F
felra
Guest
It’s called “love the sinner, hate the sin” in action; along with the correct dosage of remedial prescription to all involved parties.
- Status
F
felra
Guest
And I would add a healthy fear of offending God, and ultimately fearing eternal damnation/seperation from God. I know that this kept me out of a lot of trouble growing up and I did not need anyone staring over my shoulder to resist the wrong and choose the right path/behavior.
F
fix
Guest
Right. This type of thing is immediately dismissed by most as not helpful. I think it is the height of arrogance for one to claim they are not afraid of hell, or to claim telling another about it does not help. Christ spoke of it often. He must have been on to something.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
How do these pro-life organizations “hate the sin” of fornication and pregnancy out of wedlock? They are actually reducing the natural consequences of the sin, not inflicting them. By doing so, are they not promoting promiscuity – or do they have signs around inside their buildings that say, “if you need our services you have sinned and you should be sorry for it?”
Alan
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
alan,
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?
I have already had these conversations with my children. They know they would be commiting a mortal sin to get an abortion and they know how I would feel. They also know that while I would bring parental wrath, I would also bring heaps of parental love. They have no doubt how much I love them and they have no doubt that my love is unshakeable.
My wrath would insist that they have the baby, that they likely place the baby up for adoption and that they seek confession right away to become right with God. It would also include a temporal discipline that would have to be determined at that time. My kids know what moral sin is.
*
Authorities must also earn respect of the children, or it’s just a big cat-and-mouse game.
That is hogwash! Jesus is our Lord, did He have to earn our respect? A Priest is our spiritual father, did he have to earn our respect? Authorities can lose their respect, but they cannot earn it, they must either be given theirm proper respect, or else the young person has no real formation.
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.
Walk carefully when you say things like “Jesus and I,” it can cause you to fall into pride and ego. It is easy to take once case where Jesus spoke and cast that across all moral cases, it is far more difficult to conside the entire revelation from God.
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?
I have already had these conversations with my children. They know they would be commiting a mortal sin to get an abortion and they know how I would feel. They also know that while I would bring parental wrath, I would also bring heaps of parental love. They have no doubt how much I love them and they have no doubt that my love is unshakeable.
My wrath would insist that they have the baby, that they likely place the baby up for adoption and that they seek confession right away to become right with God. It would also include a temporal discipline that would have to be determined at that time. My kids know what moral sin is.
*
Authorities must also earn respect of the children, or it’s just a big cat-and-mouse game.
That is hogwash! Jesus is our Lord, did He have to earn our respect? A Priest is our spiritual father, did he have to earn our respect? Authorities can lose their respect, but they cannot earn it, they must either be given theirm proper respect, or else the young person has no real formation.
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.
Walk carefully when you say things like “Jesus and I,” it can cause you to fall into pride and ego. It is easy to take once case where Jesus spoke and cast that across all moral cases, it is far more difficult to conside the entire revelation from God.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
That is very good motivation, and a big step toward what I am trying to build with my kids. The desire to avoid sin comes from within, if they are properly taught. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will never depart from it.” If they have no desire from within to avoid sin, then it becomes a matter of what they can get away with.
By the time punitive action is taken against a (consenting) girl because she is pregnant, you have already lost the battle against internal motivation. I doubt it does any good to wag your finger at her and tell her she’s bad at that point.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Now we’re getting somewhere. Fear the person who can throw you into eternal fire, not the person who can give you a bad mark on a report card.
Alan
F
felra
Guest
I don not follow your logic. Anything that promotes respect for life, self responsibility and righteous living is for the Gospel (versus against the Gospel). To be effective for spreading the Gospel, one does not need to be a walking billboard with scripture admonitions on it (although, nowadays, not such a bad idea).
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
My logic is this:
Pro-life groups, for which we frequently have blanket collections and the like, help women through their pregnancy, without shaming them.
From what it sounds like from you and others here is that school officials have an obligation to inflict negative consequences upon a pregnant girl.
In one case, we punish the girl. In the other case, we help the girl with her temporal needs. Here are two totally opposite approaches to the issue of a girl pregnant out of wedlock. One is designed, in part to reduce abortions. The other is designed, apparently, to “send a message” to girls that what they have done is bad.
How do you reconcile these approaches? How can we cheer one official for punishing a sinful girl, and simultaneously cheer organizations who would help that same girl without placing blame?
Alan
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
alan,
The fundamental truth is that if that girl had not commited the mortal sin of fornication (yes along with the boy/father), then she would not be pregnant. No-one here is blaming the pregnancy, we are simply discerning that she commited a mortal sin to get where she is. It does no person any good if we look the other way when we see mortal sins commited…that is the most unloving thing we could do–eternity is in the balance. We are NOT condemning the baby, nor are we condemning the girl in her pregnancy, we are simply saying that we must do everything we can to stop fornication because that is the root of this problem…there must be consequences…
The fundamental truth is that if that girl had not commited the mortal sin of fornication (yes along with the boy/father), then she would not be pregnant. No-one here is blaming the pregnancy, we are simply discerning that she commited a mortal sin to get where she is. It does no person any good if we look the other way when we see mortal sins commited…that is the most unloving thing we could do–eternity is in the balance. We are NOT condemning the baby, nor are we condemning the girl in her pregnancy, we are simply saying that we must do everything we can to stop fornication because that is the root of this problem…there must be consequences…
F
felra
Guest
On a similiar note, the Church’s outreach program to women suffering from post-abortion syndrone-Project Rachel-work on the basis that the only way for complete healing from the guilt, shame, trauma, of having an abortion, is to have the post abortive woman accept and work through the truth (seeking forgiveness) that she took the life of her child in the womb. It is called facing and accepting the reality of our actions. This is what Christ did for all the sinners He encountered as written in the Gospels.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
felra,
Exactly, we have to face the truth.
Exactly, we have to face the truth.
F
felra
Guest
Easily. Hopefully the goal is the same: help the offending sinner face, accept responsibility for the wrong and consequences of their sinful actions, and not repeat the sin. It is called the mercy and the justice of God.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I’m glad you have a close relationship with your daughters. Many girls do not realize how deep parental love can go and how that is good for them, and would rather hide in shame than confide in them.
That all sounds good, except one thing: what is the purpose of the temporal discipline? Without it, would they doubt they had sinned or be uncertain about your feelings about it?
When you say “discipline” maybe I can get over it; for example, maybe she could some volunteer hours or something. I guess that way the discipline would actually be a learning and growing experience.
When I hear “discipline” I think it is often confused with “punishment.” If this is not what you intended, then you can ignore my question about what is it for.
Well, yes, Jesus did have to earn our respect. He did miracles on a regular basis, so that we would see them and believe in Him.
I can abide with your assertion that authorities don’t “have” to earn our respect, but that they can lose it.
Thank you, I was very careful when I worded that and for some of the same reasons you mentioned. Though I cannot read Jesus’ mind, he prevented legitimate authority from administering just consequences. There are times I think that is a good strategy. Therefore, “Jesus and I” agree there are times when punishment is not the best answer. If He didn’t agree with me on this (of course who do I think I got the idea from anyway) then He would have thrown the stone himself; after all He did say, “he who is without sin shall cast the first stone,” but then he tricked them by being without sin yet not casting it.
Yes, agreeing with Jesus on one specific issue does not mean I have the entire revelation from God. However, asserting that authority is duty bound to administer consequences has a direct counterexample in the Bible, and that’s really the only point I’m trying to get across. An authority figure is NOT bound by God to blindly administer consequences just because it is within his authority to do so.
Sometimes we have to take off our “king of the hill” or “good parent” hat and quit trying to play into imaginary roles. Not that we should not be good parents, just that we might benefit from shedding the cliches and the societal expectations. Christ was tops at breaking societal expectations on consequences for sin. He died so we would not have to endure the punishment for our sins, and I don’t think it’s always a good idea to undo what He did by embellishing natural consequences with artificial punitive ones. Having a so-called “absolute” set of consequences is intellectually very simple, and can be easily programmed into a machine. As humans we are given the Good News that He has come to take the punishment for our sins. It’s like Jesus gave us this great gift, but for whatever reason we just can’t seem to accept it.
Are there any examples of Jesus telling parents of worldly authority that they have been too lenient on a sinner?
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Those are good observations. Do they also punish the women in ways totally unrelated to the sin, such as denying them a n academic diploma or making them sit in detention?
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Christ’s mercy gave us protection from the justice of God.
Keeping a girl from getting her diploma is going to keep her from repeating the sin? In our dreams, maybe.
Alan
B
Brad
Guest
I didn’t really want to get back involved but I feel compelled to (at least a little bit).
The abortion issue IS relevant here. Let’s assume the school is teaching authentic Catholic teaching. If so, they taught and administered the sacrament of Confession (of course with the pastor). In so doing, they taught of reconcilliation and forgiveness if one turns to God and is sorry for their sins. That is the way God operates. If you are sorry and truly repentant, God forgives.
But the schools says here… you are forgiven UNLESS we can see visible signs of fornication - that CANNOT be forgiven unless you are publically chastized and punished. ALL other sins (including fornicating without being caught), are ok, but not this one sin under this one condition. This message, I assure you, sends a message that the school values that they are imaged as a school full of saints MORE than they value sanctity of life. This is likely not the message they thought about, but it IS the message many of these kids (and unforntunately, not well-formed conscience adults) will receive.
A message sent by me to you is not good if you perceive it to be something totally different than what I planned. That is why it is critical to be crystal clear, consistent, and without a hint of bias when implementing policies, ESPECIALLY with children - and this is what we have here - children.
Many here are acting as if these are rebellious 40-something Catholics. These are kids and it DOES make a difference how you teach the faith to kids.
The Church was cautious in what message She sent out in condemning Hitler because the Church wanted Jews and Catholics to be spared. The Church often needs to be cautious about how Her teachings are presented because of the impact they have on the faithful.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
You are “discerning” that she committed a mortal sin on mere appearances. Unwed pregnancy can result from actions other than a mortal sin on the part of the pregnant girl.
I am glad that in your mind you are not punishing the pregnancy itself, but in reality that is what you are doing. Same sin, fornication, added to the sin of abortion and under your system there will be no consequences.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that the most unloving thing we can do when there are mortal sins committed if we fail to administer punishment. If that is so, then Jesus did the most unloving thing anybody could do to the poor adultress by causing everybody to look the other way. “Neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more.” You’d think He could at least have made her drop and do 20 pushups or something, after saving her sorry, sinful life, but He didn’t. He let her off with only a verbal admonition! Your argument would imply that He must not have loved her.
Alan
B
Brad
Guest
Alan -
You’ve stated your case quite well on this thread.
I agree that the punishment was somewhat unrelated and probably by the wrong people, if, in fact we are not missing other details in the story such as the girl being obstinant and displaying terrible behavior throughout the school year (I still think, in that case that she should not have achieved necessary requirements for graduation if that were the case - giving her the diploma AND blocking her from the ceremony is somewhat of a Catholic PC error in my book either way you slice it)
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
alan,
*That all sounds good, except one thing: what is the purpose of the temporal discipline? *
==> The purpose of discipline is really threefold: Correction, teaching, protection. It is needed for correction so the person learns that their actions must not be repeated. It serves as a teaching role by informing the person that life has boundaries. It serves as protection by demonstrating to the public that such actions will not be tolerated and when they are the authorities will take action.
When I hear “discipline” I think it is often confused with “punishment.” If this is not what you intended, then you can ignore my question about what is it for.
==> As far as I am concerned discipline and punishment are really very closely related, they are essentially synonymous. God does discipline and punish us He does so for our benefit. Likewise, we are to lovingly discipline/punish as an act of love.
Quote:
Authorities must also earn respect of the children, or it’s just a big cat-and-mouse game.
That is hogwash! Jesus is our Lord, did He have to earn our respect? A Priest is our spiritual father, did he have to earn our respect? Authorities can lose their respect, but they cannot earn it, they must either be given theirm proper respect, or else the young person has no real formation.
Well, yes, Jesus did have to earn our respect. He did miracles on a regular basis, so that we would see them and believe in Him.
I can abide with your assertion that authorities don’t “have” to earn our respect, but that they can lose it.
Thank you, I was very careful when I worded that and for some of the same reasons you mentioned. Though I cannot read Jesus’ mind, he prevented legitimate authority from administering just consequences. There are times I think that is a good strategy. Therefore, “Jesus and I” agree there are times when punishment is not the best answer. If He didn’t agree with me on this (of course who do I think I got the idea from anyway) then He would have thrown the stone himself; after all He did say, “he who is without sin shall cast the first stone,” but then he tricked them by being without sin yet not casting it.
==> So, you are saying that the one incident erases all other revelation? Wow, you really are good, though that sound particularly Protestant at its core.
Yes, agreeing with Jesus on one specific issue does not mean I have the entire revelation from God. However, asserting that authority is duty bound to administer consequences has a direct counterexample in the Bible, and that’s really the only point I’m trying to get across. An authority figure is NOT bound by God to blindly administer consequences just because it is within his authority to do so.
==> You site one example of Jesus’ teachings, yet you ignore the many times that Jesus taught that there are consequences to our actions…that sin separates us from Him, that sin leads a person down the wrong path. You seem to conveniently ignore that Jesus left a Church in order for people to learn these things, and that Jesus’ Word gives authority to legitimate authorties for rebuking and disipline. It is sooooooooo easy to be a verse plucker, yet it is far more difficult to consider everything Christ taught and it is even more difficult for some people to realize that the Church has been given authority by Christ.
He died so we would not have to endure the punishment for our sins,
==> Wrong! He died so that we “might” not have to receive punishment for our sins. The simply truth is, we can all fall and loe our salvation…we can all sin, we all do sin, we all must turn back to Christ every single time we sin. Jesus gave no unconditional promises…again your position seems very Protestant in nature.
It’s like Jesus gave us this great gift, but for whatever reason we just can’t seem to accept it.
==> Again, your views are very evangelical Christianlike. Jesus spoke many times of consequences and the consequence are not pleasant.
Are there any examples of Jesus telling parents of worldly authority that they have been too lenient on a sinner?
==> Nope. Are there any examples of Jesus saying “hey, go sin all you want, because my saving work on the cross means you can kill people or commit adultery or fornicate or whatever there are no consequences of any kind?”
I honestly mean no insult and apologize if you take offense with anything I have written…it just seems lean on a false Gospel.
*That all sounds good, except one thing: what is the purpose of the temporal discipline? *
==> The purpose of discipline is really threefold: Correction, teaching, protection. It is needed for correction so the person learns that their actions must not be repeated. It serves as a teaching role by informing the person that life has boundaries. It serves as protection by demonstrating to the public that such actions will not be tolerated and when they are the authorities will take action.
When I hear “discipline” I think it is often confused with “punishment.” If this is not what you intended, then you can ignore my question about what is it for.
==> As far as I am concerned discipline and punishment are really very closely related, they are essentially synonymous. God does discipline and punish us He does so for our benefit. Likewise, we are to lovingly discipline/punish as an act of love.
Quote:
Authorities must also earn respect of the children, or it’s just a big cat-and-mouse game.
That is hogwash! Jesus is our Lord, did He have to earn our respect? A Priest is our spiritual father, did he have to earn our respect? Authorities can lose their respect, but they cannot earn it, they must either be given theirm proper respect, or else the young person has no real formation.
Well, yes, Jesus did have to earn our respect. He did miracles on a regular basis, so that we would see them and believe in Him.
I can abide with your assertion that authorities don’t “have” to earn our respect, but that they can lose it.
Thank you, I was very careful when I worded that and for some of the same reasons you mentioned. Though I cannot read Jesus’ mind, he prevented legitimate authority from administering just consequences. There are times I think that is a good strategy. Therefore, “Jesus and I” agree there are times when punishment is not the best answer. If He didn’t agree with me on this (of course who do I think I got the idea from anyway) then He would have thrown the stone himself; after all He did say, “he who is without sin shall cast the first stone,” but then he tricked them by being without sin yet not casting it.
==> So, you are saying that the one incident erases all other revelation? Wow, you really are good, though that sound particularly Protestant at its core.
Yes, agreeing with Jesus on one specific issue does not mean I have the entire revelation from God. However, asserting that authority is duty bound to administer consequences has a direct counterexample in the Bible, and that’s really the only point I’m trying to get across. An authority figure is NOT bound by God to blindly administer consequences just because it is within his authority to do so.
==> You site one example of Jesus’ teachings, yet you ignore the many times that Jesus taught that there are consequences to our actions…that sin separates us from Him, that sin leads a person down the wrong path. You seem to conveniently ignore that Jesus left a Church in order for people to learn these things, and that Jesus’ Word gives authority to legitimate authorties for rebuking and disipline. It is sooooooooo easy to be a verse plucker, yet it is far more difficult to consider everything Christ taught and it is even more difficult for some people to realize that the Church has been given authority by Christ.
He died so we would not have to endure the punishment for our sins,
==> Wrong! He died so that we “might” not have to receive punishment for our sins. The simply truth is, we can all fall and loe our salvation…we can all sin, we all do sin, we all must turn back to Christ every single time we sin. Jesus gave no unconditional promises…again your position seems very Protestant in nature.
It’s like Jesus gave us this great gift, but for whatever reason we just can’t seem to accept it.
==> Again, your views are very evangelical Christianlike. Jesus spoke many times of consequences and the consequence are not pleasant.
Are there any examples of Jesus telling parents of worldly authority that they have been too lenient on a sinner?
==> Nope. Are there any examples of Jesus saying “hey, go sin all you want, because my saving work on the cross means you can kill people or commit adultery or fornicate or whatever there are no consequences of any kind?”
I honestly mean no insult and apologize if you take offense with anything I have written…it just seems lean on a false Gospel.
- Status