each one:

"God made plenty of threats" - this was in response to Emmy’s suggestion that it is wrong to threaten children. My point is that a code of discipline itself is a threat - you may call it something else - I think a child sees it as a threat - an impetus in their mind to not do something wrong. My point here was not that what sister said was ok but that codes of discipline (“threats”) are required and sometimes need to be repeated for effective order.

"Sometimes you have to talk to kids in their language so they understand - they don’t always use professional language" - this was in response to your insinuation that any professional language is inappropriate in a school. My point here (whether you agree with it or not) is that sometimes a child understands their language better than yours. Sometimes you have to meet them at their level to get their attention and, by showing you care enough about them to look bad, you gain initial respect. For example, I had to substitute teach for 30 9th graders in a CCD class. I tried “let’s be quiet and get started” 3 times - no effect. I yelled “shut-up” at the top of my lungs - everyone faced forward and was quiet. Was this professional? Absolutely not. Did they respect me the rest of the class? Yes. Should I have to rely on that method? Absolutely not. Similarly, my 11th grade history teacher called 8 specific kids @$##!! and sent them out of his class. This also was not professional - I was appalled - but he had never done it before that year and he never did it again. He only had to do it once(not sure why but he had a reason). My point with this statement was not that what sister said was ok but not to discount unprofessional language from the toolbox.

**“To not defend this sister who has committed her life to the Church, is deplorable.” ** - this was in response to Irish Melkite and Emmy’s suggestion that the sister should be fired and possibly jailed for making a human mistake. My point here was not that what sister said was ok (she should face some reprimand) but that what she did (based on the limited info that we have) does not justify firing, humiliation, or criminal charges, especially in light of years of service to our Church. You may disagree - but that doesn’t change my point. If there was more information that she was a repeated offender then I may have a different position - none provided such information here.

NOT defending her unprofessionalism is NOT deplorable. I also do NOT defend her unprofessionalism. What I was suggesting is deplorable is not giving her the benefit of the doubt based on limited information and thinking it to be just fine to fire, humiliate, and jail her despite her service to the Church. You may disagree with this position but this does not change my position to defending her unprofessionalism.

You said “you can forgive those of us who think that your opinions on this matter are not worthy of serious consideration”.

This was not indignation? If it wasn’t then only alternative I can think of is that you want to censor opposing opinions. I don’t think you do, which is why I thought it was a form of anger (indignation). If not, please correct me.

Peace.

 

[otm]

fix:

If there is no more to this story than what is reported then I think most reasonable people would conclude it is an overreaching by the DA, which would not be an unusual thing for many DAs offices.

An older nun makes an off the cuff remark and ends up facing the penal system??? Crazy.

All these posts seem a bit zany to me. Brad made some very good points. No one has said a nun should literally forcefully avulse a child’s teeth.

How did so many generations make it through life without all this hand wringing over one remark? Gimme a break.

Sorry, I am not one of those who would conclude there was overreaching by the DA; that was the point I was trying to make earlier. My background includes 6 years of criminal defense practice, parallel with 6 years of defense in juvenile delinquency, and a ttal of 12 years of termination of parental rights. I may not have seen it all, but I’ve seen plenty.

There have been some high profile activity by some DAs offices, mostly around sexual abuse by priests; other than that. most DAs offices have niether the time, the staff, nor the inclination to be anti-Christian, or more specifically, anti-Catholic. The DA doesn’t go looking for the cases; they are brought to the DA by either police investigation (the vast majority), or citizens complaints (which are usually thereafter investigated by the police). There are neither the resources nor the staff time, let alone judicial time, to go after frivolous cases. If this were nothing more than an “off the cuff remark”, or a simple case of hyperbole, I most seriously doubt the DA would take the case; he’d tell the offended child and/or parents to resolve it as a civil case.

And as a further point, the likelyhood of jail time is somewhere between 0 and -5 on a scale of 1 to 10 unless there is a lot more to this than we are told. She most likely has no funds of her own, if she is in an order; the greatest likelyhood is that she will have to do some community service.

There is a lot of talk in this series about kids who are somewhere between bad and incorrigible. Has anyone given any thought to the fact that a goodly number of kids are either ADD or ADHD, or a related syndrom, and are generally good kids who have a significant problem with too much energy, too much curiosity, and little or no concept of the consequences of choices made innocently? The information we have is of a child using the wrong stairwell. WOW! Really serious criminal behavior! What if he is nothing more than a “space cadet”, one of those kids who seems to be in a perpetual fog? She is not only an adult, but also the school disciplinarian.

 

[Brad]

otm:

Sorry, I am not one of those who would conclude there was overreaching by the DA; that was the point I was trying to make earlier. My background includes 6 years of criminal defense practice, parallel with 6 years of defense in juvenile delinquency, and a ttal of 12 years of termination of parental rights. I may not have seen it all, but I’ve seen plenty.

There have been some high profile activity by some DAs offices, mostly around sexual abuse by priests; other than that. most DAs offices have niether the time, the staff, nor the inclination to be anti-Christian, or more specifically, anti-Catholic. The DA doesn’t go looking for the cases; they are brought to the DA by either police investigation (the vast majority), or citizens complaints (which are usually thereafter investigated by the police). There are neither the resources nor the staff time, let alone judicial time, to go after frivolous cases. If this were nothing more than an “off the cuff remark”, or a simple case of hyperbole, I most seriously doubt the DA would take the case; he’d tell the offended child and/or parents to resolve it as a civil case.

And as a further point, the likelyhood of jail time is somewhere between 0 and -5 on a scale of 1 to 10 unless there is a lot more to this than we are told. She most likely has no funds of her own, if she is in an order; the greatest likelyhood is that she will have to do some community service.

There is a lot of talk in this series about kids who are somewhere between bad and incorrigible. Has anyone given any thought to the fact that a goodly number of kids are either ADD or ADHD, or a related syndrom, and are generally good kids who have a significant problem with too much energy, too much curiosity, and little or no concept of the consequences of choices made innocently? The information we have is of a child using the wrong stairwell. WOW! Really serious criminal behavior! What if he is nothing more than a “space cadet”, one of those kids who seems to be in a perpetual fog? She is not only an adult, but also the school disciplinarian.

I really hoped nobody would re-open this discussion but it’s been done and I have to oblige - at least until I decide to surrender.

You’ve made a whole bunch of assumptions based on your background (what is “ttal of 12 years of termination of parental rights” by the way?). I’ll grant that your background gives you some freedom to make assumptions against Sister to a degree. I don’t grant that your background extends to allow the assumption that ALL this kid has ever done wrong in his life is climb the wrong stairway.

Your last paragraph contains the type of dangerous thought that has become imbedded into our culture - especially in government and schools. The idea that nobody is responsible for their behavior. The idea that some kids don’t know the difference between right and wrong. The idea that any child that would do something wrong must have a mental disorder such as ADD or ADHD. The vast majority of children respond to discipline when and if they do something wrong. Even if they do have ADD or ADHD, the better approach is discipline, not drugs. Kids with too much energy and too much curiosity may be good kids but that doesn’t mean they don’t do bad things. Bad things are bad things no matter what the condition of the rule/law-breaker. We are all made in the image and likeness of God - We are all good - but we all sin - and we must be disciplined when we sin. It is a form of child neglect to not discipline him/her when they do something wrong. A kid that is in a “space cadet” to the point where they do not listen to authority needs to be taught to get out of the fog - it is dangerous to them to not heed authority and not pay attention to what they are doing.

I am in no way saying that a child that has a serious mental disorder should not get treatment. I am saying that way too many kids today get labeled ADD and ADHD.

If children do not learn that bad actions result in negative consequences(irregardless of their mental state) to them, they become juveniles and adults that are more apt to commit crimes.
We do not give adults a free ride for a crime because that have ADD (at least not yet) but there are some that want to give adults free rides because they have a genetic predisposition to say, alcoholism. This will only create more crimes and more victims.

 

[Timidity]

Brad:

We do not give adults a free ride for a crime because that have ADD (at least not yet) but there are some that want to give adults free rides because they have a genetic predisposition to say, alcoholism. This will only create more crimes and more victims.

And, as this thread proves, there are some who want to give them a free ride because they’re nuns!

 

[Brad]

Timidity:

And, as this thread proves, there are some who want to give them a free ride because they’re nuns!

As much as you want this to be a “gotcha”, it shows that you have ignored or chosen not to read my upteen statements that I am not defending what Sister did. It is not me that wants to give her a free ride. It is many there that want to give her punishment exceeding her crime.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

Hurray for Sister Catherine!

Boo to the spineless bishop.