F
felra
Guest
It is called having a well-informed and well-formed conscience and a healthy fear of offending God. The Holy Spirit takes care of the rest.
- Status
T
Trelow
Guest
Sorry bro. Public sin is scandal. By your reasoning Rainbow sashers should not be denied communion, after all there are those who live the homosexual lifestyle unbeknownst to the priest that are receiving.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Public sin? That’s different. I had assumed she had engaged in sex in private. Then her only role in making it public would have been to commit the additional sin of not having an abortion.
According to your system she would only be denied Communion if she did not abort. If she did, nobody would ever know she was pregnant. BTW, I thought we were talking about disciplinary action in school and not denying Communion, but I can raise it a notch.Luckily, I have not had any encounters with “Rainbow Sashers” but as I undersand it, do they not flaunt their sexual dysfunction for all to see and supposedly accept?
Public sin. Public sin. You sound like you can’t wait to stone the whore. Jesus intervened 2000 years ago, and hopefully will continue to intervene today.
Because if we use visible pregnancy as a measuring stick to punish them, then we might as well put up an announcement: Young girls, you all know you should be fooling around with sex. Young boys, you too. The penalty for doing so is as follows: boys, there is no penalty unless you want to fess up. Girls, you have two choices. 1) You can carry the baby to term, thus exposing your sins in public and be punish and outcast for it, or 2) you can terminate your unfortunate medical condition and as far as we’re concerned you might just as well be a virgin and we will let you join us as we scorn the women who made choice number 1.
Trelow, what is your obsession with playing the role of the accuser? Don’t hide behind “you have to inform the sinner of their sin” because 99% of the time she knows it was a sin, and the other time she is mentally retarded and was raped.
Oh yeah, that brings up another point. If a young girl is raped and decides not to abort, would you punish her as well? By your system how would you determine?
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I agree. That would be the attitude for one who has faith to take. If we can’t instill that in young people, then external controls are not going to work. :whacky:
External controls are all the faithless have, however. Either that, or I guess we like to think we have to help the Holy Spirit fix each other, at least when the sins are the kind that show on the outside. Maybe Jesus will just kind of turn and look the other way while we rough up certain sinners for whom He died. That way when the Holy Spirit finally does step in (He must not have or the girl wouldn’t be pregnant) He will be pleased to find that part of His work is already done! :banghead:
My guess is it is could also be a matter of pride. One sinner doesn’t like to be in the same spiritual hospital as another sinner because they think the other one is more disgusting to God. :tsktsk:
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
There was a pregnant teen once named Mary.
Mary had a little Lamb of God.
Coming to school “with Lamb” was against the rules and she did not graduate.
That is because at school it is the appearance of sin, not the sin itself, that we punish. We don’t want to be scandalized by other sinners who can’t hide their sins.
Mary had a little Lamb of God.
Coming to school “with Lamb” was against the rules and she did not graduate.
That is because at school it is the appearance of sin, not the sin itself, that we punish. We don’t want to be scandalized by other sinners who can’t hide their sins.
L
LSK
Guest
If I understood the article correctly, the young lady was asked NOT to participate in the graduation CEREMONY. Now, I happen to believe the young man should not have participated also - and if he was to be allowed to do so, then he should have had the backbone and good grace to say “No”.
A Graduation ceremony is not the equivilent of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. From her actions, I can deduce that she is not sorry and is, in fact, defiant. I am not judgin’, just reportin’. AND, I want to point out that I really do not know what her thoughts or intentions were at the time.
There are very few cultures that hold the man as publicly responsible for this type of sinning as they do a woman. I think there is more to this story that meets the eye. Where were her parents, and his? What type of parent tells their son, “Oh, your girlfriend is pregnant? Well, isn’t she a bad girl, you poor little thing…now go get your diploma”. We don’t know that this is what the parents of the boy said - and I am being snotty about them - but I agree that there is shared culpability and that while this baby is a wonderful gift from God the actions of its parents should not be held up and esteemed.
I understand it is not politically correct to support the idea of being ashamed of one’s actions, but sometimes the feeling fits the action and is appropriate. What I get from this young lady’s action is “I am mad and I am going to do what I want.”.
Doesn’t sound like mommy material YET, does it?
Alan is making a good point when he brings up a reason so many young women abort their babies. It is because of shame. However, I don’t think it is fair to hold school officials responsible for that - if the conception was concealed from adults I doubt the teens chosing to abort the baby made an announcement of their intention to do so over the loudspeaker after morning Mass.
We do have to learn to love the sinner and hate the sin. It’s a tough thing to do.
L
LSK
Guest
Trust me, Schlemele, many of our ‘Catholic’ schools do not act in tandem with the Holy Mother Church. Do NOT extrapilate from these actions to include the Church. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if the school officials consulted with the magisterium.
S
surfinpure
Guest
I’m not sure excluding a pregnant teen from a stage ceremony equals stoning her to death.
Alan, please don’t think that because we want to minimize scandal we’re condemning all those who sin. That simply is not the case. Here in my city we have Project Gabriel, one of many, many Catholic ministries devoted to reaching out to pregnant teens. While the school in question has been noted for its “disciplinary” action (which, in my opinion, was not disciplinary but simply common sense), we don’t know the other measures that were taken to help this girl. In fact, we don’t know much about the situation at all.
Are you not also aware of the Church’s practice of excommunication? By your standards, would the Church be unduly punishing sinners by refusing them the eucharist or other sacraments? Obviously, the Church draws the line on certain issues, and those in authority at a Catholic high school have to do the same.
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
oh my! You’ve completely left out Joseph which gave validation to her and thus the Lord was born without the tarnish of sin.
As for the appearance of sin, well let’s say the girl wanted to walk across the stage carrying a sign that said "Have had sex without marriage and deserve respect for it because you’re all sinners too anyhow!"
Would that be okay too? Most parents would be a mite upset at seeing that spectacle in their catholic school I think and there’s no difference between that and what this girl did.
T
Trelow
Guest
Dude you’ve lost it.Public sin? That’s different. I had assumed she had engaged in sex in private. Then her only role in making it public would have been to commit the additional sin of not having an abortion.
Luckily, I have not had any encounters with “Rainbow Sashers” but as I undersand it, do they not flaunt their sexual dysfunction for all to see and supposedly accept?
Public sin. Public sin. You sound like you can’t wait to stone the whore. Jesus intervened 2000 years ago, and hopefully will continue to intervene today.
Because if we use visible pregnancy as a measuring stick to punish them, then we might as well put up an announcement: Young girls, you all know you should be fooling around with sex. Young boys, you too. The penalty for doing so is as follows: boys, there is no penalty unless you want to fess up. Girls, you have two choices. 1) You can carry the baby to term, thus exposing your sins in public and be punish and outcast for it, or 2) you can terminate your unfortunate medical condition and as far as we’re concerned you might just as well be a virgin and we will let you join us as we scorn the women who made choice number 1.
Trelow, what is your obsession with playing the role of the accuser? Don’t hide behind “you have to inform the sinner of their sin” because 99% of the time she knows it was a sin, and the other time she is mentally retarded and was raped.
Oh yeah, that brings up another point. If a young girl is raped and decides not to abort, would you punish her as well? By your system how would you determine?
Alan
It is not the place of either of us to decide what her punishment should be. That dicision was left with the school, as the proper authority, and they acted as they saw fit.
Her blatant disregard of authority is the issue in this case, see my apology in the other post and then form a nice, rational, logical, unemotional response.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=56080&page=1&pp=100
Pay close attention to posts # 60, 220, and 225
Fix and TPJCatholic have some excellent points as well.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I didn’t read the article, so I’ll go with you on this. If she would have made a spectacle or required extra assistance that would actually have called public attention to her sin (scandal), I’d say it is a judgment call for school officials and not have any problem with that.
In the ceremony, I’d say it is the scandal you are trying to prevent. You are not, unless I am missing something, trying to “inflict pain” on her in some physical, emotional, societal, or whatever realm simply because we are duty bound to cause her more pain than she’s already in so she knows we don’t approve of her sin.
Some think that in order to preserve an institution, one has to make a public example out of someone. The one who was without sins chose not to cast a stone.
I’ll take your word again for that. We don’t want her using her situation as a weapon of her own.
What type of parent? Mine. My parents are wonderful and love me greatly. They did not like this girl and prevented me from marrying her. She was not Catholic and her family scoffed at Catholicism. My mother was privvy to information that I was not, but we did not have a good enough relationship for her to tell me. I did not see the daughter from the time she was five and the time she was 18 and she found me. There was much rejoicing. Without further details, we are not in contact anymore and I wish her the best of luck.
As it is, I have the best family with a loving Catholic wife and six beautiful children one could ever want.
How can I rewrite history? Would things really be better if I had the power to go back and make different choices? The answer is, the question is superfluous.
Thank you. No, in fact, I hold nobody responsible. I might speculate that a certain person’s actions may have cause things to go this way or that way, but I start from the basic premise that nobody involved here is actually trying to do anything other than what it good. Therefore it becomes a discussion of cause and effect and not so much one of applying worldly punishment for immorality.
On the cause-and-effect angle:
Actually, maybe punishing her publicly would negate her having to pay the price in heaven, since the earth has already claimed its punishment against her. Could it be that publicly humiliating her could help lead to redemption? Hmmm.
Also the worse her sins are, the more she will love if she has those sins forgiven. We help her by telling her how terrible her sins are so that when Christ forgives her with His blood, she will reach even a greater degree of love.
The law increases sin, bringing indictment. Then a wheat grain can fall and multiply 100 fold?
Then again, love conquers all. What did Love Incarnate say to a woman who was guilty of a scandalous capitol crime? The institution must be preserved so we must make good our promises of punishing misbehavior?
Here’s how I think about these things: Christ said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” and he said “do not judge.” Taking that into account, I try to construct a possible scenario of reality that takes all facts into account but ends up acquitting everybody, at least of being intentionally unloving if not of being annoying.
Alan
P.S. I have absolutely no grudge agains my parents. My dad is surely a saint and my mother is a great example and still a great instructor for me. What they did, I have no doubt they did for what they believed at the time was my best interest.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
That’s a really good point. I was once insulted for bringing up the idea that the spiritual director (a priest) for a Catholic High School should review disciplinary policies for their adherence to the school mission of forming children in the image of Christ. I had to give up that battle. They were right and I was wrong; it was prideful of me to have suggested it, and probably showed in my manner.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Lost it? I didn’t know I ever had it!
OK, whatever. The OP asked how we feel about it. I said I think it is a bad idea to punish girls for being pregnant, in part because it could increase the number of abortions.
You said I was all wrong, and when I asked you said her sin was public. If her sin truly was against the public, then we should indeed have a say so in how she is treated.
I never said the authorities don’t have the right to do whatever they see fit. I was commenting on whether their action would likely drive the right behavior. If a policy results in more abortions, but saves the “integrity” of the system by being absolute, is it a good policy?
Oh, gosh. At this point here is the most logical, unemotional response I can think of that fits.
Alan – chair of the dead horse beater’s club
F
fix
Guest
Where did you get the idea Mary was an unwed mother?
In his beautiful Apostolic Exhortation on St. Joseph, *Guardian of the Redeemer* (nos. 2, 18), Pope John Paul II has repeatedly reaffirmed (in conformity to Catholic Tradition) that it was "after her marriage to Joseph that Mary is found to be with child of the Holy Spirit."
T
Trelow
Guest
I’m rather peeved with your disrespect of Our Blessed Mother, I’ll be leaving this conversation now before I get my butt banned. The case is made in the other thread, and quite frankly you are correct, you never had it.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I never said Mary was an unwed mother. Are you saying that Mary never endured any false accusations about her condition?
My abstraction level was apparently one notch too high. My comments related to judging by appearances.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I’m sorry if I offended you in a misguided attempt to make a point. My intent was not to disrespect the Blessed Mother, but to point out that judging and punishing someone based on external appearances would be tantamount to judging Mary.
For your own sake, I hope you can forgive me, as I hold no grudge against you. Whether you are peeved is your decision. You might look into some anger management, or if you can only get through one or two items on your list of things to do per day, try starting once on something other than the first item.
Alan
S
swampfox
Guest
Perhaps, because of your self described high abstraction level, you don’t recognize the self evident simple fact that you are making up some Holy Scripture and distorting the historical record about Mary to make your point. Such fantastic distortion, which may in your situation be a simple case of projection, is a misuse or even abuse of Mary for your own ends.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Projection? Abuse of Mary for my own ends?
I’m trying to get across to people that the One Who Was Without Sin did not condemn the woman who had “publicly” sinned.
If we treat a least of Christ’s brothers with contempt, then have we not treated Christ Himself with contempt? Didn’t Christ teach that? Here he “used” himself for purposes of illustration.
Is it really any more of a stretch that treating a least of Christ’s sisters with contempt would grieve him just as if it were his own mother?
I will confess to the sin of using poor wording. I really didn’t even make the point all that well when it comes down to it.
.Alan
S
surfinpure
Guest
I agree that treating someone with contempt would grieve the heart of Christ … but I don’t think the school (or anyone on the forum) has done that. As I said in an earlier post, for all we know, the school took measures, as many Catholic organizations do, to help the girl do the right thing. Excluding her from a public display is not treating her with contempt, but rather showing love to the hundreds of other teenagers who were present.
- Status