Pregnant Teen Catholic Graduation

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

brad,

If the student slashes tires, chances are the school will never know. Yet, if that same student creates a school scandal his/her actions (slashing tires and bragging about it, etc.), then the school has every right and responsibility to take action. The school does NOT need to get permisision from the parents to invoke school discipline–that is a ridiculous idea and I think if you rethink it you will agree.

Wrong. I know personally of a case where the school does know. If the kid gets caught, the school ends up knowing. The child will be appropriately punished by parents through the town. Do you think the school should also add punishment? And do you think they should do this without consulting the parents? My idea is hardly ludicrous. It is the teaching of the Church. Parents are primary educators of all things their children learn. Do you not see a distinguishment between school jurisdiction during school time and/or on school property vs. other times???

TPJCatholic:

BTW, I was merely teasing about you agreeing…I know we are on oppsoite ends of this issue. I feel the parents should act and that the school has a role too–you think that the school has no role in the sins the kids commit no matter how scandalous or how public they are. We will not agree and I feel your opinion, if enacted at Catholic schools, would make those schools meaningless. I would yank my kids from any such school…there is no reason for me to pay tuition for a school that is just another public school.

You are not stating my position correctly. I am saying the school has a role but it is limited by the role of the parents. I never said the school should never discipline. Believe me, my kids wouldn’t attend such a school either. You have to be able to make determine where the boundaries are. Whereas I want my kids’ school to enforce the maximum punishemnt if my child gets in a fight at school or destroy school property or talks back to Sister, I DO NOT want kids’ school installing a 24 hour video camera into my children’s house to see if they are committing sins.

You have to argue correctly against my position, not restate my position to facilitate your argument.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

I think the school must monitor their students and if something arises that needs action, they should act. All of the students sin and most of their sins are never known publicly, yet when they do come public or even scandalous, then the school has every right to step in and take action in accord with the Catholic faith.

Schools of all stripes do this everyday.

You understand that your idea would encourage emotionally immature kids to cover up their sins, right? Do you want them to do this or do you think it is better if they come clean?

I could see your point if the sin was against the school but it was not.

 

[TPJCatholic]

brad,

In general terms we will not agree. The parents have the primary role–to that we will agree. The school has a secondary role, though still very important role. In a Catholic school setting their role becomes even more important in matters of faith and morals. The school, as I stated before, has every right and duty to act when a scandal erupts. Yes, the school should do something when a scandal or problem happens. In the case of the pregnant girl there was a visible scandal, the school would have been remiss not to act.

BTW, I argue just find. But thanks for caring.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

brad,

In general terms we will not agree. The parents have the primary role–to that we will agree. The school has a secondary role, though still very important role. In a Catholic school setting their role becomes even more important in matters of faith and morals. The school, as I stated before, has every right and duty to act when a scandal erupts. Yes, the school should do something when a scandal or problem happens. In the case of the pregnant girl there was a visible scandal, the school would have been remiss not to act.

BTW, I argue just find. But thanks for caring.

So, should the school I talked about punish the kid for slashing tires?

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

Though you might think that I am an advocate of absolute rules and disciplines, that is not the case. If a student at the school slashed tires off school property and the school never knew about it, then they obviously should not do anything. However, if that same student came to school and bragged about slashing tires and through his pride and ego he created a scandal of sorts, then the school would have every right to take action. In the case of the pregnant girl, a similar impact happened…the visible pregnancy announced the private sin of fornication to the entire school…it ceased being a private sin because the entire student body became aware that the girl had to have commited fornication to become pregnant…that is a faith and morals scandal and the school had no choice but to address it.

Frankly, the discipline of not attending graduation is extremely light, the school could have easily expelled the girl until after the baby was born. The fact that she still received her diploma, and that the school merely asked her not to attend the graduation, tells me that the school took a very liberal view of the entire matter. People should not be complaining, the discipline was incredibly light.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

Though you might think that I am an advocate of absolute rules and disciplines, that is not the case. If a student at the school slashed tires off school property and the school never knew about it, then they obviously should not do anything. However, if that same student came to school and bragged about slashing tires and through his pride and ego he created a scandal of sorts, then the school would have every right to take action. In the case of the pregnant girl, a similar impact happened…the visible pregnancy announced the private sin of fornication to the entire school…it ceased being a private sin because the entire student body became aware that the girl had to have commited fornication to become pregnant…that is a faith and morals scandal and the school had no choice but to address it.

Frankly, the discipline of not attending graduation is extremely light, the school could have easily expelled the girl until after the baby was born. The fact that she still received her diploma, and that the school merely asked her not to attend the graduation, tells me that the school took a very liberal view of the entire matter. People should not be complaining, the discipline was incredibly light.

So then we DO agree. Neither of us is happy with the way the school handled the matter. My guess is they have similar inconsistent cases in their past which lead to this dilemna.

It is inconsistent not to punish the kid who slashed tires if you would punish the pregnant girl. This is my point. Schools have to be consistent, have clear, pre-written policies, and act accordingly. You are saying that because the sin became public to all, one should be punished, but, in the case of slashed tires, the sin only becomes public to some, and therefore no punishment is required. This is a strange concept of God, some would think.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

The school is not God; therefore, the school can only act upon things it knows about. That is why I say they should respond to things that create scandal or even a problem for the moral base of their teachings.

We do agree the school could have handled the situation better; however, I am of the view that the discipline of telling the girl not to attend the graduation was right (even though I feel it was a very light discipline).

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

The school is not God; therefore, the school can only act upon things it knows about. That is why I say they should respond to things that create scandal or even a problem for the moral base of their teachings.

We are talking about a case where the school KNOWS about the slashing of the tires and many of the students also know. Still mortal sin.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

Again, if the sin causes a scandal or even causes a moral difficulty for the school’s teachers, then the situation should be addressed.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TPJCatholic:

The school is not God; therefore, the school can only act upon things it knows about. That is why I say they should respond to things that create scandal or even a problem for the moral base of their teachings.

Your first sentence is right on the mark.

The school can only act on what is sees on the surface. It cannot judge the heart, and therefore is not in a good position to make judgments about the sinfulness of a child. This is to be handled privately between the school’s spiritual director/priest, if it has one, or the child’s parish priest and parents.

Again, I keep referring to Christ’s actions. Christ taught there were consequences for actions, but he chided church authorities for judging aberrant behavior as sinful. Christ’s followers were causing a public scandal by not washing their hands, by picking food on Sunday, and any number of things that were against the “absolute” rules. In each case, Christ defended them against accusations by those in charge, even when it was clear they had transgressed the law, such as the case of the hand washing.

As I’ve alluded to several several times, a pregnant child is NOT a reliable indicator that a mortal sin has been committed by the child. Most of the times, maybe so. If the child confesses, then the evidence is stronger but still not bulletproof. That is, unless you say that confessing to a sin one did not do, in order to avoid physical battery or worse is a sin, but that’s a different sin.

The argument that the pregnancy is the school’s business goes only as far as the girl is directly impacting the school by her behavior in the school. For example, not having her walk across the stage is arguably within their scope if there is reason to believe she will disturb the decorum of the situation. Punishing her for the sake of inflicting physical, psychological, emotional, or social pain as “paybacks” for her sin against their teachings sends children the message that if they are in trouble then Catholic authorities are the last ones you want to find out about it.

In short, we need to decide whether we are trying to play the God of wrath as we envision Him in the Old Testament, or whether we are going to accept the Good News of Christ and realize that love and forgiveness is a higher way of calling people to sainthood than harsh discipline.

We do agree the school could have handled the situation better; however, I am of the view that the discipline of telling the girl not to attend the graduation was right (even though I feel it was a very light discipline).

Sigh. Perhaps you’re right. Maybe they should have let her be on stage, in stocks, during the whole ceremony, with a sign over her that reads, “Justice Under God in effect here.” That would show that we aren’t kidding about our moral teachings, and probably would have stopped fornication in our youth.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

Again, if the sin causes a scandal or even causes a moral difficulty for the school’s teachers, then the situation should be addressed.

Good point. If one of the school’s teachers was in fact the father, then that certainly would cause a moral difficulty for the school’s teachers and the situation should be addressed – that is, if either the teacher or the student confesses to it.

Think in Catholic schools that children are safe from unsavory school officials? (I know you never said that but I’m giving this example in case anyone says it is too far fetched to consider.) In one highly publicized case here a year or two ago, Wichita police, acting on a tip, served a search warrant at the house of an ex-employee of my children’s Catholic school, and recovered a videotape of girls changing in the locker room. In this case, the perpetrator placed a camera at the corner of a ceiling tile, accessible by a maintenance closet next to the locker room.

Why do I bring that up? Because many of us tend to blame the child whenever there is a conflict between the child and school officials. This particular issue became very public because it couldn’t be handled quietly, and because the Wichita Eagle newspaper received a tip on the matter. That is not to say the school officials would not have acted responsibly (I have a lot of respect for this school’s administration), just that we don’t know what we don’t hear about.

Alan

P.S. Here is an excerpt of an email sent out by the school’s president to everyone, including me, on the school mailing list.

]

August 5, 2004

As you probably know, it was announced on June 25 that a videotape had been discovered by the Wichita Police Department which contained footage of a locker room setting involving some of our female students. Subsequently, a former maintenance employee of Kapaun Mt. Carmel was charged with the crime.

At the time that the initial information was released, we committed that we would cooperate with the police in every way we could as they conducted their investigation. We were particularly interested in helping them with the process of identifying and notifying the young ladies who were videotaped.

Yesterday, we were informed that the police department and District Attorney’s office have concluded that process. We were informed that the police have determined the taping occurred during the 1998-99 school year. In order to protect the privacy of the young ladies who were on the videotape, their names have not been provided to us. Today, I am providing this information in a letter to all parents who had a daughter attending KMC during 1998-99.

My first child entered KMC the following year. There was a big concern on the part of the school there would be many kids taken out of the school. I did not; I felt the children were no less safe there than any place else, and that the administration here handled it properly. I send the school officials a letter of support on how they handled it; that was the least I could do for what they were going through last summer.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

TPJCatholic:

katherine,

We really do not need to keep pounding the gender equality nail. I think we all agree that if the school knew who the father is, and if the father is a student at that school, then he should have received the same discipline. There is no question that it takes two to fornicate.

If I put that together with this,

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

I think the school must monitor their students and if something arises that needs action, they should act. All of the students sin and most of their sins are never known publicly, yet when they do come public or even scandalous, then the school has every right to step in and take action in accord with the Catholic faith.

Schools of all stripes do this everyday.

First, I’ll agree that schools of all stripes do this everyday. That does not, however make it right. It just makes it mainstream and therefore unlikely for education officials to go against it because it shows innovation and takes courage to go against the crowd.

Second, you are claiming that sins should be punished if they are known publicly, and you disregard any gender-related preferences. The scientific fact is that there is a gender-related (really sex-related by I won’t go further that way now) bias automatically built in to this situation. The identity of the boy is never known, unless a medical test has been performed. The girl may know who the father is, but may be under bona fide physical threat if they disclose it. Plus, if the girl does claim to know who the father is and discloses it, then all he has to do is deny it and we have no way to know whether he should be punished.

In essence:
Fornication: not public
Pregnancy: public

If we punish based on what sins become public, then we have automatically let the boys off the hook and designed a system that only punishes girls for alleged transgressions for which each of them had at least one male partner.

Again, pregnancy in itself isn’t a sin, and we have no way of knowing whether the girl actually committed a sin in order to get pregnant. Most of the time, probably so. Not always, though. Therefore you will be punishing the innocent along with the guilty. Forgetting about the Good News for a moment, God would have saved the whole city of Sodom if there were ten righteous people in it, and that’s in the Old Testament.

You say the school “must” act when it sees something that needs to be acted upon. Then you say the school has every right to act if something is scandalous.

First, let’s address this “must” thing. In the case of pregnancy, I still haven’t heard any reasonable rebuttal to the point that Jesus did NOT think the authorities “must” publicly punish a public, scandalous sexual sin. Why “must” we inflict punishment for a sin when Jesus specifically intervened to prevent punishment on a similar or worse sin? Things were different then, I suppose, in that the woman in the Bible, in addition to scandal, had committed a capital offense so legally they had a “right” to stone her and Jesus spoiled their fun – I mean kept them from exercising their responsibility.

Now, as far as rights, yes they have a legal right to handle their discipline system within the bound that any private school does. While we’re talking about rights, the girl also has the legal right (with consenting parents in some states maybe) to get an abortion. The fact they have a right to take a certain action does not mean it’s pleasing to God to do so, or that the consequences of that action are going to be positive. The girl can have an abortion and yes, a baby dies but she remains “a good little virgin” as far as the school knows. In the eyes of the school, this girl will be held up as an example while the girl who refused to add one sin to another will be scorned. Again, kids aren’t idiots and can figure this stuff out.

The school can punish her for being pregnant, confirming for other girls that if they get pregnant and keep the baby, they will also have hell to pay. Sure the school is within its rights, and they have come off as being the school where we uphold values. Babies may die as a result, but the school has not bent her knee. If the school is not partly culpable for those babies, then no institution needs to consider the effects of their actions. Still sounds like what conservatives claim about liberals; they act based on what “seems” right, often against historical evidence that such action actually makes the situation worse.

Can anyone reasonably argue, or show statistics, that punishing girls for being pregnant lowers fornication rates to the point that abortions are actually decreased?

Alan

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

Again, if the sin causes a scandal or even causes a moral difficulty for the school’s teachers, then the situation should be addressed.

Nobody’s own sin causes moral difficulty for someone else, teacher or otherwise. It may cause physical, mental, or emotional difficulty but not moral difficulty. The teachers are not culpable.

In the case I mentioned, the town and the parents have handed out more than adquate punishment. Should the school add to this punishment because some teachers are embarrassed by the whole thing?

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

*The school can only act on what is sees on the surface. It cannot judge the heart, and therefore is not in a good position to make judgments about the sinfulness of a child. This is to be handled privately between the school’s spiritual director/priest, if it has one, or the child’s parish priest and parents.
*
==> This would be true if the school did not have to consider the ramifications of how the sin impacts the studetn body. Since the girls private sin becmae public with her visible pregnancy, the school had no choice but to address the situation.

*Again, I keep referring to Christ’s actions. Christ taught there were consequences for actions, but he chided church authorities for judging aberrant behavior as sinful. *

==> No-one is judging behaivor…fornication is a mortal sin–that is a fact. Jesus told us to go an sin no more–how are we to go and sin no more if authorities ignore the mortal sins we commit? Under those conditions a person would assume there is nothing wrong with fornication.

*Christ’s followers were causing a public scandal by not washing their hands, by picking food on Sunday, and any number of things that were against the “absolute” rules. In each case, Christ defended them against accusations by those in charge, even when it was clear they had transgressed the law, such as the case of the hand washing.
*
==> Interesting example. The school has caused a scandal because in anti-Catholic world they are actually defending the faith. Thanks for the assist, you just help make my point. The school is being counter cultural, just as Jesus and the apostles were counter cultural. We need more schools like that, not less.

As I’ve alluded to several several times, a pregnant child is NOT a reliable indicator that a mortal sin has been committed by the child.

==> You have got to know how ridiculous this is, you must have regretted this statement as you were typing it. Defend the girl if you desire, yet do not try to take her off the hook of fornication…that is flat wrong. If there was criminal activity, then that would have been part of this story.

*The argument that the pregnancy is the school’s business goes only as far as the girl is directly impacting the school by her behavior in the school. For example, not having her walk across the stage is arguably within their scope if there is reason to believe she will disturb the decorum of the situation. *

==> The school was incredibly light in theri discipline. The girl received her diploma. The school was merely protecting the school and the student body…the girls discpline in reality had little to with her…she has left the school permanently behind her.

*In short, we need to decide whether we are trying to play the God of wrath as we envision Him in the Old Testament, or whether we are going to accept the Good News of Christ and realize that love and forgiveness is a higher way of calling people to sainthood than harsh discipline.
*
==> Tip: The God of the OT and the NT is the same God.

Sigh. Perhaps you’re right. Maybe they should have let her be on stage, in stocks, during the whole ceremony, with a sign over her that reads, “Justice Under God in effect here.”

==> No, if it were me I would have likely told the girl and the boy that they could not return to school until after the girl delivered the baby and I would have posted that discipline publicly so the student body would learn from it.

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

If one of the school’s teachers was in fact the father, then that certainly would cause a moral difficulty for the school’s teachers and the situation should be addressed – that is, if either the teacher or the student confesses to it.

==> It does not have to be criminal activity to create scandal in a Catholic school…again it is a Catholic school.

Think in Catholic schools that children are safe from unsavory school officials?

==> No I do not.

*Why do I bring that up? Because many of us tend to blame the child whenever there is a conflict between the child and school officials. *

==> I don’t and your example–while being horrifying–does not make sense in context. Criminal activity is often far different then activity that is mortally sinful. The girl and the boy did not commit a civil crime, they commited a mortal sin.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

Come-on…think it through. If a bunch of women get together and choose to get an abortion, and then they go back and tell all their neightbor, friends, family and children, are you seriously telling me that holds no moral difficulty?

If a teenage boy tries to entice a fellow student into taking drugs, that is not a moral difficulty?

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

First, I’ll agree that schools of all stripes do this everyday. That does not, however make it right.

==> It is right because schools of all stripes MUST adhere to some code of conduct, or else there will be chaos (sounds like a lot of schools today, right?).

Second, you are claiming that sins should be punished if they are known publicly,

==> No! I am saying the school can only respond to sins it knows about and that would entail some level of public knowledge. As I have said, most sins are private and the school would never know anything about them. Yet, when a given sin causes any moral difficulty for the school or the student boyd, or if the sin causes any level of scandal, then the school MUST respond in a public way.

and you disregard any gender-related preferences.

==. This insulting and wrong! You are the one trying to tie this one account to sorts of other silly examples. I am merely saying that when we examine the article we do not see much of anything said about the potential boy/father, because in actual fact the writer of the article clearly sees the girl as being a hero. I find it deeply offesive that you would try to say I do not acknowledge gender problems or issues…this is one event we are talking about.

The scientific fact is that there is a gender-related (really sex-related by I won’t go further that way now) bias automatically built in to this situation. The identity of the boy is never known, unless a medical test has been performed. The girl may know who the father is, but may be under bona fide physical threat if they disclose it. Plus, if the girl does claim to know who the father is and discloses it, then all he has to do is deny it and we have no way to know whether he should be punished.

==> I agree to all of this and again it is deeply insulting for you to suggest I do not.
==> Tell me, if two people went into a store and stole money from the cashier, then later one of them got caught through camera pictures, but the second one was never caught. Should the person who was caught be released because the second eprson was not found? Likewise, just because we may not know the idewntiy of the father, does not in any way remove the culpability of the girl in terms of her sin of fornication.

If we punish based on what sins become public, then we have automatically let the boys off the hook and designed a system that only punishes girls for alleged transgressions for which each of them had at least one male partner.

==> So a thief should be punished before he steals? The school can only respond to what it knows–period.

Again, pregnancy in itself isn’t a sin, and we have no way of knowing whether the girl actually committed a sin in order to get pregnant.

==> Sure we do. There is no criminal activity reported and the girl has clearly not informed the school or the authorities of any such criminal activity and the girl is not denying she became pregnant by a peer. Are we now going to call the girl a liar?

You say the school “must” act when it sees something that needs to be acted upon. Then you say the school has every right to act if something is scandalous.

==> Yes, they are the same point.

First, let’s address this “must” thing. In the case of pregnancy, I still haven’t heard any reasonable rebuttal to the point that Jesus did NOT think the authorities “must” publicly punish a public, scandalous sexual sin. Why “must” we inflict punishment for a sin when Jesus specifically intervened to prevent punishment on a similar or worse sin?

==> I have addressed this many times. Jesus took that action while on the streets. The everyday world of the streets is far different then being inside a school environment where the teachers are given the task of teaching and defending the faith. Discipline is part of teaching and God uses that all the time for those peope He loves. God tells us that we should embrace His disipline because it means He loves us. Further, those who are in charge of teaching will be held to a higher standard then those who are not, and anyone who causes the young to stumble will find themselves in grave trouble…everyone of those points come from Scripture and there are many more.

the girl also has the legal right (with consenting parents in some states maybe) to get an abortion.

==> As I have said before, are we to live in fear of our young by avoiding giving them due disipline just because we fear they might commit a more grave sin? What sort of formation is that? Was Jesus afraid?

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

The fact they have a right to take a certain action does not mean it’s pleasing to God to do so, or that the consequences of that action are going to be positive. The girl can have an abortion and yes, a baby dies but she remains “a good little virgin” as far as the school knows.

==> That is a profoundly mean statement towards the school. The school is not our eneny, it is not out seeking sin or looking for ways to discipline…it is always painful to envoke any discipline. The school’s purpose is to teach and form our children, yet sometimes bad things become known that they must address for all the reasons I have said a hundred times now.

In the eyes of the school, this girl will be held up as an example while the girl who refused to add one sin to another will be scorned. Again, kids aren’t idiots and can figure this stuff out.

==> So, you are bascially saying it is okay for kids to fronicate so long as they do not get an abortion? That really is the bottom-line of your message, that we should look the other way about the fornication because the BRAVE girl did not abort the baby. Sorry, I ain’t buying, if the kids cease fornicating, this topic becomes moot. (no insult intended, it just seems that is your message, please correct me if I am wrong).

The school can punish her for being pregnant, confirming for other girls that if they get pregnant and keep the baby, they will also have hell to pay. Sure the school is within its rights, and they have come off as being the school where we uphold values. Babies may die as a result, but the school has not bent her knee. If the school is not partly culpable for those babies, then no institution needs to consider the effects of their actions.

==> So, you really are an advocate of allowing kids to fornicate and you will place the blood of murdered babies at the hands of the school if they actually uphold Church teachings. Am I reading that right? (no insult intended, it just seems that is your message, please correct me if I am wrong).

 

[TPJCatholic]

alan,

Thank you for a lively chat. I hope you have a blessed and enjoyable holiday weekend. I will leave you (for the weekend only) with the following equations that I feel describes my views on this quite well:

Fornication = Pregnancy

Pregnancy = Abortion

Teenager minus Fornication = No pregnancy and no abortion

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

Come-on…think it through. If a bunch of women get together and choose to get an abortion, and then they go back and tell all their neightbor, friends, family and children, are you seriously telling me that holds no moral difficulty?

If a teenage boy tries to entice a fellow student into taking drugs, that is not a moral difficulty?

No. Like I said, in these cases there may be emotional, physical, mental difficulty but there is only moral difficulty if you choose to sin or participate in a sin (saying it is ok etc.).

And you still haven’t answered my question.