Nun Accused Of Knuckle Sandwich Threat

[fix]

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.

In my experience DAs come in all shapes and sizes. They are political animals. Some are good, some are corrupt, many have biases. There are all manner of ways a DA can and will act. I do not have much info about this case, but if it is as presented then I conclude the DA is either biased or there is some other factor or factors at play. There are too many variables that we do not know about.

Do you think one remark from some 69 year old nun requires prosecution. Perhaps the parents are the driving force? I have no idea. What I do know is that the case is crazy as it stands now. Even if the nun was malicious when making the remark the case should be settled at school with the proper parties. To call in the cops is a reflection on all involved.

 

[Timidity]

Brad:

As much as you want this to be a “gotcha”

Don’t put words in my mouth, please. I never said I was referring to you, did I?

The only “gotcha” I would be after would be for the person who tried to tell me that I didn’t know what the word “assault” meant, but that person has already been set straight, so there’s no need for me to chime in.

 

[Brad]

Timidity:

Don’t put words in my mouth, please. I never said I was referring to you, did I?

The only “gotcha” I would be after would be for the person who tried to tell me that I didn’t know what the word “assault” meant, but that person has already been set straight, so there’s no need for me to chime in.

Sorry for the confusion. I assumed you were talking to me as you had replied to me.

Let’s just have a Merry Christmas - I’m tired of this thread.

Peace and good will to all - let’s not punch anyone in the mouth, nor threaten to do so, nor go up the wrong stariwwell and maybe, just maybe - we might find a smidgen in our stockings.

 

[otm]

Brad:

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.

Don’t take what I said and try and twist it into what it isn’t. Maybe this kid was incorrigilbe. That needed to be said. maybe Sister was a model act of peace; butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth. That too, needed to be said. The only facts we have to work from are the given; a kid going up the wrong stairs is threatened with having his teeth knocked out.

I don’t presume to say that children should have no consequences for their actions. But I am intelligent enough to distinguish between a kid who is a space cadet and one who is a bad apple. The former has no intent to break a rule; the latter does.

I dare you to show me examples of children who have a serious problem staying focused, being taught how to stay focused by beating them or threatening to beat them.

The comment " a total of 12 years of termination of parental rights" is part of what I focused in during my law practice. I’ve seen bad kids and good kids, both stuck with parents who were over the edge.

I don’t care how bad the kid was prior to this incident; I’ll assume he was within an eyelash of being expelled, for the sake of your comments; Sister was still way out of line. She did not need to threaten; she only needed to impliment the standing policy of punishment for the “crime”.

Children who do not pay attention because of ADD or ADHD, or related issues, are no more likely to become criminals as adults than those who did pay attention; and less likely than those who payed attention and deliberately broke the rule.

You don’t “teach” a child to get out of a fog, induced by Attention Deficit, by beating on him. All you teach him is that he is a bad child; and that borders on criminal behavior. He is not “bad”. He has a disability. Get a clue.

I don’t suggest anyone get a free ride. I do suggest that people be held responsible to the degree they were responsible, or, if you will, irresponsible. And Only to that degree.I am not talking about excuses. I am talking about reasons.

By the way, we do not all sin. Only those sin who form the intent to sin. A kid in a fog, daydreaming and going up the wrong stairs has committed no sin.

 

[Lonevoice]

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]

otm:

Don’t take what I said and try and twist it into what it isn’t. Maybe this kid was incorrigilbe. That needed to be said. maybe Sister was a model act of peace; butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth. That too, needed to be said. The only facts we have to work from are the given; a kid going up the wrong stairs is threatened with having his teeth knocked out.

I don’t presume to say that children should have no consequences for their actions. But I am intelligent enough to distinguish between a kid who is a space cadet and one who is a bad apple. The former has no intent to break a rule; the latter does.

I dare you to show me examples of children who have a serious problem staying focused, being taught how to stay focused by beating them or threatening to beat them.

The comment " a total of 12 years of termination of parental rights" is part of what I focused in during my law practice. I’ve seen bad kids and good kids, both stuck with parents who were over the edge.

I don’t care how bad the kid was prior to this incident; I’ll assume he was within an eyelash of being expelled, for the sake of your comments; Sister was still way out of line. She did not need to threaten; she only needed to impliment the standing policy of punishment for the “crime”.

Children who do not pay attention because of ADD or ADHD, or related issues, are no more likely to become criminals as adults than those who did pay attention; and less likely than those who payed attention and deliberately broke the rule.

You don’t “teach” a child to get out of a fog, induced by Attention Deficit, by beating on him. All you teach him is that he is a bad child; and that borders on criminal behavior. He is not “bad”. He has a disability. Get a clue.

I don’t suggest anyone get a free ride. I do suggest that people be held responsible to the degree they were responsible, or, if you will, irresponsible. And Only to that degree.I am not talking about excuses. I am talking about reasons.

By the way, we do not all sin. Only those sin who form the intent to sin. A kid in a fog, daydreaming and going up the wrong stairs has committed no sin.

I’m through discussing this particular issue with you. You are itching for a battle I’m not going to get into. I’ll simply say again that I did not think what Sister did was right and I did not say we need to beat kids simply because they have ADD or that are “in a fog” nor that they have committed a sin by accidentally going up the wrong stairway. That would be preposterous and you know that I think that - at least if you’ve closely read my posts.

However, I am willing to discuss one issue with you. You said “we do not all sin.” Do you really mean that? If so, what drives you to this conclusion?

 

[otm]

fix:

In my experience DAs come in all shapes and sizes. They are political animals. Some are good, some are corrupt, many have biases. There are all manner of ways a DA can and will act. I do not have much info about this case, but if it is as presented then I conclude the DA is either biased or there is some other factor or factors at play. There are too many variables that we do not know about.

Do you think one remark from some 69 year old nun requires prosecution. Perhaps the parents are the driving force? I have no idea. What I do know is that the case is crazy as it stands now. Even if the nun was malicious when making the remark the case should be settled at school with the proper parties. To call in the cops is a reflection on all involved.

They all have biases.

I, too, believe there is much more to this than meets the eye. Yes, the parents are most likely the driving force, as the school could simply dismiss her and have her out of their hair.

What surprises me is how many people express approval of what the nun did. On the face of it, it has no business whatsoever in a Catholic school. If you want to teach respect, the first thing you have to do is show respect, or you are playing the game of “Do as I say, not as I do”. Anyopne who has played that game with anyone, and children in particular, should know the results.

I am not against punishing a child who has broken a rule. The punishment should fit the crime. In some (limited) circumstances, physical punishment may be appropriate. It, too, needs to be appropriately applied.

I don’t think the nun is being prosecuted for one remark; my best guess is that there has been a pattern of conduct, escalating in naature, and possibly directed against this child, that is bringing this to a head.

 

[fix]

otm:

They all have biases.

I, too, believe there is much more to this than meets the eye. Yes, the parents are most likely the driving force, as the school could simply dismiss her and have her out of their hair.

What surprises me is how many people express approval of what the nun did. On the face of it, it has no business whatsoever in a Catholic school. If you want to teach respect, the first thing you have to do is show respect, or you are playing the game of “Do as I say, not as I do”. Anyopne who has played that game with anyone, and children in particular, should know the results.

I am not against punishing a child who has broken a rule. The punishment should fit the crime. In some (limited) circumstances, physical punishment may be appropriate. It, too, needs to be appropriately applied.

I don’t think the nun is being prosecuted for one remark; my best guess is that there has been a pattern of conduct, escalating in naature, and possibly directed against this child, that is bringing this to a head.

There is just not enough information to reach a fair conclusion about this matter. As I said, if it is only as presented then it is a travesty.

IMO, you are reading to much into the behavior of the nun. I do not know the full history, but the remark, as reported, is a nothing. It is not worthy of comment. So she made a pointed remark to a child? We do not know her tone, her intention or the actual circumstances of the incident.

In another thread Lisa N made a very insightful remark about the state of our culture. Every little thing is now seen as negatively impacting every person as if we are all tissue paper ready to be crumpled up and tossed out. How are normal men and women being raised today? Apparently to be overly sensitive and self absorbed. As I said before how did our ancestors make through much harder times? We are a nation of Oprahized, feminized, legalized radical indiviualists looking at every slight as a crime or personal attack.

 

[Brad]

fix:

In another thread Lisa N made a very insightful remark about the state of our culture. Every little thing is now seen as negatively impacting every person as if we are all tissue paper ready to be crumpled up and tossed out. How are normal men and women being raised today? Apparently to be overly sensitive and self absorbed. As I said before how did our ancestors make through much harder times? We are a nation of Oprahized, feminized, legalized radical indiviualists looking at every slight as a crime or personal attack.

Hey, it it takes the attention away from our own sin and necessity of facing our own problems directly - why not? A lot easier to blame someone else.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Hey, it it takes the attention away from our own sin and necessity of facing our own problems directly - why not? A lot easier to blame someone else.

Right, the only time our culture says it is Ok to place blame on another is if that person violated the rules of illegitimate civility. Never act controversial, never point out sinful behavior, never mention there is an eternal truth, accept the sinner and their sin under pain of law, only consider grand social issues and never make personal morality an issue.

I almost forgot, never tell a kid to stop doing a wrong act unless you specifically consult with the PC committee and formulate your words to be in agreement with the Oprah generation.

 

[otm]

Brad:

I’m through discussing this particular issue with you. You are itching for a battle I’m not going to get into. I’ll simply say again that I did not think what Sister did was right and I did not say we need to beat kids simply because they have ADD or that are “in a fog” nor that they have committed a sin by accidentally going up the wrong stairway. That would be preposterous and you know that I think that - at least if you’ve closely read my posts.

However, I am willing to discuss one issue with you. You said “we do not all sin.” Do you really mean that? If so, what drives you to this conclusion?

Sin is a word that I find bandied around way too much, and at the same time, way too little.

Sin is the intentional violation of God’s law. We are all of us all to familiar with that in the world; prime examples are sex outside of marriage, homosexual sexual activity, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, murder, illegal use of drugs and the drug trade, corporate theft.

There is also a tendency among many, when referring to acts of children, to use the word “sin”, when what really is going on is lack of mature judgement. I’ve raised kids. I have a pretty good idea when they intentionally do something, and when they don’t. I have also worked with a large number of kids who are out of control. Many of them were abused - and I don’t mean they were denied some TV privileges. I mean treated in a way that would get you jailed if it was a dog you did that to. Many of those kids were involved in “bad behavior”. Physical punishment wasn’t going to straighten them out; they were already getting the ever living daylights beat out of them at home. Much of their bad behavior, if not most, was due to acting out from the chaos, teror, and abuse of their world. I am no proponent of patting them on the head and calling their behavior “good”; but I am also leery of people who are way too ready to “discipline” these kids without any understanding of the “why” of their behavior.

Do they need discipline? No question. Do they need a very guided discipline? More than most. Would I say they sin? Objectively, what they do often can be classified as sin. But I don’t agree that they are willfully breaking the commandments; what thye are seeking is some sanity in a world that, to them, is insane.

Let me provide an example: a child that comes to school angry and gets into a fight with another child, because he was made to stand, naked, in an ice-cold shower for 30 minutes the night before; his offense for the shower? He took too long eating his dinner. This was just one minor example of gross over-reaction and abusive discipline, admitted by the mother, in a long history of abuse. I hardly consider his behavior at home to be sinful, and I have a really hard time considering his behavior at school sinful. His anger with his mother was not sinful; it was justified. That it spilled out on someone else should not be excused or condoned; but I have a hard time going finding that it was intentional.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

This incident shows the need for Catholic Church teachers to be members of a labor union. Catholic school teachers need to become members of a tough, no-nonsense union such as the Teamsters.

This would force Catholic Church officials to give Catholic school teachers the same respect that public school teachers get. Also, it would force the bishops to give their own employees the same justice and respect, that bishops say private and public employers should give to employees.

 

[Brad]

otm:

Sin is a word that I find bandied around way too much, and at the same time, way too little.

Sin is the intentional violation of God’s law. We are all of us all to familiar with that in the world; prime examples are sex outside of marriage, homosexual sexual activity, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, murder, illegal use of drugs and the drug trade, corporate theft.

There is also a tendency among many, when referring to acts of children, to use the word “sin”, when what really is going on is lack of mature judgement. I’ve raised kids. I have a pretty good idea when they intentionally do something, and when they don’t. I have also worked with a large number of kids who are out of control. Many of them were abused - and I don’t mean they were denied some TV privileges. I mean treated in a way that would get you jailed if it was a dog you did that to. Many of those kids were involved in “bad behavior”. Physical punishment wasn’t going to straighten them out; they were already getting the ever living daylights beat out of them at home. Much of their bad behavior, if not most, was due to acting out from the chaos, teror, and abuse of their world. I am no proponent of patting them on the head and calling their behavior “good”; but I am also leery of people who are way too ready to “discipline” these kids without any understanding of the “why” of their behavior.

Do they need discipline? No question. Do they need a very guided discipline? More than most. Would I say they sin? Objectively, what they do often can be classified as sin. But I don’t agree that they are willfully breaking the commandments; what thye are seeking is some sanity in a world that, to them, is insane.

Let me provide an example: a child that comes to school angry and gets into a fight with another child, because he was made to stand, naked, in an ice-cold shower for 30 minutes the night before; his offense for the shower? He took too long eating his dinner. This was just one minor example of gross over-reaction and abusive discipline, admitted by the mother, in a long history of abuse. I hardly consider his behavior at home to be sinful, and I have a really hard time considering his behavior at school sinful. His anger with his mother was not sinful; it was justified. That it spilled out on someone else should not be excused or condoned; but I have a hard time going finding that it was intentional.

I see a lot better where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining this. I completely agree. Abused children at home need to be helped, not disciplined without regards to their situation. My position was the converse (I think). Lack of discipline at home is also a form of abuse - more long term emotional neglect type of abuse. However, certainly, you are right. Physical abuse is horrible and should not be tolerated and all kids in these situations should be treated with concern, care, and love - and intervention to stop the abuse should be of primary importance.

 

[Brad]

Chris Jacobsen:

This incident shows the need for Catholic Church teachers to be members of a labor union. Catholic school teachers need to become members of a tough, no-nonsense union such as the Teamsters.

This would force Catholic Church officials to give Catholic school teachers the same respect that public school teachers get. Also, it would force the bishops to give their own employees the same justice and respect, that bishops say private and public employers should give to employees.

I could not disagree with you more. This is no solution at all but a way to negatively change Catholic education forever. I want no part of unionized teachers teaching my kids in a private school. I want control of what and how my kids are taught - not the union.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

And if every parent has a different opinion on how children should be taught, and if every parent wants his own way, the teacher is not going to be treated fairly. This all the more reason for Catholic school teachers to be unionized.

Also, while the parents may be paying tuition to send their children to a Catholic school, the school is being heavily subsidized from the general funds of the parish. It has also been observed, that when parents pay tuition to the school, their general contribution to the parish decreases. The parish in general is paying for the school and the parish in general has the right to decide what will be taught in the school.

And just to throw this into the mix. In the State of Wisconsin, tax money is used to subidize almost every Catholic school. Choice schools in the Milwaukee School District get even a bigger subsidies. So, perhaps the taxpayers also should decide what is being taught.

Unless one individual parent is picking up the entire tab for the school, one individual parent has no right to decide what will be taught in the school.

Home schooling is the solution for parents who want complete control over their children’s education.

 

[homeschoolhelen]

Well, I sure have a ton to say about all of this. God Bless that Nun! I have two children that I removed from a local Catholic School that they attended for five years, including preschool. I thought I was making the right decision, boy was I wrong. Maybe if there would have been a Nun there to threaten the students, my life wouldn’t have been so bad. I now homeschool them. God had a plan for me, this was just a journey. This is my first year homeschooling my son and daughter and I will never do anything else. I have two babies that I will start teaching in a couple of years. The Catholic Education was an education on very very bad behavior. Do you know that 15 minutes of math a day is more than my son learned in a week in that school!!! Talk about not learning. There were 23 students in his class, now there are 15!!! The school is going to close soon and the teachers won’t change. I feel so bad that this is what has happened to our Catholic Schools.

Blessings,
Helen

 

[Brad]

Chris Jacobsen:

And if every parent has a different opinion on how children should be taught, and if every parent wants his own way, the teacher is not going to be treated fairly. This all the more reason for Catholic school teachers to be unionized.

That is the Pastor of the Principal’s job to rectify, not the union. The teacher has a private job just like most of America and must agree to the conditions or work elsewhere.
Chris Jacobsen:

Also, while the parents may be paying tuition to send their children to a Catholic school, the school is being heavily subsidized from the general funds of the parish. It has also been observed, that when parents pay tuition to the school, their general contribution to the parish decreases. The parish in general is paying for the school and the parish in general has the right to decide what will be taught in the school.

Correct. The parish should fund the school and the parish should decide what is taught. As a parishoner who also pays tuition, I want part of that say.

Contributions do decrease sometimes. That is a problem. The pastors should preach about proper levels of tything but they usually don’t.
Chris Jacobsen:

And just to throw this into the mix. In the State of Wisconsin, tax money is used to subidize almost every Catholic school. Choice schools in the Milwaukee School District get even a bigger subsidies. So, perhaps the taxpayers also should decide what is being taught.

Nope. Taxpayers subsidize all kinds of things that they have no say in except to talk to their representative. This is no different. But as far as I’m concerned - the Catholic schools should dump the government money before they do decide to implement your suggested idea - which would then make the Catholic schools something other than Catholic.
Chris Jacobsen:

Unless one individual parent is picking up the entire tab for the school, one individual parent has no right to decide what will be taught in the school.

One inidivual parent has A right, not the exculsive right, just as all the other individual parents have such rights - the right should be even moreso if they are a contributing parishoner. To say they should have no right ludicrous. Even in public schools, parents have the right to voice their opinons to school boards and vote them in or out based on imlementation of such.

Parents have the primary duty of educating their children, not teachers.
Chris Jacobsen:

Home schooling is the solution for parents who want complete control over their children’s education.

“Complete control”? Sure. “Some control”? No.

 

[Brad]

Chris Jacobsen:

And if every parent has a different opinion on how children should be taught, and if every parent wants his own way, the teacher is not going to be treated fairly. This all the more reason for Catholic school teachers to be unionized.

Also, while the parents may be paying tuition to send their children to a Catholic school, the school is being heavily subsidized from the general funds of the parish. It has also been observed, that when parents pay tuition to the school, their general contribution to the parish decreases. The parish in general is paying for the school and the parish in general has the right to decide what will be taught in the school.

And just to throw this into the mix. In the State of Wisconsin, tax money is used to subidize almost every Catholic school. Choice schools in the Milwaukee School District get even a bigger subsidies. So, perhaps the taxpayers also should decide what is being taught.

Unless one individual parent is picking up the entire tab for the school, one individual parent has no right to decide what will be taught in the school.

Home schooling is the solution for parents who want complete control over their children’s education.

Much of this is arguing over details rather than addressing the most vital issue.

Unions (at least in my state) have some control over what the teachers teach, where they teach, and when they teach.

My point is that I want no outside party that is disinterested in my kids and most of the other kids at the school having control over anything affecting my kids.

I also don’t want teachers just getting through the day to their retirement for their last 10 years of work. I want teachers that want to be there because they love teaching kids.

 

[homeschoolhelen]

Brad:

Much of this is arguing over details rather than addressing the most vital issue.

Unions (at least in my state) have some control over what the teachers teach, where they teach, and when they teach.

My point is that I want no outside party that is disinterested in my kids and most of the other kids at the school having control over anything affecting my kids.

I also don’t want teachers just getting through the day to their retirement for their last 10 years of work. I want teachers that want to be there because they love teaching kids.

Brad, I am completely following you. I wish I would have come in earlier to this thread!

I never thought in a million years I would homeschool. After my experience with teachers (Catholic School and Unionized) I will never send them to school until College. Maybe my feelings are stronger than most, but there is no doubt that there is a severe problem out there. I just read something that made so much sense, this is just my opinion: In the book it stated that all teachers are qualified and nice and motivating, and if they are not, that works out okay, too, because, hey, that’s the Real World. Get used to it kid.

I have been criticized for being too over protective. If we as parents don’t protect our kids, who is? I could go on and on . . . thanks Brad for all your arguments!

Blessings,
Helen

 

[homeschoolhelen]

Chris Jacobsen:

This incident shows the need for Catholic Church teachers to be members of a labor union. Catholic school teachers need to become members of a tough, no-nonsense union such as the Teamsters.

This would force Catholic Church officials to give Catholic school teachers the same respect that public school teachers get. Also, it would force the bishops to give their own employees the same justice and respect, that bishops say private and public employers should give to employees.

Hello Chris, I am going to put my two cents in here. The Catholic School that my two older children were attending was in a labor union. It was a bunch of ****. Not only are these the most incompetent group of teachers I have EVER SEEN, but now they can’t be fired because of the Union. Everyone of them including the Principal should have been ousted. They don’t teach what the church teaches and their influences on my children were horrible. I will give you two of many examples. One teacher stood in front of the class and announced that she was voting for John Kerry because her husband was going to lose his Union job in the steel industry. I was teaching pro-life, what was she teaching? It is also a well known fact that she is on birth control, again how do I know this? She told me and others. I had two children, could not conceive again and then by the grace of God had two baby girls 13 months apart. My eldest daughter was told by HER teacher that she must be neglected since I was so busy with the babies. Do you think she did after that teacher gave her two cents? I didn’t find this out until after the school year. I come from seven siblings and never once thought about being neglected. I loved coming from a big family and had the same position as my daughter, eldest daughter. There is a list so long I could scream.:banghead: All these things were the nails in the coffin for Catholic School. When I approached the Parish Priest, he could do nothing because of the Unions? Please. I **do **have complete control over the children’s education. I control the loving environment around them and they have blossomed into people with compassion and a love of God. I wish we would have had a nun that threatened knuckle sandwiches!!! It may have saved the school. I paid for an education, I sure got one, but not the kind you thought.:nope:

Blessings,
Helen