Pregnant Student Banned from Graduation, Walks

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

I am glad to hear that you woudl take action if onen of your kids fornicated, I wish more Catholic parents would do that. However, because you would be a good parent in that scenario, in no way negates the school’s role in this matter. They are formal teachers of the faith and they have to respond to these situations. Telling a student not to attend graduation is “nothing” compared to the gravity of the sin commited. It was a very light action taken.

That is exactly my point. Not allowing her to attend graduation seems more relevant to the school than punishment for the girl. If I had administered appropriate punishment, I would not be too happy if the school piled on by not allowing her to attend graduation. She didn’t do anything to the school. She did something to herself and she is going to have to pay for it. The message would be that because you committed grave sin, none of the hard work you did in school for most of your life really should be recognized. That being said, depending on the situation, the father etc, I might not allow her to attend the graduation but ME not allowing this sends a much different message than the school.

Some are saying there is more to the situation and there most likely is. But none are putting enough responsibility on the school.

Perhaps she had a smart mouth with teachers. Maybe she skipped classes or homework or papers. Maybe she was habitually late and distracted other students. These improprieties should have been appropriately addressed when they happened. If it was neccessary to repeat a grade, so be it. If she had to be suspeneded, so bet it. What you cannot do is add everything up, plus the fornication, and then say you can’t attend the ceremony. It sends an unclear and inappropriate message and signal to the girl. I don’t see a behavioral change resulting from missing a graduation ceremony. I see the school saving face.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Brad,

The school does have the right to prohibit one from the ceremony. The diploma was given.

Not arbitarily.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Not arbitarily.

No one said it was arbitrary. Violations of conduct may be addressed in many ways. The school should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the student, particularly in this case when we see that the student was obstinate, diosobedient and willful.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

BRad,

I do not agree. A Priest who has nothing to do with the school has not business telling a person not to attend…that Priest would not have any way of knowing the intimate details of how the school operates. The Priest can suggest that the person not attend, but he cannot properly had out a penance using graduation. Example: If a person commits adultery in the workplace, and then confesses to a Priest, the Priest can certainly give spiritual direction and suggest the person leave that company–yet the Priest would be stepping way outside their responsibility if he said the person HAD to quit their job as a form of penance.

The school did NOT prevent the girl from graduating…they prevented her from the ceremony…that is fully within their rights.

I’m confused.

You are saying, in effect, the priest can prescribe punishment but not do damage to livelihood. Then you said that’s exactly what the school did. They enforced a punishment which had no real effect as she still obtained the diploma.

 

[Trelow]

Brad:

That is exactly my point. Not allowing her to attend graduation seems more relevant to the school than punishment for the girl. If I had administered appropriate punishment, I would not be too happy if the school piled on by not allowing her to attend graduation. She didn’t do anything to the school. She did something to herself and she is going to have to pay for it. The message would be that because you committed grave sin, none of the hard work you did in school for most of your life really should be recognized. That being said, depending on the situation, the father etc, I might not allow her to attend the graduation but ME not allowing this sends a much different message than the school.

Some are saying there is more to the situation and there most likely is. But none are putting enough responsibility on the school.

Perhaps she had a smart mouth with teachers. Maybe she skipped classes or homework or papers. Maybe she was habitually late and distracted other students. These improprieties should have been appropriately addressed when they happened. If it was neccessary to repeat a grade, so be it. If she had to be suspeneded, so bet it. What you cannot do is add everything up, plus the fornication, and then say you can’t attend the ceremony. It sends an unclear and inappropriate message and signal to the girl. I don’t see a behavioral change resulting from missing a graduation ceremony. I see the school saving face.

Were you present behind the closed doors when they made the decision? If not then taking what information is given form the media, Catechism, and the school’s handbook, she acted inappropriately. Even if the school was wrong in their decision to not allow her participation in this extracurricular activity, her actions are not excusable. I’m positive that the school has a formal system in place to address the proper channel of appeals. She acted in inappropriate dissent to a legitimate authority. Inexcusable. The line of reasoning that she exhibited, provided she have a valid reason to question the actions taken by the school, is in line with Eric Rudolph’s actions. Objectively they are one in the same.

 

[Brad]

fix:

No one said it was arbitrary. Violations of conduct may be addressed in many ways. The school should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the student, particularly in this case when we see that the student was obstinate, diosobedient and willful.

Obstinant, willful, and disobedient behavior is encouraged by arbitrary rulings that use power and authority as the only means of enforcement. This doesn’t justify what the girl did afterwards, but there is a way to discourage such behavior, while still providing adequate punishment.

I think we all agree that missing graduation is not adequate punishment for what happened. But because she probably did NOT receive any other punishment, the message was not clear to her, so she rebelled. It was arbitrary to her because the rulebook did not clearly state that graduation would be missed under such circumstances.

I can give the school the benefit of the doubt in being rightfully upset and what she did. What she did was wrong. She NEVER should have violated the school order. I’m just not exempting blame from the school.

 

[TarAshly]

Trelow:

Were you present behind the closed doors when they made the decision? If not then taking what information is given form the media, Catechism, and the school’s handbook, she acted inappropriately. Even if the school was wrong in their decision to not allow her participation in this extracurricular activity, her actions are not excusable. I’m positive that the school has a formal system in place to address the proper channel of appeals. She acted in inappropriate dissent to a legitimate authority. Inexcusable. The line of reasoning that she exhibited, provided she have a valid reason to question the actions taken by the school, is in line with Eric Rudolph’s actions. Objectively they are one in the same.

so why can the school be wrong and thats ok, but this girl cant (all though i dont think what she did was wrong at all, i would have done the same thing myself) the school is not infalable, the principal is not God, she confessed her sins, she surely faced some reprimand at home, not to mention the shame and difficult life shes going to have to deal with, HEY! we’re Catholics! why not rub some salt in that wound! BAD IDEA! this is going to send Catholic school girls straight into the lairs of Planned Parenthood, because after all, they understand her needs, they know what the school and teachers and class mates, and friends and family and society and church goers are going to do to her, they are going to shun her, shame her, berate her. and of course the babys dad is going to go dancing prom night away with another girl and college is out of the question, she cant enjoy her hard earned graduation and her life is over, so Lets just get rid of the “mass of cells” that are going to cause all of this pain and suffering and embarrasment, and then she can go back to the life of a normal teenager and no one ever has to know. Do you see where this type of treatment of these young women may lead? its exactly the oxygen that PP lives on to keep their abortion mills open for business.

 

[Brad]

Trelow:

Were you present behind the closed doors when they made the decision? If not then taking what information is given form the media, Catechism, and the school’s handbook, she acted inappropriately. Even if the school was wrong in their decision to not allow her participation in this extracurricular activity, her actions are not excusable. I’m positive that the school has a formal system in place to address the proper channel of appeals. She acted in inappropriate dissent to a legitimate authority. Inexcusable. The line of reasoning that she exhibited, provided she have a valid reason to question the actions taken by the school, is in line with Eric Rudolph’s actions. Objectively they are one in the same.

You are being a little severe in expecting an emotionally immature girl who seems to be missing a father to have the same reasoning ability as a rational adult.

However, for the upteenth time, I do not excuse the actions of the girl. I believe the actions of the girl were wrong. This, of course, is not much different from many other kids across the nation that break the rules at graduation because they no longer believe punishment is possible. This is where parents drop the ball.

 

[Penny_Plain]

fix:

The school should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the student, particularly in this case when we see that the student was obstinate, diosobedient and willful.

Tell me again why you’re claiming the school should be given the benefit of the doubt even after it lied about the reason it was banning her from graduation?

 

[Trelow]

Brad:

You are being a little severe in expecting an emotionally immature girl who seems to be missing a father to have the same reasoning ability as a rational adult.

Both are a willful dissent form proper authority, and form legal actions to a situation. So yes, objectively they are the same in that regard. Now, yes, her reasoning is compromised.

However, for the upteenth time, I do not excuse the actions of the girl. I believe the actions of the girl were wrong. This, of course, is not much different from many other kids across the nation that break the rules at graduation because they no longer believe punishment is possible. This is where parents drop the ball.

Noted. I must have misunderstood you. My consensus still stands though, for those who would support her actions.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Obstinant, willful, and disobedient behavior is encouraged by arbitrary rulings that use power and authority as the only means of enforcement. This doesn’t justify what the girl did afterwards, but there is a way to discourage such behavior, while still providing adequate punishment.

I think we all agree that missing graduation is not adequate punishment for what happened. But because she probably did NOT receive any other punishment, the message was not clear to her, so she rebelled. It was arbitrary to her because the rulebook did not clearly state that graduation would be missed under such circumstances.

I can give the school the benefit of the doubt in being rightfully upset and what she did. What she did was wrong. She NEVER should have violated the school order. I’m just not exempting blame from the school.

Brad,

It seems your quarrel is that prohibiting her from graduation is unsound because other “punishments” were not administered at other times in the past? We do not know if that is true or not.

I do not know what the school guidelines are or how the administration handled the situation. They may have done everything they were required to do before the law and before almighty God. I cannot see faulting the school based on the limited information presented from the news account. I can see faulting the student from the news account. The rest is speculation. The benefit of the doubt should go to the school unless proven differently.

 

[Trelow]

TarAshly:

so why can the school be wrong and thats ok, but this girl cant (all though i dont think what she did was wrong at all, i would have done the same thing myself) the school is not infalable, the principal is not God, she confessed her sins, she surely faced some reprimand at home, not to mention the shame and difficult life shes going to have to deal with, HEY! we’re Catholics! why not rub some salt in that wound! BAD IDEA! this is going to send Catholic school girls straight into the lairs of Planned Parenthood, because after all, they understand her needs, they know what the school and teachers and class mates, and friends and family and society and church goers are going to do to her, they are going to shun her, shame her, berate her. and of course the babys dad is going to go dancing prom night away with another girl and college is out of the question, she cant enjoy her hard earned graduation and her life is over, so Lets just get rid of the “mass of cells” that are going to cause all of this pain and suffering and embarrasment, and then she can go back to the life of a normal teenager and no one ever has to know. Do you see where this type of treatment of these young women may lead? its exactly the oxygen that PP lives on to keep their abortion mills open for business.

You are missing the whole point.

And your argument is morally relativistic, and therefore invalid. I suggest that you refrain form discourse in which you are so emotionally charged as not to be-able to see the rhyme and reason.

 

[TarAshly]

Trelow:

You are missing the whole point, and your argument is morally relativistic.

care to elaborate? cause i thought my argument had was pretty vaild, i think you are a little afraid that i might have a point her, rather than im missing it.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

Tell me again why you’re claiming the school should be given the benefit of the doubt even after it lied about the reason it was banning her from graduation?

How do you know they lied? The school is the legitimate authority and the girl, by her own admission, defied them. We do not know what exactly was said by the school to the student and her mother.

 

[fix]

TarAshly:

so why can the school be wrong and thats ok, but this girl cant (all though i dont think what she did was wrong at all, i would have done the same thing myself) the school is not infalable, the principal is not God, she confessed her sins, she surely faced some reprimand at home, not to mention the shame and difficult life shes going to have to deal with, HEY! we’re Catholics! why not rub some salt in that wound! BAD IDEA! this is going to send Catholic school girls straight into the lairs of Planned Parenthood, because after all, they understand her needs, they know what the school and teachers and class mates, and friends and family and society and church goers are going to do to her, they are going to shun her, shame her, berate her. and of course the babys dad is going to go dancing prom night away with another girl and college is out of the question, she cant enjoy her hard earned graduation and her life is over, so Lets just get rid of the “mass of cells” that are going to cause all of this pain and suffering and embarrasment, and then she can go back to the life of a normal teenager and no one ever has to know. Do you see where this type of treatment of these young women may lead? its exactly the oxygen that PP lives on to keep their abortion mills open for business.

Your argument seems to be that no prohibitions may ever be imposed as they may lead to the culprit committing a greater sin?

 

[TarAshly]

fix:

Your argument seems to be that no prohibitions may ever be imposed as they may lead to the culprit committing a greater sin?

not at all. im simply stating that her punishment should be left to her parents, that is after all their job. its not the schools, and the school in my opinion was only trying to cover their butts as if to say “see! look! no pregnant unweds in CATHOLIC school! look how perfect we are!” but again thats just my take on it. i do however believe that the public taking actions into their own hands like this leads to abortions.

 

[fix]

From the news report:

Cosby was told in March that she could no longer attend school because of safety concerns, and her name was not listed in the graduation program.

Does this mean the school told the reporter this or the mother told the reporter? If this was stated by the school, unverified btw, did the school say this was the only reason, the chief reason, or were there other reasons the school withheld so as not to further embarrass the student?

 

[Brad]

fix:

Brad,

It seems your quarrel is that prohibiting her from graduation is unsound because other “punishments” were not administered at other times in the past? We do not know if that is true or not.

I do not know what the school guidelines are or how the administration handled the situation. They may have done everything they were required to do before the law and before almighty God. I cannot see faulting the school based on the limited information presented from the news account. I can see faulting the student from the news account. The rest is speculation. The benefit of the doubt should go to the school unless proven differently.

You are technically correct regarding the benefit of the doubt. I’m not trying to find a winner here. To summarize what I am saying is that:

1. What the girl did was wrong at least twice. Once, the fornication. Twice, rebelling against the school openly.
2. I believe very strongly the school could have handled the situation differently. I understand we have limited information but what we do have doesn’t add up. If they had done everything under God and the law and she was still obstinant, she should have been suspened from school completely. Maybe she was. Then they should have watched for her and not allowed her in for graduation. There are a million different scenarios.

I admit I am basing most of my thoughts more on what I have witnessed in Catholic schools rather than this particular school.

 

[fix]

TarAshly:

not at all. im simply stating that her punishment should be left to her parents, that is after all their job. its not the schools, and the school in my opinion was only trying to cover their butts as if to say “see! look! no pregnant unweds in CATHOLIC school! look how perfect we are!” but again thats just my take on it. i do however believe that the public taking actions into their own hands like this leads to abortions.

Ashly,

Punishment may not be the sole reason she was banned. Yes, parents are chiefly responsible, but that in no way means pregnant students have all the “rights” and the school and has no obligation to maintain order and decorum as they see fit.

Catholic schools have a code. That code needs to be obeyed, if not then why go there in the first place?

The other argument about abortion is plain silly and irrelevant to the issue. One may certainly be forgiven, genuinely loved, yet still suffer the consequences of their bad actions.

 

[Trelow]

TarAshly:

care to elaborate? cause i thought my argument had was pretty vaild, i think you are a little afraid that i might have a point her, rather than im missing it.

No prob.

so why can the school be wrong and thats ok, but this girl cant (all though i dont think what she did was wrong at all, i would have done the same thing myself) the school is not infalable, the principal is not God, she confessed her sins, she surely faced some reprimand at home, not to mention the shame and difficult life shes going to have to deal with, HEY! we’re Catholics! why not rub some salt in that wound! BAD IDEA!

The school is a proper authority. This authority has a established regulation to address the situation in which she was involved in. There is a proper channel in which to address any miss-action taken by the authority, real or perceived.

We are only presented with the story form the media. And as such have no idea what all transpired behind closed doors.

The girl acted in a manner outside of the legal construct, when there were appropriate and legal means. She did so in defiance of a legal and proper authority. Here actions of dissent set a precedent for such immoral and illegal public dissent. And as such will only act to undermine any future actions taken by the authority wither appropriate or not, whomever they may involve.

Here dissent stems from the sin of Liberlism. Such actions can be associated with the actions of Eric Rudolph, Martin Luther,
and most noticeably, Satan.

this is going to send Catholic school girls straight into the lairs of Planned Parenthood, because after all, they understand her needs, they know what the school and teachers and class mates, and friends and family and society and church goers are going to do to her, they are going to shun her, shame her, berate her. and of course the babys dad is going to go dancing prom night away with another girl and college is out of the question, she cant enjoy her hard earned graduation and her life is over, so Lets just get rid of the “mass of cells” that are going to cause all of this pain and suffering and embarrasment, and then she can go back to the life of a normal teenager and no one ever has to know. Do you see where this type of treatment of these young women may lead? its exactly the oxygen that PP lives on to keep their abortion mills open for business.

This is emotionally charged dialogue without merit, the morally relativistic portion of your appology.

To neglect to administer punishment simply because there may be a chance for the mentally immature to commit a greater sin is to allow Satan to dictate when we should take proper action. It is handing over our rightful authority to him, through a perceived, and most likely invalid fear.