Stocking Patty Hearst’s food bank

January 27, 2013 § 59 Comments

I wrote my previous post before I read Red Cardigan’s latest.  I don’t see much point in trying to engage in a conversation since she openly states that she knows her characterizations of my views are wrong (“Oh, I know.  Zippy will say that’s not his argument at all…”), but she hopes to tar me with them anyway.  No amount of exasperation adds up to an actual argument addressing anything I’ve actually said, and pretending to converse in a pattern where I make arguments and my interlocutors respond with sneering is a waste of time.

However, I do find it interesting that her post provides a made-to-order concrete example of what I refer to as pro-life stockholm syndrome.  We can see this by contrasting how the Magisterium of the Church characterizes a choice to murder by abortion to how Red Cardigan characterizes the choice to murder by abortion.  This is the Magisterium:

Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an “unspeakable crime”.

[…]

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.

Contrast how the Magisterium of the Church describes abortion to how Red Cardigan characterizes it.  Embedded in a rant about how hard it is for a man to understand the difficulties of being a woman and raising children, implying that men (especially men “like Zippy”) are intrinsically incapable of objectively discussing the grave intrinsic evils of abortion and fornication, Red Cardigan states the following about a woman who chooses not to murder her own child in cold blood:

For an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant to choose life in our disposable culture of easy death for the unborn is already a noble and courageous thing to do

(Emphasis mine)

Refraining from committing an “unspeakable crime”  is “noble and courageous”.  I’m tempted to add “you go, girl!”

The Magisterium weighs in on the sociological point:

But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of  [abortion’s] gravity has become progressively obscured.

No kidding.

§ 59 Responses to Stocking Patty Hearst’s food bank

  • Gabriella says:

    I’d be curious to know just how she expects to decrease the rate of fornication if it isn’t by making the consequences of fornication unpleasant.

    The argument that if something is difficult then it takes heroic virtue to do it is flawed indeed.

    Parenting can be difficult but people volunteer for it all the time. See: “Choice Mommies”. They will go so far as getting IVF..another difficult process that involves daily shots and often many miscarriages. I wouldn’t call such people heroically virtuous though.

    We have the habit of elevating single moms to a status of hero because “parenting is hard”. Then you have feminists with similar odd ideas that difficult=heroic. Ive seen some say an abortive mother is a hero because she suppressed her natural desire for babies and did what was “right” by going under the knife. Abortion is “hard” so an aborter is a “hero”.

    If Red Cardigan wants to talk about the pragmatic solution to unwed mothers then that is a very different discussion. I say we bring back Homes For Unwed Mothers. They can be like colleges that you graduate out of when you can prove you are no longer a slut.

  • a seminarian says:

    I’ve only been following bits and pieces of this story, but has anyone brought up the sin of scandal? Because that is why Catholic institutions have morality clauses.

    Since entering seminary, I have had a number of apostolic assignments that have placed me in the classroom. The most important thing I have learned—both from the teachers that I have worked with and from my direct experience with students of all ages—is that what you say about faith and morals means nothing to students if they do not see you live what you are teaching.

    Not publicly acting as if fornication is sinful when a teacher has obviously fornicated tells the students that we really do not consider fornication to be sinful. This is to commit the sin of scandal.

    If the school was not to fire her, it would have had to take some other measures to make sure that the students knew that fornication was sinful. But I’m sure that having her wear sackcloth and ashes for a year while excluding her from the more enjoyable social aspects of her job, such as being able to eat and converse with other teachers in the faculty lunchroom, would have been equally frowned upon.

  • Zippy says:

    a seminarian:
    has anyone brought up the sin of scandal?

    Not without being sneered at and scolded about how capitulation to feminist demands is the deontological equivalent of “mercy”.

  • ChesterPoe says:

    “For an unmarried woman who becomes pregnant to choose life in our disposable culture of easy death for the unborn is already a noble and courageous thing to do…”

    What ridiculous nonsense. There is nothing noble or courageous about simply refraining from taking an innocent life. Should every person who has not killed be given a round of applause? No, you execute (preferably in public) the murderers and warn others not to share a similar fate.

    “I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who produced children outside of marriage and who procured abortions.” – The Apocalypse of Peter, 2:26

  • johnmcg says:

    Just because something is a sin does not mean it doesn’t take heroic virtue to avoid it. It would have been wrong for the martyrs to avoid their martyrdom; that doesn’t mean it wasn’t heroic.

  • johnmcg says:

    And the gravity of abortion argues in favor of the rest of us helping others to avoid it.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    I have yet to see anyone, anywhere suggest that this woman should not be helped. As far as I can tell she doesn’t want to be helped: she wants “justice” under her warped sense of justice.

  • Scott W. says:

    I have yet to see anyone, anywhere suggest that this woman should not be helped.

    Yes. And in fact, I’ve seen people agreeing with the school make suggestions which were glossed over because everyone was too busy maintaining “Mean ‘ol churchmen! RAWR!” mode.

    The fact is, we don’t have much to go on about what the meetings between her and the administration were like. I have a hard time believing it was a “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.” attitude on the part of the school.

  • Gabriella says:

    She wronged the Church. She made a promise and didn’t keep it, and now the school has to scramble to find another teacher.

    This woman feels *entitled* to scandalize children with her sin. That is bizarre. If she were repentant she would take her lumps like a big girl and accept that a firing is the *least* she deserves. Maybe if she wrote a formal letter of apology for all the trouble she has caused they might consider giving her job back after she has the babies.

    Instead..she SUES the Church..costing them more money and pain and frustration and giving the media yet another reason to screech misogyny!

    If she needs help she can get it by *humbly* asking an organization that helps unwed mothers.

  • Erin Manning says:

    You know, Zippy, a CIA agent refraining from committing acts of torture when officially encouraged and personally tempted to do so might be considered to be making a noble and heroic choice. At least, I would consider the agent’s choice noble and heroic in that environment of pressure to accept, approve of, and use torture. If you’re going to be consistent I suppose you would have to disagree vigorously with the evil notion that it is noble and heroic to choose not to commit the sin of torture when seriously tempted or even pressured to do so.

    I have to ask: is it okay to think of unwed pregnant fornicators as objects instead of people? I know it’s wrong to think of terrorists that way, but maybe there is some kind of unimpeachable Catholic exemption that lets us treat the women Gabriella terms “sluts” as objects to be excluded from our virtuous company and deprived of even the common respect owed to human dignity of which I am not aware.

    As I said in my comment back to you on my blog, I am *trying* to understand why it’s okay to treat unwed pregnant women with a harsh coldness that we wouldn’t use against, say, a male Catholic school teacher who admitted to his boss in a private unrecorded conversation that he struggles with masturbation. All I can see is that it is the shame of visible unwed pregnancy and not the sin of fornication that is seen as so unspeakably bad that it must be punished, and who cares if the woman loses her health insurance and her doctor in the middle of her pregnancy? She deserves that for being an evil slut, right?

    Help me understand why this is not what you’re saying, because the more I read, the less I see anything even remotely good in what you are writing about this.

  • Zippy says:

    Erin:
    I have to ask: is it okay to think of unwed pregnant fornicators as objects instead of people?

    Why do you have to ask that?

    Oh, that’s right; because your whole approach is to sneer. That’s why it is pointless to talk to you on this subject.

  • Erin Manning says:

    Why are you assuming that I’m sneering? (Tone is so hard on the Internet.) I’m talking to one of two people who helped me see why torture is intrinsically evil, and one of the big reasons is because we can’t objectify another human being–that is, the minute we start treating another person as an object we can use as we see fit we have crossed a very definite, very dangerous line.

    When we see an unmarried pregnant woman as nothing more than the walking embodiment of her sin (which she may have confessed and been forgiven, after all!) are we not engaging in an act of objectification every bit as potentially evil as seeing the terrorist, not as a human being whom we may not treat like an object and harm for our own purpose, but as that object, as the living, walking embodiment of his involvement in the sin and evil of terrorism whom we may abuse to our own satisfaction?

    If we are to see the terrorist as another self and look in his face to see Christ’s face, if we are to remember that in point of fact treating imprisoned terrorists or insurgents with mercy and kindness has produced better results than waterboarding them, if we are to restrain our own impulse to see the terrorist as an Evil Other instead of one of our own in the human race, how is it somehow a violation of virtue to do the same thing to a woman whose sin was to fornicate, but whose *condition* of out-of-wedlock pregnancy is not itself the sin, but merely the biological consequences of the act in question (which are the same even when the act takes place in the context of lawful marriage)?

    I’m not even talking about her lawsuit, which may or may not prevail (we do live in a nation which has passed laws making it illegal to fire pregnant women for being pregnant, and the question then becomes whether a school which hires both Catholics and non-Catholics can claim the ministerial exemption to these laws; all of that is a legal tangle beyond my skill to decipher). I’m talking about whether it is truly right to speak of this woman as you have on this blog or to permit the more outrageous speech of some of your commenters without any correction on your part. I am further wondering why it is seen as consistent with the mission of a Catholic school to show no mercy to exactly one type of sinner. I would really like to know.

  • Zippy says:

    I’m not assuming that you are sneering, Erin. You are sneering. Nowhere have I ever suggested that Miss Quinlan should be treated like an object, not a person.

    Your question is a sneer.

    I think, frankly, that it is too late for you to recover in this discussion. But if that is really what you want to do, you could start by posting a few retractions. After that, you could actually quote what I actually said, and explain why, rationally not emotionally, you object to what I actually said. Attempting to throw everything you can and make it stick is a non starter. I won’t have a conversation on your terms. If you want to discuss the subject with me, it will be on my terms. If that isn’t acceptable to you, there will be no discussion.

  • […] Now the rich man was away on business. The overseer, seeing the thief and the magistrates and the soldiers at the gate thought the servant had been caught stealing from another. He opened the door, and said, “Have you caught this wicked servant stealing from another? He no longer works here, for what does my master have to do with evil?” The scribes replied to the overseer, saying, “It is reported that you put this man out unjustly, and he has had to live with the beasts of the field. Behold, we have brought many soldiers, and we hold this servant’s word against you.” The overseer replied, “The master has left many things in my care, but they are not mine to give. You seek to work wickedness on my master. Go!” The faces of the scribes grew red with anger, and they grabbed the overseer and said to the soldiers, “Go and get the master’s wife, that we may take from her what is owed the servant, and she may show us due hospitality.” […]

  • Scott W. says:

    Although I am on Zippy’s side on this issue, I’m going to pray for peace between you two. It may well be that the best that can be hoped for is that this particular topic is a no-go zone, but I hope there is no bad blood between two people I consider valuable allies. God bless.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    No bad blood here at all. I’m just not going to have a discussion on Erin’s terms. I’ll have one on mine, and it is up to her whether that is something she wants to do.

  • Erin Manning says:

    A retraction of what, exactly?

    I honestly thing it’s too late for *you* to recover in this discussion. I have yet to see any reason to doubt my suspicion that a form of pseudo-Catholic chauvinism wrapped-up in the moralistic trappings of stone-throwing and finger-pointing is behind most of what’s going on here. If a reasoned, emotionless, calmly rational debate is occurring anywhere on this blog regarding a Catholic’s school’s firing of an unwed pregnant teacher it’s amazingly well-hidden.

  • Zippy says:

    There’s the answer, then.

  • Gabriella says:

    Last time I heavily participated in a discussion here it was about my reservations about slut-shaming. Now I am being shamed for slut-shaming. *snort*

    If I was talking to the woman in question face-to-face I would be hesitant to call her a slut. I wouldn’t hesitate to call her behavior slutty. I recognize the purpose of first-person language.

    Since we are not talking to her directly I don’t think we need to be extra sensitive about her feelings. Perhaps being critical will help deter other young people from making the same choices.

    Masturbation is not the same as fornication. They may both be mortal sins, but fornication has much heavier earthly consequences. For one- it makes babies. Babies who grow up fatherless.

  • Scott W. says:

    As a last ditch effort, I’m going to recommend fisking a la Dave Armstrong. That is, Erin copies and posts Zippy’s remarks and then goes through and responds point by point, showing him exactly where she thinks he is wrong and why. Zippy then responds in kind. Time consuming I know, but it tends to keep everyone honest, clears up confusion, zeroes in on the problem areas and allows both parties to modify their position as needed. Personally, I think it is worth the time because it is an issue that is likely to keep cropping up and it would be helpful not to have to re-invent the wheel each time it does.

  • Zippy says:

    If Erin wants to discuss this on my terms, I’ll be the one to say what those terms are.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Erin, the act, not the situation. The pledge, not the unborn.

    Understand now?

  • Ybm says:

    At least this one didn’t call you a sick person zippy ol boy.

  • Erin Manning says:

    Well, Zippy, then that’s the answer from you, too, then.

    No bad blood here, either. Just disappointment, that in the end it seems that there is more mercy available to terrorists than to unwed mothers.

    In the real, everyday world I inhabit, there are plenty of people outside the Church who think that “pro-life” is something we Catholics say but don’t take very seriously, and that we really don’t have much concern for the actual people in crisis pregnancy situations, particularly the unwed mother, but are more interested in shaming them as dirty sinners (unlike ourselves, naturally). I know that according to your lights, the Church proves her deep concern and abiding love for unwed mothers by tossing them out of work and off of their health insurance. I disagree, and I think that the scandal of seeing Catholic schools behave this way outweighs any possible good (if there even theoretically was one) involved in curtly showing unwed pregnant sinners the door.

    One final thought before I go back to discussing this on my own blog by my own rules (won’t happen till later in the week)–when the men in the Gospel story took the woman caught in adultery to stone her to death, they were acting according to justice and the law. I bet she was begging and pleading for her life, too, but they were concerned with doing the right thing and would never agree to “capitulate to feminist demands” and unjustly spare her. After all, she wanted to be excused from the rightful consequences of her sin! She knew that in her society adultery came with a death sentence, and so in a manner of speaking she agreed to having her life ended when she slept with a man not her husband (and he apparently wasn’t caught–I wonder if he was in the crowd, lethal rock in hand?).

    Now Christ came along, and He gave them a simple instruction: that the one without sin might throw the first stone. Many people pondering that Bible passage have wondered, when He bent and began to write in the sand, whether He was not writing down the hidden sins of all those gathered–in any case, they all drifted away, at which point He showed her mercy and let her go, admonishing her to sin no more. Whether her adultery had resulted in illicit pregnancy is something about which the Gospel author is silent.

    We can, if we like, see this passage as applying only to Christ Himself: He is entitled to show mercy to sinners, but we’re being somehow presumptuous to do the same. However, I don’t think that’s how this particular passage tends to get interpreted. I tend to think that He was showing us how He’d like us to treat those caught in serious sin, especially as regards the reminder that none of us stands sinless in the human arena, so to speak.

    Again, however, I see this as an insoluble problem of perspective between us. You think that a Catholic school is being the most Christ-like to stick to the letter of the code of conduct and tell the unwed mother to get lost (and to remind her, quite kindly and lovingly, of course, that her insurance will expire 30 days after termination). I think they had a better path, and chose to ignore it.

  • Ybm says:

    “I disagree, and I think that the scandal of seeing Catholic schools behave this way outweighs any possible good (if there even theoretically was one) involved in curtly showing unwed pregnant sinners the door.”

    Erin it was said by someone else earlier and I was willing to listen until it was proven, which it now is. It seems to me you have fallen victim to vanity. from your post, I would conclude that to you, it is more important that pro-life people (seemingly specifically men by your chauvinistic accusation against zippy) appear acceptable to those who are pro abortion, than our God.

    Something that comes from spending enough time on the margins of your societies ideology is that you learn that no matter how much you appeal to your enemies, one step toward your enemies beliefs, ostensibly under the banner of “reconciliation” is in fact two steps away from your own.

  • Zippy says:

    Erin:
    that in the end it seems that there is more mercy available to terrorists than to unwed mothers

    Good one. Because voluntarily disqualifying yourself and losing your job is juuuuuust like being waterboarded. And anyone who doesn’t agree with Erin about that is a pseudo-Catholic stone-throwing chauvinist.

  • Gabriella says:

    She calls you a chauvinist and yet she paints a very dim view of womanhood.
    .

  • Scott W. says:

    Because voluntarily disqualifying yourself and losing your job is juuuuuust like being waterboarded. And anyone who doesn’t agree with Erin about that is a pseudo-Catholic stone-throwing chauvinist.

    And of course breaking your contract and losing you job in a country where fornication is all but the national sport is juuuuust like being stoned to death.

  • […] the comments below, we learn from Erin Manning a.k.a. Red Cardigan that when Kathleen Quinlan voluntarily disqualified […]

  • Mike T says:

    @Erin

    As I said in my comment back to you on my blog, I am *trying* to understand why it’s okay to treat unwed pregnant women with a harsh coldness that we wouldn’t use against, say, a male Catholic school teacher who admitted to his boss in a private unrecorded conversation that he struggles with masturbation.

    For the same reason we don’t treat looking at pornography the same as having a torrid affair. The mere fact that they are both sexual sinners does not constitute a basis for equivalence. The one is sinning against himself and God. The other sinned against herself and God, created a new life and presumably from the context here is possibly plotting murdering said new life.

  • Mike T says:

    Actually it is a basis for equivalence, but a flimsy equivalence that is not particularly helpful to understand the issue. Sort of like saying that a gangbanger who kills a rival in an isolated shooting can be meaningfully compared to a mass killer who wipes out an entire classroom in a fit of psychotic rage.

  • James Kabala says:

    “Refraining from committing an ‘unspeakable crime’ is ‘noble and courageous’. I’m tempted to add ‘you go, girl!'”

    I’m confused by this line of argument on your part. Weren’t the martyrs courageous? Weren’t those who sheltered Jews from the Nazis courageous? In circumstances where there is tremendous pressure to commit a certain sin, the mere act of not committing it can be courageous. Those would be two obvious examples.

  • James Kabala says:

    I’m actually more on your side than on hers, but golly, you both need to take a break from the Internet for a while.

  • Zippy says:

    James Kabala:
    Weren’t the martyrs courageous?

    If we were talking about ‘life of the mother’ cases this would apply. Comparing ordinary pregnancy to martyrdom is exactly the sort of ‘buying into the captor’s ideas’ that I call pro-life stockholm syndrome.

  • James Kabala says:

    Good point, but I’m not sure what your overall thesis is – Is it that we should treat fornicators and fornicators-plus-aborters exactly the same, and if we don’t we are succumbing to the evil “gold star” mentality? I don’t see how it can ever be wrong to commend someone for doing the right thing. This woman worked directly with children and I think therefore she had to be fired, and her lawsuit is contemptible, but I don’t see the benefit in working ourselves into rages against sinners we have never met.

    P.S. What is your general attitude toward crisis pregnancy centers? Are they a good thing, or are they “pro-life Stockholm Syndrome” because they do not focus on condemning those who come there?

  • Zippy says:

    James Kabala:
    I don’t see the benefit in working ourselves into rages against sinners we have never met.

    That is a classic blame-the-critic move though. I am not outraged in the least, nor have I expressed any outrage. I’ve just placed shape charges around the foundations of the ideas of those who are outraged at the diocese and the school, and pressed the detonator.

    What is your general attitude toward crisis pregnancy centers?

    They are a good thing, though as with any human activity I am sure I could find ways to improve some praxis (particularly in use of slogans and counseling that exhibit stockholm syndrome).

    The critical difference from the schoolteacher case is that they are charitable activities and don’t pretend to be entitlements.

  • Scott W. says:

    I am not outraged in the least, nor have I expressed any outrage. I’ve just placed shape charges around the foundations of the ideas of those who are outraged at the diocese and the school, and pressed the detonator.

    Quote of the Day. Consider it stoled’ed. :)

  • Mike T says:

    I’m confused by this line of argument on your part. Weren’t the martyrs courageous? Weren’t those who sheltered Jews from the Nazis courageous? In circumstances where there is tremendous pressure to commit a certain sin, the mere act of not committing it can be courageous. Those would be two obvious examples.

    James, you gravely dishonor the martyrs and those who sheltered the targets of the Nazis with this sort of thinking. In fact, I think you dishonor them in a way more pernicious than any sort of desecration of their bodies and graves could ever approach by comparing what they did to the “courage” of an ordinary pregnant woman to not murder an unwanted child.

    What is next? The sacrifice of ordinary men who stay with frumpy, barely sexual wives? The martyrdom of children who provide for their elderly parents? The denial of self that is paying just and reasonable taxation?

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    James, you gravely dishonor the martyrs and those who sheltered the targets of the Nazis with this sort of thinking.

    Be fair to James: he is having an adult discussion in the manner that Erin declined. No name calling, no prejudiced characterizations of everyone who disagrees as pseudo-Catholic chauvinists, etc — just engagement with the ideas. That’s exactly what I like to see.

  • Gabriella says:

    There is a pretty strong biological drive to have babies.

    You don’t have to have the least bit of virtue not kill your baby.

  • Gabriella says:

    I need to correct myself.

    Just having a baby is not an act of virtue. If the woman’s life is in extreme danger or the act of having the baby would be perilous in some other way then it could be argued that it takes a little bit of virtue to resist the pressure to abort. But only a little bit, because ideally the act of murder would be so atrocious that one shouldn’t even have to question.

    If someone had a choice to shoot you or a 5 year old and it was your choice I hope most people would choose to take a bullet to spare the 5 year old. It would still be an act of virtue, but one that is expected of any decent individual.

  • Svar says:

    Gabriella, Erin is just being emotional as women are wont to do. I really find it ironic that you or all people are judging her for poor behavior when all she is doing is being overly emotional. Anger gets the best of all of us.

    However, she should adhere to Zippy’s guidelines and quit name-calling and making stuff up.

  • Gabriella says:

    Svar- I am not judging her. I am analyzing her behavior in an emotionally detached way because it is fascinating and representative of so many manosphere memes.

    My behavior is probably equally interesting at times, but I am a little bit too invested in my reputation to be able to analyze myself in an emotionally distant way. I don’t fault someone else for doing it.

  • Mike T says:

    @Zippy,

    I think my comment was pretty fair. I was characterizing his comment, not him personally.

  • Svar says:

    Paige, just open your eyes. Don’t make even more of a fool of yourself.

  • Gabriella says:

    Svar- I’m not entirely sure what your motivations here are. Do you just want me to go away because I irritate you and my presence pollutes a blog you enjoy? Or do you have some genuine concern for my reputation? If it is the latter..then don’t worry about because being seen as foolish isn’t that big a deal to me. If it is that I annoy you then can’t you just skim past my comments? Its a big internet, and I only comment on a very small portion of it. If I irritate Zippy I think he is the kind of person who will tell me to go take a hike.

  • Zippy says:

    I tend to find criticisms/discussions of persons rather than ideas[*] a distraction in general.

    Gabriella is right that I’m not shy about telling people to take a hike. I rarely do so though because I’m always learning things, often from unexpected interactions.

    [*] The names of persons are often associated with ideas, events, behaviors, etc for various reasons of sourcing and involvement. But the focus should remain on ideas and behaviors, not persons.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Fair enough. I just want to make the point that James is a class act as a commenter, and I respect and appreciate it.

  • Gabriella says:

    I think Svar is very concerned that my ideas are given more merit than they deserve. My reputation is as a shameless hussy, and it would be terrible for someone to accidentally think that I have any respectable quality what so ever. Svar is being charitable towards others, trying to warn them not to be duped into accidentally liking me. His intention is noble.

    At the risk of inciting Godwins law- if you saw Hitler in a combox winning friends and influencing people you might be tempted to let everyone know about Hitlers record so that Hitler doesn’t have more influence than he deserves.

    The reason I comment here is because Zippy has specifically said that he is interested in an exchange of ideas first and foremost. As such, even a shameless hussy can have something of value to contribute.

    Hitler was a bad man but people still garner interesting insights from Mein Kampf.

    The fact is though that Svar need not worry, because my foolishness will eventually show if it has not already.

  • Dalrock says:

    We live in a society where 40% of all children are born out of wedlock, and over 50% of all children born to women under 30 are out of wedlock. Marriage rates for young women are in a freefall, with 81% of 20-25 year old women never having married (not counting divorce). Sexual immorality is rampant, as are out of wedlock births. We literally have sluts marching down the street of nearly every major city in the western world. The culture is winning here.

    While the culture at large is spiraling downward at an amazing pace, many parents are looking for ways to push back as they raise their children. If you send your child to a public school they will almost certainly be exposed to full fledged acceptance of out of wedlock birth. They will not only be taught that it isn’t wrong, but many will argue that women who have children out of wedlock or divorce after marriage are heroic. Where should parents who don’t want their children taught this is ok and even heroic turn? Many would say Catholic schools would be a good choice, but the ability of the RCC to offer a schooling environment where teachers aren’t flaunting out of wedlock births is evidently something many Catholics here challenge. Not having pregnant unmarried teachers (just like the public schools) is seen as unchristian. For those who feel this way, where would you steer parents who want to push back against the collapsing culture? Homeschooling is an excellent choice, but not right for everyone. If Catholic schools can’t offer a reasonable shelter and homeschooling isn’t a viable option, where should parents turn?

    What I see is far too much concern for the guilty (those already caught up in our rampant sexual immorality), and far too little concern for the innocent children who are at risk of being sucked into this mess. I feel great sympathy for a woman who loses her job due to her own immorality, but I feel far more sympathy for the innocent children she would force the RCC to allow her to remain as a role model for.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    I feel great sympathy for a woman who loses her job due to her own immorality, but I feel far more sympathy for the innocent children she would force the RCC to allow her to remain as a role model for.

    Aye, there’s the rub. The difference between mercy and justice (entitlement) is that in the context of mercy, scandal can be controlled. The recipient of mercy can refuse the mercy by refusing to agree to the conditions which control the scandal. That’s up to them; just like losing their jobs was a choice that Kathleen Quinlan and Matt Prill made.

    Some have suggested that this is why Quinlan’s offer to take a back-office job during her pregnancy is the preferred route. But there are two problems with that:

    First, that the policy isn’t about being pregnant, it is about morally unacceptable behavior. I suppose Matt Prill should be given back his job once the students who caught him spending the night at his girlfriend’s house have graduated. The whole approach makes a hash of having morality codes to begin with — perhaps a feature not a bug to (some) proponents of this notion of “mercy”.

    Second, outrage at the school failing to offer her another job or continuing her health insurance is just another case of Internet pundits spending other peoples’ money. Who are they to say that the budget should be modified to take from Peter and pay Kathleen?

    In the end the whole thing is a trap to make enforcing standards which protect young children impossible.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Zippy, off topic, please delete if you so wish. Dalrock’s post brought this back to me.

    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4590

    [It’s fine as an example of propaganda to which students in secular schools are subjected, but readers’ warning: explicit content. — Z]

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    In the end the whole thing is a trap to make enforcing standards which protect young children impossible.

    This is quite literally the point of her lawsuit, to make sure that the RCC can’t enforce the morals clause for women who get pregnant out of wedlock. From her attorney (the person she hired to represent her) in this story:

    “That morality clause conflicts with the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, or Title 7. It can’t be enforced against her in such a way that she loses her job,” said Siegal.

    Siegal says she wants an award of “punitive damages to punish and deter Ascension School and Archdiocese of Cincinnati from engaging in discriminatory activity.”

    It is worth noting that she only offered to take a “behind the scenes” role until after she gave birth. She feels entitled to return to teaching first graders in a RCC school as an unwed mother.

    As for how the public sees this, they don’t see this as an issue of mercy for a supposedly repentant teacher, they see it as a matter of the RCC being behind the times for failing to embrace the new morality:

    “There’s a lot of women in the world that are unmarried or those that have been in relationships and have gotten pregnant before marriage, from what I’ve always been told, we are all God’s children, no matter what and that everybody should be accepted and not ridiculed,” said Carianne Chase of Kettering.

    “You should be married before you have children, but stuff happens, but I still feel like that’s wrong. I feel bad for her, the lady that lost her job because it’s hard to find work,” said Ms. Taylor from Dayton.

  • Svar says:

    The real problem Paige is that this Erin woman is nowhere near as bad as you make her out to be and you yourself seem to have some amnesia about how you’ve disgraced yourself numerous times. You would think that someone like you would have some charity.

    Also, I wouldn’t worry about people accidentally liking you.

  • Svar says:

    Also, Hitler atleast had honor. That’s more than I can say for you.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar wrote:
    The real problem Paige is that …

    OK, that is quite enough on that. There is no lack of forums in which people can attack each others’ honor and compare each other to Hitler. I think the Internet will survive without adding my blog to the list.

  • Svar says:

    Sorry Zippy, but I found the attacks on Erin(by Paige) to be unneccessary and hypocritical.

    I will stop now.

  • DeNihilist says:

    It just feels like this whole affair, ties in way to neatly with Obama’s decree that religious institutions must pay for womens’ birth control, even if it is against the foundation that the faith is built on.

    It is really scary watching your constitution being taken apart so easily!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Stocking Patty Hearst’s food bank at Zippy Catholic.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 174 other followers