Pregnant Teen Catholic Graduation

[AlanFromWichita]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

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.

Right, and I’m with you. On this example, as I understand (still didn’t read the story) the girl was determined to make it into a show, which I agree is wrong and the school rightly could have stopped.

I was responding to the apparent attitude of “she sinned publicly and must be punished.” That’s where I got off, because I think casting stones “to uphold the integrity of the law” or “to send a message to others” or whatever the reason clearly was not what Christ had intended. By saying he who is without sin should cast the first stone, and the He, who was without sin, chose not to do it, I think we find that mercy triumphs over doggedly carrying out punitive actions toward those sinners whose sins are showing. Also, as I said before, it drives the wrong behavior.

One of the few times I seem to have an anger problem is when I see what I perceive as one sinner crowing about how another brother’s sins are worse than theirs. This may be in my perception more often than not, but I think I get triggered by certain verbal clues. Probably just old baggage getting in my eye.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

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

Is that what you are selling? I ain’t buying.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Is that what you are selling? I ain’t buying.

You aren’t buying that we should not judge on appearances?

That surprises me.

Then you think we should judge and condemn based on mere appearances?

Or are you saying that because a girl is pregnant she must be guilty of a sin and therefore appearances tell the whole story?

Or are you saying that punishing girls for feing visibly pregnant does not increase the number of abortions? If so, then how do you figure, and what do you think of pro-life groups that provide shelter and necessities for unwed mothers – do you think they are enabling the girls and therefore aiding and abetting their sin?

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

You aren’t buying that we should not judge on appearances?

That surprises me.

Then you think we should judge and condemn based on mere appearances?

Or are you saying that because a girl is pregnant she must be guilty of a sin and therefore appearances tell the whole story?

Or are you saying that punishing girls for feing visibly pregnant does not increase the number of abortions? If so, then how do you figure, and what do you think of pro-life groups that provide shelter and necessities for unwed mothers – do you think they are enabling the girls and therefore aiding and abetting their sin?

Alan

I reject your assertion that Mary was an unwed mother, or that people correctly think of her in that way.

As to the case of the school girl before us, yes the school was correct. If they intentionally only “punished” the female and not the male, that was wrong.

The abortion issue is not relevant.

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

We cannot avoid properly administering discipline just because some people may freak out and get abortions as a result. There is simply no real Catholic who would get an abortion, if they do then they are proving they have no depth of formation in the faith.

 

[TPJCatholic]

This topic, which centers on the article about the girl, has nothing to do with the boy or with abortion. People try to use the boy and abortion as clever bait and switch tactics to remove the light from the girl.

 

[surfinpure]

TPJ, I agree on both points.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

I reject your assertion that Mary was an unwed mother, or that people correctly think of her in that way.

Oh, that doesn’t surprise me. My point, which I have already pleaded guilty to making poorly, was lost in the presentation.

However, I do not assert, nor did I intend to before, that Mary was, in fact, an unwed mother or that anybody did correctly think of her that way. I did assert that people may have thought incorrectly about her that way, at the time, but then someone corrected me and said she was married to Joseph before being pregnant. Do you suppose there were people who saw Mary pregnant and “assumed” that it was through conjugal relations – in our outside of marriage?

I suppose if I was trying to make a point at all, it should have focused on Joseph who believed an angel in his dreams over the “physical evidence” of Mary being with child.

As to the case of the school girl before us, yes the school was correct. If they intentionally only “punished” the female and not the male, that was wrong.

I agree it is selective. The problem is implementing such a solution. I tried to find the article but it wasn’t there when I checked; I also got the impression this particular case might have been more about a belligerent teen making a spectacle or herself rather than any actual “punishment.”

The abortion issue is not relevant.

I think it is absolutely relevant.

The whole idea of even having a disciplinary system is to try to drive correct behavior. I assert that implementing a particular disciplinary policy will result in increased abortions, which is probably not the behavior you want to drive, and you are saying that is not to be factored in? That is because you are punishing her for getting caught rather for sinning in the first place. In such a disciplinary system, two wrongs (fornication leading to pregnance, followed by abortion) do make a right, and keep her out of the records.

Is it that you don’t believe abortions will be increased, or that a few extra abortions is acceptable in the name of keeping up appearances at the school?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TPJCatholic:

alan,

We cannot avoid properly administering discipline just because some people may freak out and get abortions as a result. There is simply no real Catholic who would get an abortion, if they do then they are proving they have no depth of formation in the faith.

What is “proper administration” of discipline, if it drives the wrong behavior? The point of discipline is to bring about correct behavior, and if it drives them to worse behavior then the discipline system itself is flawed.

This is a huge problem with disciplinary systems. Kids learn at an early age that proper behavior does not always keep one out of trouble, nor does mischief get you into trouble. It is all about getting caught.

If they had depth of formation in the faith, they wouldn’t be pregnant to begin with. That is, unless they are not telling us something – like it’s their stepdad who is really the father and they are afraid/ashamed/unwilling to admit it.

Why are we so insistent that discipline must be administered whenever someone engages in a sinful sexual act? Jesus specifically thwarted the administration of discipline against a sexual sinner when it was properly prescribed. Didn’t anyone tell Jesus that He was sending the wrong message and setting a bad precedent by letting her get away with it?

Does depth of formation in the faith also include behaving as Jesus did toward sinners, or does it include using man-made formulas for dealing with sins that we are sufficiently formed to be able to call sin? We think we’re protecting Christ and His bride against this woman’s sin, just like Peter cut off the servant’s ear. Christ should probably have applauded Peter for being such a good crusader.

Alan

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

The whole idea of even having a disciplinary system is to try to drive correct behavior. I assert that implementing a particular disciplinary policy will result in increased abortions, which is probably not the behavior you want to drive, and you are saying that is not to be factored in? That is because you are punishing her for getting caught rather for sinning in the first place. In such a disciplinary system, two wrongs (fornication leading to pregnance, followed by abortion) do make a right, and keep her out of the records.

Is it that you don’t believe abortions will be increased, or that a few extra abortions is acceptable in the name of keeping up appearances at the school?

Alan

The school’s disciplinary action is not/should not be about keeping up appearance or “driving” anyone to choose greater sin. If this were the case, then every adolescent in the country would have the upper hand on proper authority. Funny how some set such low expectations for the young one’s entrusted to our care, as if they are at the whims of the prevailing cultural ethos.

Something is amiss when parents and staff at a Catholic school fear that an appropriate disciplinary action will “result” in a more grave offense against God.

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

I hesitate to go in-depth on this thread because I posted many messages on the duplicate thread. However, you appear to think there should be no consequences for our actions, and I feel that is a view that has caused our culture to take a huge dive into the pit of sin. Jesus told the sinning woman to go and sin no more, he also taught that we are to obey and they we are to give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar. The school administrators are a legitimate authority over the students and they have every right to apply discipline when such publicly known sins happen. Without that all Catholic school might as well close and become public schools, because there is effectively no difference without moral discipline being applied.

It was a CATHOLIC school, not a secularized antifaith public school, parents pay to discipline, not chaos.

Tell me, suppose you went into a store and stole a candy bar, would your fer of being caught cause you then to murder someone?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TPJCatholic:

This topic, which centers on the article about the girl, has nothing to do with the boy or with abortion. People try to use the boy and abortion as clever bait and switch tactics to remove the light from the girl.

In this particular case, the girl actually brought the light on herself so I am not one of the “people” you mentioned.

Any article that involves systematic disciplinary systems involving pregnant teenagers is automatically about abortion because we are artificially making the option to carry the baby to term more miserable than it already might be for her. Thus, our discipline system directly encourages abortion in the case of girls who have already gotten pregnant. Especially if it was through statutory rape.

I’m harping on this partly because when I answered the Youth Crisis Hotline I averaged maybe one call a day from girls whose mother’s boyfriends or stepdads were molesting them. Their mothers not only didn’t believe them, they considered them competition and/or punished them for accusing the man. There is no way these girls are about to tell a school official the real truth, so they have a choice. Seek an abortion (through the court if needed) or be further punished for a crime they did not do.

You cannot separate the issues of disciplining pregnant teenagers from the issue of encouraging abortion. Conservative Republican often accuse Liberal Democrats of making rules that sound good and pious, but that in fact drive wrong behavior. At least that’s the way they see it when it involves social justice. Here we have you saying that “proper” discipline should be applied without regard to what behavior it will cause. This is the one exampleof the convoluted thinking that makes children wary of authority figures in the first place.

Alan

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

I do not agree…abortion is never an option and if it is then the school and the parents have failed miserably. We cannot tread softly just because we FEAR what the young might do–that is a ridiculous way to respond. Young people need absolute boundaries…period, end of story. They need to know with no ambiguity that there are consequences.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

The school’s disciplinary action is not/should not be about keeping up appearance or “driving” anyone to choose greater sin. If this were the case, then every adolescent in the country would have the upper hand on proper authority. Funny how some set such low expectations for the young one’s entrusted to our care, as if they are at the whims of the prevailing cultural ethos.

Actually I have a higher standard. We should win their hearts, in which case they would be predisposed to correct behavior and not fighting us. I want my children to listen to me because they love me and respect my good guidance, not because I am on a sufficient power trip to be able to coerce them into doing what’s right, or at least if they do wrong to cover it so I don’t see it.

Kids aren’t idiots. They know how to play the game, and if you insist on making it a game they will probably win because they outnumber the authorities.

Something is amiss when parents and staff at a Catholic school fear that an appropriate disciplinary action will “result” in a more grave offense against God.

Yes, and that fear should cause them to explore whether that action is, in fact, appropriate.

What do you think about so-called pro-life organizations that shelter and provide for pregnant teens, such as A Better Choice? Do you think those are anti-Catholic because they support fornication, or are they pro-Catholic because they give an alternative to abortion?

Alan

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

As a parent, I share your desire to win over the hearts of the young through loving guidance, etc…yet I also desire to let them know they will see my wrath if they step over the line. Just as adults, if my kids want my trust, they MUST earn it, it is not just given. Likewise, students in a Catholic school should be given unflinching formation in the faith, and they should also be given absolute boundaries. We all hope that our young become well informed enough to be able to fight off their desires to do bad things…yet they must also know without any doubt that there will be consequences.
It is the removal of consequences in our culture that has lead to abortion, adultery, divorce, etc…the vast majority of people think they can do whatever they please without any consequences at all and it seems to me that you are a strong advocate of that thinking (no insult intended).

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TPJCatholic:

alan,

I do not agree…abortion is never an option and if it is then the school and the parents have failed miserably. We cannot tread softly just because we FEAR what the young might do–that is a ridiculous way to respond. Young people need absolute boundaries…period, end of story. They need to know with no ambiguity that there are consequences.

Yes, I can see how well that worked with the war on drugs, and “three strikes and your out.”

Yes, they know with no ambiguity there are consequences, but to what? To GETTING CAUGHT. Hello, but there are ways to keep from getting caught even after you’re already pregnant.

I’m not suggesting we tread softly because of what we fear they will do, but that we rethink our position because of what we know they will do.

Maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. We need consequences, but why stop at preventing graduation? Let’s just kick them out of school entirely or at least fail them for any semester they are pregnant. That would send them a strong message, and keep them from being a bad influence on the other girls. That tells them that WE MEAN BUSINESS and we ARE NOT MESSING AROUND with them.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Let’s just kick them out of school entirely or at least fail them for any semester they are pregnant. That would send them a strong message, and keep them from being a bad influence on the other girls. That tells them that WE MEAN BUSINESS and we ARE NOT MESSING AROUND with them.

Alan

The girl was allowed to graduate, she was not allowed at the ceremony. Hardly draconian.

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

By consequences I am talking about matters far more important than these temporal issues. Jesus taught us very clearly that there are eternal consequences to our actions and the young need to know nwithout any doubt that there are eternal consequences, along with temporal consequences. The temporal consequences we suffer help us to realize that there are eternal consequences…perhaps not until we are older, but it does work.

The girl did graduate, in that she received her diploma. Her temporal consequence was she was told not to walk at the graduation ceremony, yet her diploma is not less real then the other students. It was very mild consequence and yet the girl caused a public scandal with her defiant anti-authority prance across the stage…she acted not at all like a Catholic and she showed no remorse for her sins at all.

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

Our young need to know that it will be very uncomfortable for them to engage in these sorts of sin…the Biblical “spare the rod” routine has gotten to much bad press.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TPJCatholic:

alan,

As a parent, I share your desire to win over the hearts of the young through loving guidance, etc…yet I also desire to let them know they will see my wrath if they step over the line.

Ok, let’s personalize this. Your daughter confides in you that she is pregnant. She is scared for her future and embarrassed to tell you because she knows you will be displeased. How is your “wrath” going to do anything constructive for her at that particular point?

Just as adults, if my kids want my trust, they MUST earn it, it is not just given. Likewise, students in a Catholic school should be given unflinching formation in the faith, and they should also be given absolute boundaries. We all hope that our young become well informed enough to be able to fight off their desires to do bad things…yet they must also know without any doubt that there will be consequences.

Authorities must also earn respect of the children, or it’s just a big cat-and-mouse game.

It is the removal of consequences in our culture that has lead to abortion, adultery, divorce, etc…the vast majority of people think they can do whatever they please without any consequences at all and it seems to me that you are a strong advocate of that thinking (no insult intended).

I don’t think there should be no consequences. Sin has its own natural consequences. If the only consequences children ever know are those externally applied by authority figures, then the whole idea of natural consequences is just a big joke.

As far as absolute limits and unavoidable punishment, the yes, Jesus and I both think there are times when authoritative consequences don’t have to be administered for a sexual sin that is publicly known.

I take no insult, because you are putting me in good company. If I am responsible for sexual sins such as abortion and adultery, then I stand in good company and I hope my accomplice will testify to the Father on my behalf.

Alan