How to tell that liberalism has distorted your moral sense, II

January 28, 2013 § 156 Comments

In the comments below, we learn from Erin Manning a.k.a. Red Cardigan that when Kathleen Quinlan voluntarily disqualified herself from her job in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and was let go, that was the moral equivalent of the diocese torturing her.  (We also learn, though, at the same time, that it is downright heroic not to torture captives when all the cool kids are doing it).  We learn that the reason it is wrong to torture presumed-terrorist captives isn’t because torture is gravely and intrinsically evil: it is because not-torturing them is merciful.  We learn that failing to employ an unwed pregnant woman is equivalent to stoning her to death, like the biblical case of the woman caught in adultery, and the answer to “What Would Jesus Do” is, of course, “what Erin says we should do.”  We learn that when you let someone go from a job after that person has voluntarily disqualified herself (and is therefore, you know, no longer qualified) and broken her contract, that is treating her as an object not a human being.  Treating her as a human being would require us to ignore her choices and actions, as if she were not a moral agent but rather was just an unthinking unchoosing, uh, object.  That’s why it is imperative to ignore the fact that she is suing the diocese because she feels entitled to compensation as a matter of justice: because even though what she wants is “justice” under her warped sense of justice, not mercy, we should impose our “mercy” on her.  This is critical because we learn that supporting the diocese in this incident makes Catholics look bad to pro-abortion secularists (and by golly we can’t have that).

Finally, we learn that only pseudo-Catholic stone-throwing chauvinists support the diocese in this decision.

UPDATE:  A few male chauvinists … I mean female chauvinists … well, whatever they are, have weighed in.

§ 156 Responses to How to tell that liberalism has distorted your moral sense, II

  • Vanessa says:

    That’s female chauvinist to you, and staunch defender of the double-standard that has allowed me to not have to shovel snow, work full-time, or sign onto the draft list.

  • johnmcg says:

    You are not doing yourself credit with these posts.

  • johnmcg says:

    TO be specific, while I am content to leave the decision on the proper decision of the employment of the teacher to those closest to this situation, I find this mocking of the idea of being merciful to a woman with an unplanned pregnancy to be, to borrow a term from your beloved manosphere, un-Biblical.

    Yes, dismissing someone from her job isn’t the same as stoning her. And Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit, not as a result of her own sin. And the Samaritan woman at the well, I guess she wasn’t asking for anything from Jesus.

    But the idea that we can learn nothing from the stories of the Gospels unless they are exact parallels seems to get us close to where we may as well throw them out.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    You are doing exactly what Erin is doing: responding to things I haven’t said.

  • Vanessa says:

    I think the hostage analogy is spot-on. These women are trading their children’s lives for goodies and it’s sickening. Is this child slavery, prostitution, or some dastardly combination of the two?

    Our job, as pro-lifers, is to inform them that what they are contemplating (abortion) is evil and to provide them with the minimum of care they need to not end up acting out of sheer desperation (3 hots and a cot and basic medical care). But clapping for them and coddling them, as if they were heroes for not practicing infanticide? That’s sick. The fact that so many of us don’t realize that it’s sick makes me sick.

  • Gabriella says:

    In the Gospel account Joseph finds out Mary is pregnant and decides to “quietly divorce” her..which was merciful in comparison to loudly divorcing her. Joseph was not being merciless by refusing to marry a woman who he believed to be fornicating.

    Mercy is not the absence of punishment.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @JohnMcG

    “I find this mocking of the idea of being merciful to a woman with an unplanned pregnancy to be, to borrow a term from your beloved manosphere, un-Biblical.

    As the, ah, foreleast commenter from the Manosphere, I’d just like to note that I did not mock that woman, but chastised her, and you, and Shea, and Manning.

    Second, you might as well call it an unplanned arrest, and if you’d reckoned with Genesis 3 you’d see that pregnancy is both deliverance and discipline.

    I haven’t seen one comment about going after the father for insurance–which, by the way, John, is the person missing from your beloved tale of Jesus lets the harlot go.

    This is ironic coming from a Bible-thumping Protestant, but should be evidence of my Catholic sensibilities: You have made an idol of that scripture. It is corrupted to you, and by you. This is not the first time.

  • Vanessa says:

    She knew the rules, she obviously broke the rules, she goes. Letting her keep her job isn’t mercy, it’s a display of gratitude. What are we grateful for? We’re grateful that she didn’t kill somebody in order to keep her job. It’s a quid pro quo.

    How does the Church react when men are behaving badly? Like this. The rules are the rules.

  • Vanessa says:

    You have made an idol of that scripture.

    No, obviously not, since she got sacked.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Vanessa

    Long time no speak, Vanessa.

    Perhaps you have misunderstood me, or I am misunderstanding you.

    JohnMcG has a history–on this blog–of using that scripture as proof that Jesus means for women to never encounter correction, repentance, and as few negative feelings as possible. I’ll see if I can find the comments.

  • Vanessa says:

    Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment, CC. I thought you meant that the RCC had idolized that bit of scripture.

    At any rate, we have plenty of mercy available through the acts of confession and repentance. Funny how people used to think that being spared the fires of Hell was a mercy, but now it’s all about keeping their jobs after breaking their contracts.

    I’ve had to sign similar contracts for my own teaching positions and if I pulled a stunt like she did, they wouldn’t hesitate to show me the door. The first priority is setting a good example for the children. And one thing our children need to learn is that we should keep our word and that sin has consequences, and not only in the afterlife.

  • Vanessa says:

    That was two things. LOL

  • Scott W. says:

    You are doing exactly what Erin is doing: responding to things I haven’t said.

    You are only half-right because not only did you not say those things, you didn’t even imply them.

    What you did do however, is challenge equality. A secular dogma from a false religion that has been so ingrained in us from childhood that when we encounter offenses against it, we reach into our box of Christian terminology and slap labels of mercy and forgiveness onto things whether they belong on top of them or not.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Vanessa

    You can start here.

  • Vanessa says:

    I think the argument is actually that men and women are equal in spirit, but not the same in body. The differences in the sexes lead to different results, even if they are both held to the same standard. Women only lament this difference when they think they’ve drawn the short end of the stick, while failing to note all of the advantages it brings.

    If this woman ends up homeless (which is unlikely, but possible), then she’ll be comforted by the fact that nearly all homeless women can find space in a shelter, and they’ll happily throw a man out on the street in the cold to make room for a pregnant woman. Cause life just isn’t fair.

  • Vanessa says:

    You can start here.

    I read it, but I have no idea what he was trying to say.

    Gotta go for now! Interesting discussion.

  • Erin Manning says:

    Well, Zippy, it’s cute that you completely misstate everything I’ve written on this and then stamp your feet about how I’m not being fair to your arguments.

    I suppose the most sincere prayer I can offer for you is that God will show you the same exact measure of justice you insist on showing everyone else, untempered by the hideous moral weakness of mercy.

    “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” I forgive you for what you have written about me.

  • Gabriella says:

    What has he written about you that is worse than what you have written about him? You actually called him names as well as employed all kinds of shaming tactics…all because he had the audacity to disagree.

  • Vanessa says:

    Wow, that was incredibly pretentious.

  • Zippy says:

    Erin:
    That’s because I’m a pseudo-Catholic rock-throwing chauvinist. I know that is the case because you said it is the case; and your characterizations are accurate, while mine are wildly unfair and wrong.

  • Vanessa says:

    People are forgetting the difference between mercy and leniency: the latter includes indulgence.

  • Svar says:

    “And Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit, not as a result of her own sin. ”

    This John is an absolute joke. Comparing the Holy Mother to a woman who became pregnant due to her own fornication is the action of an idiotic mind. How could you compare a mere fornicator to the Holy Mother?

    Btw, what Zippy did, John, was baring Erin’s “arguments”(if you can call them that) to logic. They didn’t hold up, you don’t like that because they make you look stupid and therefore you bring out even more ridiculous arguments like the one where you compare this woman to the Holy Mother.

    Where do these people come from?

  • Svar says:

    “JohnMcG has a history–on this blog–of using that scripture as proof that Jesus means for women to never encounter correction, repentance, and as few negative feelings as possible. I’ll see if I can find the comments.”

    Indeed. Why do these people always bring up that Scripture out of context and out of it’s intended meaning? What that Scripture means is that I no longer have to die if I fornicate or commit adultery or disobey my father, not that it’s not a sin and not that I shouldn’t face any punishment and not that I will not go to hell if I don’t repent and change my ways.

    That is just as aggravating as WWJD? which as Zippy has pointed out, is just “What I would do”.

  • Svar says:

    “Well, Zippy, it’s cute that you completely misstate everything I’ve written on this and then stamp your feet about how I’m not being fair to your arguments.

    I suppose the most sincere prayer I can offer for you is that God will show you the same exact measure of justice you insist on showing everyone else, untempered by the hideous moral weakness of mercy.

    “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” I forgive you for what you have written about me.”

    Translation: I can’t make a decent argument and even though I called you names and shamed you for adhering to Catholic morality, I forgive you for making me look bad.

  • Svar says:

    Btw, is Shea also whining about this Kathleen woman? What a shame. I can’t believe that they allowed “Catholics” like those on the Chronicles site alongside real Catholics of TJF, Tom Piatak, Scott P. Richert and Pat Buchanan caliber.

  • Gabriella says:

    Trying to figure out why Erin is in such a tizzy it finally occurred to me that Zippy failed her litmus test for not being a misogynist. He failed to seem adequately empathetic towards a woman who is in a difficult situation.

    She divides the men she interacts with into categories according to their perceived danger. Zippy failed for his inability to conjure up adequate sadness over a woman’s pain.

    She is subconsciously qualifying him. Ironically,he is passing her little shit-test even as he incurs her wrath.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:
    Btw, is Shea also whining about this Kathleen woman?

    My impression is that Mark gave a nod to Erin’s initial post (the one with which I respectfully disagreed) and moved on to other things. He seems bemused by the displays of, um, Christian charity toward me in his comboxes. He and I are friends, and are used to disagreeing with each other without getting all stupid about it.

    Because of our collaborations on a number of subjects, most notably torture, there is a rather laughable tendency for people to see me as his invisible Svengali — despite our various manifest disagreements.

  • Svar says:

    “Ironically, he is passing her little shit-test even as he incurs her wrath.”

    Should you really be doing this [redacted].

    [Again, we are not bringing personal disputes or TMI from other blogs into this space. –Z]

  • Svar says:

    I see, Zippy. I take back my comments about Shea. I’ve just gotten tired of liberal Catholics whining about how real Catholics aren’t real Catholics because they’re just so meeean.

  • Mike T says:

    Letting her keep her job isn’t mercy, it’s a display of gratitude. What are we grateful for? We’re grateful that she didn’t kill somebody in order to keep her job. It’s a quid pro quo.

    I think Chris Rock accurately summed this up in a less philosophical way:

    “I take care of my kids.” You’re supposed to, you dumb mutha#$%^&! What kind of ignorant $%^& is that? “I ain’t never been to jail!” What do you want, a cookie?! You’re not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having mutha#$%^&!

  • freddy says:

    I’ve been noodling all this around in my head all weekend and I have to admit that there’s a lot I still just don’t get.

    I agree with you, Zippy, that for contracts to work and for morality to be upheld that there should be in most cases follow-through with consequences.

    I even agree that from the report available, the woman in the case sounds like she’d maybe like the Church “punished” for being “mean” to her for being caught in voiding her own contract.

    Where I start scratching my head is that you seem to think that it would be unmerciful for the Arichdiocese to retain the woman as an employee and in effect help her out during a difficult time.

    I would think that at this point the details — which we do not have — would be important. For example, if the woman were living with a boyfriend and had no plans to live according to Catholic teaching, she should not be retained as an employee.

    If, on the other hand, the woman is living as a “Catholic in good standing” other than having committed a single, painfully visible sin, should she not be given help and care?

    I once met an older woman who believed all the worst lies about the Catholic Church. I turned out that the woman’s mother had been Catholic but had left the Church after some sort of argument with a priest. This woman grew up fearing and hating the Church all because, in her words, “a priest was mean to my mother.” Aren’t the souls of Ms. Quinlan and her children worth every care?

  • DeNihilist says:

    anything from/about the father of the unborn?

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    Where I start scratching my head is that you seem to think that it would be unmerciful for the Archdiocese to retain the woman as an employee and in effect help her out during a difficult time.

    I actually said the opposite in my first post on the case:

    If there happened to be a different, low profile, back office job opening for which she was qualified, permitting her to interview for that position – if she was interested and had a good attitude about it, and was willing to peacefully accept the result of not being hired, if that was the outcome – would be a mercy. Giving her even just an interview as a matter of entitlement or fear of what she might do if she isn’t given one isn’t just wrong. It infantilizes her.

  • Vanessa says:

    Shea is orthodox and Erin probably is, too (I don’t follow her blog).

    For the record, I originally promoted Erin’s post because I thought it was a good example of a passionate plea for leniency. That is a woman’s role, as we have traditionally been the “beggars for the poor”, and we are to beg for the deserving and the undeserving poor. The leadership is then free to acknowledge our plea or tell us to go take a hike. I thought her argument was well-structured, even if I disagreed with her, and I was glad to see that she didn’t try to claim that the woman was an innocent victim of the RCC, but rather acknowledged that her fornication was an objective wrong.

    All that said, I agree with Zippy because of the political climate we are in. Leniency is the privilege of the powerful to waive the standard punishment in isolated cases. But the punishment is not standard (How widespread is the punishment of fornicators?), the RCC is not very powerful at the moment, and such cases are depressingly common. To back down on this sort of thing would merely strengthen the impression that the RCC thinks fornication isn’t a sin worth punishing. We haven’t exactly been left with a lot of room to maneuver and setting an example is the best thing we can do right now.

    If anything, the RCC is the aggrieved party because they are being publicly shamed and sued by this shameless and vengeful woman.

  • Mike T says:

    If, on the other hand, the woman is living as a “Catholic in good standing” other than having committed a single, painfully visible sin, should she not be given help and care?

    Wouldn’t the fact that she is aggressively pursuing action to punish them for upholding the morality clause be sufficient grounds to say she is unrepentant? I’m not a Catholic (though I’ve been accused of being a crypto-Catholic Protestant) but AFAIK what she did is a mortal sin and she’s compounding it with pursuing secular charges against the RCC for upholding its dogma. I don’t think you have to be God to say with a pretty high degree of certainty that there ain’t much repentance in that heart. Therefore I don’t see how she can be “in good standing” in any meaningful sense.

  • Gabriella says:

    I didn’t see the redacted comment but for the sake of clarity let me say
    I am not accusing Erin of being especially awful. I am sure I have done the same thing many times.

    When something makes you irrationally angry then there is probably something else in play..something you are probably not even aware and it probably has very little to do with the person you think you are mad at.

    After you get some emotional distance it can be edifying to review your actions and analyze them from an objective perspective. If someone touched a nerve then figure out how and why and then you might be a little more capable of being objective in the future.

  • Vanessa says:

    What Mike said. She is, in effect, asking them to do her a big favor and punishing them for refusing. She hasn’t exactly put on a hair shirt, has she?

  • Zippy says:

    Erin is a good, orthodox Catholic, tremendously loyal to the Church and a staunch pro-lifer. That is part of what makes this dustup so interesting. When she says she owes me a debt for turning her head on straight about torture and other subjects (probably referring to war, bombing, drones and such), she is right.

    She does owe me a debt for helping her get to the truth on those subjects.

    But her prejudices in this case have led her to call me names, impugn my faithfulness to the Church, wildly mischaracterize what I’ve said, and accuse me of all manner of different things. And she seems genuinely baffled that I won’t subject myself to her frame as the scolding schoolmarm with me as the chastened student, despite my efforts to get her to see the beam so that we could have a respectful discussion as adults.

    I think this illustrates exactly what I was referring to in my post on pro-life stockholm syndrome.

  • Vanessa says:

    I think it is hard for anyone to keep a cool head while innocent children are being slaughtered by the millions, but Zippy’s not the one killing them.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    If anything, the RCC is the aggrieved party because they are being publicly shamed and sued by this shameless and vengeful woman.

    People seem to think that money grows on trees, and that creating an off-budget make-work position for this woman or even continuing her health insurance is automatically a reasonable thing to do. I sat on a parish finance council for a few years; the people who are making these assumptions don’t know what they are talking about. If budget had to be re-allocated for this particular woman, some poor child who couldn’t afford Catholic education would lose financial aid — or something.

    Money doesn’t grow on trees.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yes, our priests and deacons are already sharing cars and are crowded into one little house, the parish ministers are working crazy hours, and we need to pass the basket just to fix the roof. Money is incredibly tight right now, so hard choices have to be made and they made one.

  • Chris says:

    I was going through the lectionary this morning (and came over here after Vanessa posted on the situation). The text was “Flee Babylon” and I ranted on syncretism and disobedience within the church.

    Now, I’m praying for the Cathoic friends I have. I’m reformed, and in the past I’ve LEFT congregations because they were being heretical and I was told, quite bluntly, to shut up and accept that they were becoming a zombie church.

    I see the same thing happening to various regions in the Episcopal (bishop rulted) churches — Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox — where one area moves almost completely into error, and I see the damage to the souls of the laity there. And sometimes these people have no option: there is but one RCC church in their area or the Bishop has got no one but “Yes men” left in the diocese.

    For what it is worth, the bishop was completely in his rights to sack that chick. Besides, leaving her in ignorance in a state of sin is not merciful nor loving.

  • Chris says:

    Vanessa: my local congreation has to earthquake proof the church buildings. We had two — total cost 3 MILLION.

    We sold the one with a historic places classification and we are probably going to bulldoze the other one.

    The church is not the building. — says me, who finds visiting churches a highlight when in new cities.

  • Vanessa says:

    The bishops also have to take into account, not only her spiritual well-being and that of the children, but the well-being of the other women and men teaching at the school. Perhaps one who might otherwise be led astray has just gotten a bit of a reality check.

    Punishment doesn’t always lead to further rebellion. Sometimes it acts as a deterrent.

  • Gabriella says:

    I don’t think that Red Cardigan is overwhelmed with sympathy for the unborn. I think she is overwhelmed with sympathy for women..and the only way for her to be shaken out of her complacency is for her to see other people hold their ground on morality.

    On a deeper level she knows that she needs the men around her to be strong where she can’t be. That is why I said Zippy is passing the shit-test.

  • Gabriella says:

    The bishops also have to take into account, not only her spiritual well-being and that of the children, but the well-being of the other women and men teaching at the school. Perhaps one who might otherwise be led astray has just gotten a bit of a reality check.

    Punishment doesn’t always lead to further rebellion. Sometimes it acts as a deterrent.

    Exactly. Women have been deterred from fornication from such simple things as having unshaved legs. Losing their job is just one more “but what if” that gives them some moral strength.

  • Vanessa says:

    No, I think the Stockholm Syndrome analogy is more accurate. She has internalized the “Choice Mommy” rhetoric and it has altered the way she views the situation.

    I.e. when you get in the habit of praising women for not murdering their own children, for “choosing life”, it no longer becomes something you expect as a matter of simple human decency. It comes to seem a heroic effort, and therefore is something people need an incentive to do.

    If you say, “But if women see this, then they will be more inclined to abort their own babies,” that is just an admission of the complete moral degeneracy of women. So, should such monsters then be teaching our children? How far can you take this line of reasoning before you become a misanthrope?

  • Gabriella says:

    I don’t think the Stockholm Syndrome explains the irrational anger though. It explains the patterns of behavior we see, but the irrational anger comes from a fear of some kind..and I don’t think the fear is fear of unborn children dying. I think it is fear of women suffering.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yes, well obviously it’s hard to see anyone suffer unless their sins cry out to Heaven.

    I’m not criticizing Erin for displaying normal human emotions like empathy, but for allowing it to so cloud her judgment that she attacked someone who disagrees with her within the bounds of charity. Zippy is not being uncharitable, but arguing that other people could be harmed through any leniency.

    Not being a virgin bride myself, I was only spared the shame this woman is suffering through the compounding sin of contraception. Like the men, contracepting women are getting a free pass, which is similarly unfair. But alas, life isn’t fair.

    Some people get caught and some don’t, but wickedness catches up with all of us at some point.

  • Scott W. says:

    Wouldn’t the fact that she is aggressively pursuing action to punish them for upholding the morality clause be sufficient grounds to say she is unrepentant?

    That would be part of it. I’d go further and remind everyone that she was either already having non-marital sex before being hired, or started having it within only a few months of being hired. In other words, I’m not seeing any evidence that she intended to stick to the morality clause in the first place. Yet here we are with people assuming she’s the victim because she’s got the babies and who other than that nasty piece of work King Herod could be against women and babies?

    In any case, I’m predicting she won’t prevail in court, and more details will come out vindicating the school.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    Zippy is not being uncharitable, but arguing that other people could be harmed through any leniency.

    Not just other people, but this woman herself too. She doesn’t see it as leniency. She sees it as her due, in justice — that’s what the lawsuit is all about.

    Granting “mercy” to someone who doesn’t want it qua mercy and sees it as her due in justice is harmful to her, treats her as something less than human.

  • Vanessa says:

    “and the only way for her to be shaken out of her complacency is for her to see other people hold their ground on morality… On a deeper level she knows that she needs the men around her to be strong where she can’t be.”

    I think this is generally true, and a good example of the strength of the complimentarian nature of the Church structure.

  • Gabriella says:

    Zippy made the connection between women’s suffrage and abortion. Women’s suffrage produces in women a sense that they must represents their own interests because they can’t trust men to do it for them.

    They don’t believe men will represent their interests unless they *see it*..and because of the situation we have found ourselves in they can give gratitude to “feminism” for every good thing they enjoy rather than to who that gratitude is really owed- Christian patriarchs.

    Women become gradually obsessed with representing their own interests to the point that they are convinced that men are trying to prosper at their expense. Then they have irrational knee-jerk reactions to any perceived unfairness.

    The funny thing is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Men are trying to prosper at women’s expense, because women are so valiantly defending their own interests. Men don’t have to do it for them, so they don’t (as much). Now we have the “gender war”.

    Erin’s squeals of Misogoyny! are a representative of the gender war. Its us vs them…and even though Zippy is definitely on the side of Life, he isn’t quite enough on the side of Women for Erin’s tastes, and is henceforth not a good enough ally in the abortion debate.

    In an ideal society there would be no gender war because what is good for both men and women wouldn’t be much at odds.

  • Mark P Shea says:

    This is hilarious. I posted a link to Erin because I agree with her point, then moved on to other stuff cuz I’m busy. I vaguely noticed that Zippy was saying something, but haven’t read any of it, except to get the impression he was disagreeing with me. This amused me since somebody was telling me the other day that the real source of all my deviant liberal wussiness on torture, unjust war, and other Non-Conservative Truly True Catholic thinking was…Zippy, who controls my mind and tells me what to think. So I posted a little inside joke to him and then went back to ignoring the thread.

    Days pass. Suddenly I’m having this N. person (I assume a woman, but I don’t know) shrieking at me that I am pure evil and the blogosphere is my god and goodness knows what all else because I haven’t kicked Zippy out of my comboxes for his evil fucktardness. I explain I haven’t been following any of this stuff. She redoubles the attack. Somehow Erin and I both–the people Zippy is disagreeing with–are gutless fiends who represent all that is most horrible in the Church because of our backward Neanderthal reactionary something or other due to either not censoring him or still talking to him or something.

    Now I come here and discover from Svar, who I also don’t know, that I’m leftist scum who never should have been allowed to soil the sacred pages of Chronicles with my AmChurch liberalism.

    Wonderful!

  • Zippy says:

    Mark:
    It’s peeeeeeople … blogging is peeeeopleee !!!

  • Zippy says:

    To be fair to Svar, he did retract his comment.

  • Mike T says:

    Erin’s squeals of Misogoyny! are a representative of the gender war. Its us vs them…and even though Zippy is definitely on the side of Life, he isn’t quite enough on the side of Women for Erin’s tastes, and is henceforth not a good enough ally in the abortion debate.

    Erin cannot grasp how masturbation is a far lesser sin than fornicating, creating a new life and then contemplating murdering it to cover up the deed and/or get on with life. I think that either says she walked right out of a MRA blog on “Team Woman” or cannot formulate a rational moral equivalence to save her life in an argument.

  • freddy says:

    Zippy: I’m sorry, but your idea of mercy: “If there happened to be a different, low profile, back office job opening for which she was qualified, permitting her to interview for that position – if she was interested and had a good attitude about it, and was willing to peacefully accept the result of not being hired, if that was the outcome – would be a mercy.” seems to me rather like the father of the Prodigal Son saying, “Son, there might be a position in the stables if you’re willing to interview, but if I decide to hire someone else, no whining and I don’t want to see your face around here again.” I thought that we, as Catholics, were supposed to be better than that.

    You also said: “Giving her even just an interview as a matter of entitlement or fear of what she might do if she isn’t given one isn’t just wrong. It infantilizes her.”

    But no one, as far as I can tell, (other than the woman’s lawyers, but that’s another story) is saying that the woman is entitled to a job or that the Archdiocece should be afraid of what she might do if she isn’t given one. What we’re saying; what I’m saying anyway, is that if this woman should not have been summarily fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock. That to do so — without some other, extenuating circumstance (i.e. a refusal to live according to Catholic teaching) is not charitable. The Archdiocese of Cincinnati is fairly large. Surely there is some position she could fill without giving scandal. But absolutely, our sense of charity should compel us to help, not fear or entitlement.

  • Svar says:

    Yes, Shea, I apologize for my comment. I made a snap judgement. That screechy Nauveen sow came upon this site and I bundled both you and Erin with her.

    Paige, Erin is a decent woman and a decent Catholic, she has just allowed her anger to get the best of her, a sin that I give into. You of all people shouldn’t be so critical.

  • Gabriella says:

    Svar- People on the internet are frequently used as an example of broader concepts. This is a price we all pay for participating in these debates. If we don’t want to be used as a tool then we have the right to keep silent.

    That said..if my tone seems excessively harsh then I will try to bring it down a notch.

  • Mike T says:

    @Zippy

    From one of W4’s latest blog posts…

    P.S. Comments by nasty misogynists expressing nasty misogyny will be summarily deleted without excuse or apology. Any such commentators who are stalking this site, please take warning and just go away.

    How the mighty have fallen…

  • freddy says:

    Mike T:

    As you are not a Catholic, I’ll take the liberty of explaining. Apologies if I’m too pedantic!

    To be a “Catholic in good standing” actually has a particular eccleisiastical meaning. I’m not an expert, but generally it means that the Catholic in question is not under any censure for lifestyle or public opinions. In other words, a Catholic who is free to partake of the Sacraments, and does so.

    Fornication is considered to be a serious sin. Under three conditions a sin is considered “mortal.” 1. the sin is serious, 2. the person committing the sin knows that it is serious, and 3. the person decides to do it anyway. Certainly there are things that would make a serious sin not mortal: if the woman were forced, for example — even being seduced might diminish her culpability. Being in an altered state and thus unable to make a thoughtful decision — like being drunk (a sin in itself) or on certain medication.

    As for “compounding it with persuing secular charges against the RCC for upholding its dogma.” Well, it is no part of Catholic dogma that “thou shalt fire the pregnant woman.” But that’s not what you meant, is it?

    Strange as it may seem, it is possible for someone to be a good Catholic, even believe that they were wrong to have relations outside of marriage and yet believe they were fired unjustly. It’s also possible for people to get themselves tangled in the clutches of greedy lawyers and start believing their twaddle about victimhood and a big payoff.

    I have no idea what the circumstances of this case are, but I don’t think we can judge this woman’s soul.

  • Mike T says:

    freddy,

    The prodigal son was repentant. His father could see it in the way he came crawling back in shame. No one has shown any behavior that demonstrates the least bit of repentance in her public persona. If anything, she is akin to a prodigal son who came marching up to his father’s house reeking of pig #$%^ and gentile perfume and greeted his father with “hey pops, what’s for dinner?”

  • Mike T says:

    freddy,

    Let’s get a little simpler here and use the thief on the cross as a counter example. He said he hung there justly condemned. He accepted a punishment for his sin which most would call insane overkill. That is true repentance of the sort we should all aspire to.

    A willingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions is an inherent facet of repentance. She has no basis to say that she was unjustly fired. She signed a contract free of duress and freely violated it. It doesn’t get more black and white than that.

    So now let me ask you this… would you be so lenient on a married man who had a torrid affair with a married woman while under a morals clause? If not, why?

  • Svar says:

    Paige, your tone is annoying not harsh and ironic considering your deal. You’re sinking your teeth into this woman like a rabid dog. I’ve read her things and the characterization of her caring deeply about the pro-life cause is true.

  • Mike T says:

    Did something happen to paige’s comment? Because I don’t see a Paige here.

  • Gabriella says:

    I agree that she is deeply prolife, but if she had to choose between the prolife cause and women’s franchise it sounds like she would hesitate, and instead just hopes that no such choice is required. Keep in mind that she has not reconsidered her point of view and as far as we can tell still firmly believes that Zippy is a chauvinistic psuedo-Catholic who revels in women’s suffering.

    If she says something to the contrary then I’ll stand corrected.

    I’m not really sure what you want from me. If you would like to try and work out our disagreement you can do so at my blog and I’ll listen to a calm well-reasoned rebuke of my behavior.

  • Gabriella says:

    Mike T- He is referring to a previous username of mine.

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    Zippy: I’m sorry, but your idea of mercy: … seems to me rather like the father of the Prodigal Son saying, …

    It is always easy for Internet pundits to spend other peoples’ money.

    But no one, as far as I can tell, (other than the woman’s lawyers, but that’s another story) is saying that the woman is entitled to …

    Why would she even have lawyers if she didn’t believe she was entitled to compensation?

    I think what is happening is that lots of Internet pundits have constructed an image of the heroic pregnant single woman in desperate straits shunned by those reprobate diocesan misogynists. That image is contradicted by the actual public facts that we already know. In addition, whether this woman actually needed help or not, and to what extent, is not public knowledge: she may have family who can help, for example, which means that charity should be allocated elsewhere (e.g. to the poor kid who needs a scholarship to attend Catholic school).

    My own suspicion is that these false constructed images are, at least among serious pro-lifers (on the squishy-on-abortion and pro-abortion left the whole thing is most likely just dishonest rhetoric), a product of pro-life stockholm syndrome.

  • Black_Rose says:

    “Our job, as pro-lifers, is to inform them that what they are contemplating (abortion) is evil and to provide them with the minimum of care they need to not end up acting out of sheer desperation (3 hots and a cot and basic medical care). But clapping for them and coddling them, as if they were heroes for not practicing infanticide? That’s sick. The fact that so many of us don’t realize that it’s sick makes me sick.”

    Oh, boo hoo! Take an anti-emetic if it makes you sick.

    Please don’t be so flippantly dismissive of the plight of those considering abortion. Do you really that type of attitude would garner sympathy to the pro-life cause that you herald, or does it simply reinforce the views of both your (conservative) pro-life compatriots and liberal pro-choicers that pro-lifers lack compassion? (Before I met a friend, I was not even a “liberal” because I did not even use “liberal” arguments to justify the morality of abortion; my position on abortion and infanticide culminated in a form of nihilism that discerned little “positive expected value” in the potentiality for happiness and material success in the born.)

    While you may regard it as a facile “rational” choice not to pursue abortion and you may considered yourself as a virtuous person for have the capability of resisting your sexual appetites and confining them within the institution of marriage, you should understand the emotions involved in such a choice, at least on detached theoretical level. However, I do know what despair is both on an abstract, intellectual level due to my material-reductionist worldview and my understanding of the current neoliberal political economy, and on an emotional level since I do experience mild depressive episodes because I have cyclothymia. When facing this heartrending decision and on the precipice of undergoing an abortion, many women are engulfed by despair and would need courage, love of their child and herself, and hope to arise from the depths of despair. Judgment would most certainly not help them in that predicament.

    You seem belittling the decision not to have an abortion because it seems that the decision to have the child is not an example of exemplary virtue. Fine, but you should definitely commend a mother who chooses to have the child, despite being in the depths of despair and material adversity, because she acknowledges the simple yet profound truth that God loves her and the child. That decision should not be trivialized and should be regarded as a miracle.

    Aporia:
    “Does your heart hurt? Humans have foolish hopes because of their hearts. And, all your wishes, they are all just pain. How absurd! The heart will destroy the future. Little boy, this is despair.”

    *Rua (the “little boy”), silent visibly overwhelmed with a sense of hopelessness and sadness, tears up and a tear falls to the ground*

  • Zippy says:

    Black_Rose:
    When facing this heartrending decision and on the precipice of undergoing an abortion, many women are engulfed by despair and would need courage, love of their child and herself, and hope to arise from the depths of despair. Judgment would most certainly not help them in that predicament.

    Those are perfectly understandable points. But a person for whom that is true should not be a Catholic first grade teacher in the first place.

  • Black_Rose says:

    I apologize for the antiemetic comment. I thought I deleted it though because I did not want to sound sarcastic, even in a Sheldony way.

  • Vanessa says:

    “That decision should not be trivialized and should be regarded as a miracle.”

    I will not argue with someone who thinks it’s a miracle for a woman to refrain from murdering her own child.

    As for Zippy being a misogynist… well. Perhaps she is simply not accustomed to dissent and perceives it to be an unusual cruelty to be forced into a debate with an actual opponent.

  • Scott W. says:

    Days pass. Suddenly I’m having this N. person

    My guess is that this is Naveen who appeared in Zippy’s “Double clutching” entry and became progressively unhinged and obscene much like N. did at your blog.

  • freddy says:

    Mike T:
    And maybe this woman is repentant, too. You don’t know. And you don’t know the details of what motivated her law suit.

    And so what? Isn’t the Church always supposed to be ready to forgive and ready to help those in need? Shouldn’t we expect a deeper charity from the Church than some hoity-toity expensive private school?

    You said:

    “So now let me ask you this… would you be so lenient on a married man who had a torrid affair with a married woman while under a morals clause? If not, why?”

    I’m not understanding your question. Did the married man come to me (as his employer) and confess? Is the affair going to be publicly known, say, the married woman’s husband is divorcing her? Will the man’s continued employment give scandal, or can I have him take a “back-seat” position? Does the man’s wife work outside the home and can she support the family? What exactly constitutes “torrid” anyway?

  • Mark P Shea says:

    Svar:

    Okay. Thanks. i was just skimming here. One suggestion: calling a woman a “sow” is probably not the best way of telegraphing your deep sense of Catholic respect for the dignity of women.

    [Disengaging now. Backing away toward the exit slowly with my hands where everyone can see them.]

  • Scott W. says:

    Backing away toward the exit slowly with my hands where everyone can see them.

    Stay and wallow with us.

    One of us!
    One of us!
    One of us!

  • freddy says:

    Zippy:

    Well, as I live in the Archdiocese in question, I can tell you that the area schools are both doing quite well and are above my touch, financially.

    I also have a great deal of respect for the current Archbishop: he’s been very active in the pro-life arena, working to make religious education better, and the seminary is booming. He’s also been very generous to those of us who love the old Mass.

    I’m also old enough not to harbor romantic illusions about classes of people. I assure you, I put no credence in the myth of what you call the heroic pregnant single mother etc. etc. People are people; all of us are sinners.

    And honestly, I don’t care if this particular women were to be the spoiled only daughter of a multi-millionaire and likely to get herself into another fine mess this time next week; it just doesn’t seem Christian to say to a pregnant woman, “Well, you promised not to … says to right here…buh-bye now! Have a nice life!”

    “Oh, you’re sorry? Too late!”

  • Vanessa says:

    What we have sunk to is a “gold star” morality, in which refraining from horrendous sin earns you praise because we expect everyone to be absolutely depraved, just as reading a book gets students a gold star because we expect everyone to be illiterate.

    Didn’t abort your child? Gold star for you!

    Didn’t smother your aging grandmother with a pillow? Gold star for you!

    Didn’t put poison in husband’s tea after finding out he has Parkinson’s? Gold star for you!

    Didn’t kill yourself after a particularly bad year? Gold star for you!

    We don’t even expect each other to refrain from engaging in murder anymore. I understand the pro-life desperation that drives this, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a backwards view of morality. It also doesn’t change the fact that we destroy our own moral argument by allowing the “pro-choicers” to frame the debate.

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    “Oh, you’re sorry? Too late!”

    What evidence is there that she is sorry? Her unwillingness to face the consequences and her lawyered-up entitlement say otherwise.

  • caethan says:

    It’s worth pointing out that acting generously towards unrepentant sinners makes it harder, not easier, to extend mercy towards repentant sinners.

  • Svar says:

    “One suggestion: calling a woman a “sow” is probably not the best way of telegraphing your deep sense of Catholic respect for the dignity of women.”

    So…. by calling one woman who has questionable behavior, a sow, means I don’t respect all women or any women?

    Makes complete sense.

  • freddy says:

    Zippy,

    You keep trying to understand Ms. Quinlan from her lawsuit. I keep trying to understand my Archdiocese from the fact that they fired a pregnant woman for essentially being pregnant.

    The reality is that in this country at this time abortion is legal and contraception is cheap.

    The reality is that had this woman used contraception she would still have her job.

    The reality is that had this woman had an abortion she would still have her job.

    The unfortunate message that her firing sends is not that the Church is willing to stand up for her beliefs but “don’t get caught.”

    I realize that’s not the intended message, but in light of reality, that’s the one that will be heard.

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    You’ve just articulated pro-life stockholm syndrome.

  • freddy says:

    Caethan:
    You said, “It’s worth pointing out that acting generously towards unrepentant sinners makes it harder, not easier, to extend mercy towards repentant sinners.”

    I’ve actually had the opposite experience in my own life. I’ve found that living according to “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do,” has made me a more generous person and more anxious to receive forgiveness.

    God grant that I always be quick to forgive, even when it’s hard, even when unasked, that I may receive mercy on that day.

  • Zippy says:

    Equating employment and forgiveness is ludicrous.

  • Scott W. says:

    Vanessa was good enough to give us a few examples of men committing easily discovered sins:

    Showing up at the Christmas Party with your “Life Partner” on your arm.
    Slandering the Church on your blog
    Posting facebook pictures of you partying like a rockstar
    Drunk dialing your co-worker and telling her what you want to do to her (yeah..its happened)

    And oh yeah: This story.

    Note the priest wasn’t brought up on charges for lack of evidence which would normally send our fornicate-without-consequences opponents into “See!? Easier to hide!” except for the fact that he was still booted for conduct unbecoming.

  • Vanessa says:

    2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

    2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” 85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in86

  • Gabriella says:

    If someone steals my bike I might personally decide not to press charges, but if I call the police I assume they will charge them and not decide to show mercy on my behalf.

    The school has a policy, and it is up to the people who work there to uphold it.

    If they want to offer her all kinds of mercy off hours then that is their right to do so, but I don’t think they have the right to change the school policy that the students and parents expect to be upheld.

  • freddy says:

    Ahh, so “pro-life stockholm syndrome” means pointing out reality. Weird.

    Oh, and how on earth is my reply to Caethan regarding being generous in forgiveness at all equating employment to forgiveness?

    I disagree with Caethan that being generous to the unrepentant makes it harder to be merciful to the repentant. I think being generous to the unrepentant makes it easier to be merciful to the repentant. I’ve often found that forgiving someone who hasn’t asked for it; being kind to someone who doesn’t recognize it, or giving to someone who won’t appreciate it makes me more willing, not less, to forgive those who are sorry.

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    Ahh, so “pro-life stockholm syndrome” means pointing out reality.

    It is a reality, yes. Mammon demands a pound of scandal or the babies get it; pro-lifers comply, and adopt the attitude that this is a good thing.

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    I’ve often found that forgiving someone who hasn’t asked for it; being kind to someone who doesn’t recognize it, or giving to someone who won’t appreciate it makes me more willing, not less, to forgive those who are sorry.

    OK. So you give Miss Quinlan a job. You said you live in her diocese. Go for it. Put your money where your mouth is. Take whatever you have set aside for tithing and send it to her personally.

    I’m reaching the conclusion that you are playing the concern troll. You get your questions answered and then change the subject. The only basis you’ve provided for condemning the school’s action here is that:

    … it just doesn’t seem Christian to say to a pregnant woman, “Well, you promised not to … says to right here…buh-bye now! Have a nice life!”

    “Oh, you’re sorry? Too late!”

    and

    The unfortunate message that her firing sends is not that the Church is willing to stand up for her beliefs but “don’t get caught.”

    I realize that’s not the intended message, but in light of reality, that’s the one that will be heard.

    “Doesn’t seem Christian” is just you emoting, the “sorry” insertion is contradicted by known public facts, and the fact that enforcing standards means that dishonest people will try not to get caught is hardly a news flash: it is just a general-purpose specious argument against having and enforcing standards at all.

  • caethan says:

    freddy:

    I wasn’t referring to my (or anyone else’s) personal difficulties with granting forgiveness. I don’t see how my offering forgiveness to this woman is relevant at all; she hasn’t wronged me personally, there’s nothing for me to forgive. She has wronged the diocese, by violating her contract with them, and certainly those she has wronged thereby should forgive her for that.

    But granting clemency is always a prudential judgement. Whether to grant mercy in any particular case depends on the circumstances of that case and what the expected outcomes are. Granting clemency carries the risk of giving scandal – in this particular case, of teaching young children that fornication is not wrong. If there is a history of leniency towards unrepentant sinners, that makes the risk of scandal much larger, and makes it that much more difficult to prudentially grant mercy towards repentant sinners.

  • Black_Rose says:

    “What we have sunk to is a “gold star” morality, in which refraining from horrendous sin earns you praise because we expect everyone to be absolutely depraved, just as reading a book gets students a gold star because we expect everyone to be illiterate.”

    You are judging people based on an absolute standard because from your perspective it is a trivially easy moral decision when it is made when one is not under immense distress.

    Again, do not underestimate the mindset of despondency, despair, and sorrow; I haven’t fully experienced it myself, because I never had a major depressive episode, but I do understand what it feels like when you do not even love yourself enough to value your own existence (much less a non-sentient human being). It seems that many people considering abortion, however they got pregnant, realize that they and their children and themselves would not be valued or treated with dignity, but would be met with castigation and judgment. In their anguish, they wish everything would just go away, especially their child.

    Of course, some people wanting to procure abortion are just hedonists who want to experience sexual pleasure without consequence, but a real subset definitely do experience some form of despair.

    I wonder how one could convince someone that abortion is evil without recourse to loving God. Trying to persuade one of this with words is just a feeble rhetorical game; you, as an emissary of Christ, need to demonstrate, not merely tell them, that God loves them through your sincerity, love, and meekness. A few perfunctory gestures such as merely giving them “three hots and cot” would most certainly not suffice. They would cynically flout your message if you approach them with judgment and condemnation.

    I am speaking as a grateful beneficiary of spiritual charity myself from an unexpected source, so I personally experienced what worked.

    As for myself, I do not know I am specifically called to do except pray for my friends (and occasionally enemies) and love in whatever capacity that is available to me. I am often discouraged and withdrawn due to my lack of prestigious education credentials, financial resources, political influence, and interpersonal skills, but perhaps I will find something. Sincerity, meekness, and mercy come naturally to me and I could comprehend dense, abstract prose and memorize information extraordinarily well, but I do not have any courage as I am mired in defeatism as I often dwell on my inadequacies.

    ——

  • Zippy says:

    Black_Rose and Vanessa:

    Perhaps we can agree that the deeply mentally disturbed whom Black_Rose is talking about are a special case, not the normative case?

    That’s about all the bridge materials I have up my sleeve for that particular divide.

  • Chris says:

    Oh shit dear. Let’s start somewhere sane, which is Vanessa’s description of the problem.

    What we have sunk to is a “gold star” morality, in which refraining from horrendous sin earns you praise because we expect everyone to be absolutely depraved, just as reading a book gets students a gold star because we expect everyone to be illiterate.

    Didn’t abort your child? Gold star for you!

    Didn’t smother your aging grandmother with a pillow? Gold star for you!

    Didn’t put poison in husband’s tea after finding out he has Parkinson’s? Gold star for you!

    Didn’t kill yourself after a particularly bad year? Gold star for you!

    We don’t even expect each other to refrain from engaging in murder anymore. I understand the pro-life desperation that drives this, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a backwards view of morality. It also doesn’t change the fact that we destroy our own moral argument by allowing the “pro-choicers” to frame the debate.

    Now, for a bit on church governance. Being a member of the church in good standing used to mean something . Because the table — communion (eucharist for you Papists) was closed. When I was a young man and a confirmed communicant of the Presbyterian church you got visited by an elder every quarter and if you were living alright and were not in rebellion you were given a communion card. No card, no communion.

    And I can remember (I was a bit older than Svar is — about 19 or 20) that an elder of the church (not european — from the Islands) was living with his girlfriend. He was stripped of his eldership and had to leave her to attend communion.

    If you take sin seriously, you have confront it. And this is why I’m supporting the bishop here — despite being (in the terms of the Catholic Encyclopedia) a damnable heretic because I’m reformed and not RCC — I do not want to disrespect or hold in contempt someone who is trying — as a bishop, a pastor and a theologian — to not condone overt sin. I will not deviate into a Reformed rant about how we all are guilty of what the RCC would call mortal sin. This is lunch break: I don’t have the time to do that between feeding the sons and besides, it’s rude.

    Now, being disciplined hurts. Negative feedback is harsh. You grieve when you are disobedient. I’m not discussing here if the woman involved is penitent or not — I’m not in that city, and not of that church. But godly sorrow can lead to repentence. Colluding with sin leads to perdition.

    (And yes, having a child out of wedlock is stigmatizing. It causes you to be shunned. You have to deal with the consequences of your actions. But hiding that by murdering the child in utero compounds this, for not only have you joined the cult of Molech but also you are now a hypocrite, and beyond correction unless you acknowledge and confess. No, I AM reformed. This is not an exclusive RCC doctrine, but shared by all the churches).

    The problem on my side of the Tiber is that we have made the table and the gospel without cost. And that is an error.

  • freddy says:

    Caethan:
    I don’t disagree with with your explanation; I do think that it causes a larger and perhaps graver scandal for the Church to fire a pregnant-out-of-wedlock teacher than to find some job in the Archdiocese that she could do.
    I’ve been hearing some nasty comments about the Church not *really* caring about women and not *really* caring about babies and *really* only caring about appearances and so forth — all of which could have been avoided.
    Firing this woman will teach nothing.

  • Chris says:

    @ Black Rose: the mad still have a sense of ethics and justice and morality. The most courageous people I know have schizophrenia, and deal with the most gross hallucinations every day that cripple them. Or have bipolar, and have to limit their life because they are aware of the cost of a manic episode.

    Now personality disorders…. well, you model morality until they catch it. 🙂

    Vanessa is right, you know. There is but one standard of morality.

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    all of which could have been avoided.

    No, it really couldn’t have. The Church is a light in the darkness, and the darkness hates the light.

  • […] at Zippy’s, the words are flying fast in the debate about the pro-life Stockholm syndrome. Here is one of my […]

  • freddy says:

    Zippy,

    I’m really tired, so last comment for tonight.

    I’m sorry you think that I’m any kind of troll.

    Perhaps I’m just stupid because your answers continue to make no sense to me, which is why I keep asking questions and making comments. I keep hoping I’ll get to a point where I can make some sense of your arguments.

    You use words like “hostages,” “mercy,” and “(pro-life) stockholm syndrome” as if they mean something else.

    And that you think this whole thing is “about having standards and enforcing them” like this woman wore the wrong frock to your garden party is just a little bit nauseating.

    She was pregnant and lost her job because of it. I think that’s wrong.

  • Zippy says:

    freddy:
    She didn’t lose her job because she was pregnant.

    She lost her job as a Catholic schoolteacher because she was caught – not by investigation, but by circumstances – fornicating, against the morals clause in her contract, in a visible way which could cause scandal. Just like another Catholic schoolteacher, one Mr. Matt Prill (HT Vanessa), also caught by circumstances rather than investigation, who was fired for sleeping over at his girlfriends house.

  • Black_Rose says:

    Perhaps we can agree that the deeply mentally disturbed whom Black_Rose is talking about are a special case, not the normative case?

    So what is the “normative” case then? How do they perceive themselves within society and society itself? Do they value their children highly? Do you think the “normative” cases’ predicament invites judgment? Please apprise me on their psychologist disposition. Certainly, you would agree that those wanting to procure an abortion are a self-selected group that is not representative of general society, and would perhaps be predisposed to experiencing depressive cognition and mood. (Of course, cognition and mood do influence each other to a certain extent, but they often act independently of each other; for instance, I was a cognitive pessimist before and this often made me susceptible to mild depressive episodes, but fortunately, I was never overwhelmed by a major depressive episode. Moreover, I was always cynical and distrustful of the world even when I was not affected by mild depression.)

    Certainly some are unapologetic, recalcitrant “liberals” who value their own physical autonomy and hedonistic lifestyle and have no compunction about terminating the life of their child if it interferes with her whims, but it would seem to be a dubious prospect to convince them of the immorality of abortion, since they consciously believe their pleasure reigns supreme.

    Most women who want abortions have not read Michael Tooley or Peter Singer’s work and would therefore base their decisions on feelings and economic prospects not on ethical considerations, but I do not see a compelling secular reason why a fetus would merit protection.

  • Zippy says:

    Black_Rose:
    So what is the “normative” case then?

    What is objectively right and wrong. In the natural law certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior are always immoral to choose, no matter what intentions or circumstances obtain. Here is the Magisterium of the Church on the subject:

    In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.

    It is never acceptable to confuse a “subjective” error about moral good with the “objective” truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience. It is possible that the evil done as the result of invincible ignorance or a non-culpable error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent; but even in this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation to the truth about the good.

  • Vanessa says:

    I think the “give me what I want or the baby gets it” argument is the logical conclusion to the “if mamma isn’t happy, nobody’s happy” argument. In both cases, women are holding children hostage.

  • Black_Rose says:

    Again, I will reiterate there is compelling no secular reason why a fetus’ life should be granted protection. Historically, even infanticide was not an aberration since it is quite prevalent in classical societies such as Sparta and the Roman Empire, and it is not merely a symptom of a liberal cultural zeitgeist. I will admit that I am biased since I primarily use a consequentialist framework to reason about ethical issues in a secular framework and I find it quite valuable. I have never been exposed to a “natural law” framework especially when I was an agnostic young woman who was disenchanted with academics who was reading Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics and a A Darwinian Leftand a in the university library (and I bought a copy of his classic Practical Ethics since I found it a valuable resource). I retained my admiration for him as a philosopher and academic due to his ability to expound his position lucidity and rigorous reasoning, even though currently reject his conclusions. I once considered reading Singer’s work as one of the most enlightening and intellectually fulfilling moments of my life.

    I have come to the realization that abortion is wrong due to a personal epiphany when I accepted that God loves me and by extension all human beings too. It is that and only that that was able to perforate the bulwark of secular utilitarianism and nihilism. To me, this is a personal issue, not just a dogmatic truth or a topic covered in Papal encyclicals and the Catechism, but a conclusion that natural follows from the rudimentary tenet of faith that God loves me. It is naturally for to ask myself what would my position on abortion if I had not embraced the simple truth that God loves me. Then, I would be indifferent to the destruction of inchoate human life due to the despair that I experienced, as I was when I was an agnostic.

    I also possess an understanding of the emotions of nihilism and I do not see pro-lifers adequately addressing it.

    And BTW, I never argued that the “typical” abortion case was acceptable within a Catholic framework; instead, the motifs of my posts focus either on the pro-life’s movements tactics for deterring abortion and its approach to those who are prospectively considering abortion, and whether abortion can be deemed wrong from a secular perspective.

    In my life, I am not a cultural warrior as I am mostly apolitical (on contemporary political issues as I am not personally invested in any political party, platform, or policy) in my spiritual life. No one who knew me personally would describe me as a “liberal” since I am unconcerned with fiscal issues and “values issues” such as gay marriage and abortion. I find most forms political advocacy distasteful, especially when coming from fellow parishioners, except when the discourse is highly informed and not merely a regurgitation of mainstream political platforms and soundbytes from the media.

  • Elspeth says:

    Black Rose,

    Given that all of this is unfolding in the context of Catholic morality, in a Catholic institution, by a teacher who contracted to uphold the Catholic standard in her conduct, your comments are sounding increasingly unrelated to the topic at hand.

  • Vanessa says:

    She’s grasping at straws now.

    Certainly, you would agree that those wanting to procure an abortion are a self-selected group that is not representative of general society

    No, I would definitely not agree. Check the abortion stats.

  • Vanessa says:

    It is naturally for to ask myself what would my position on abortion if I had not embraced the simple truth that God loves me.

    I was pro-life before I converted to Christianity, so I think it’s not really a stretch for an atheist to think it’s wrong to murder babies. That’s sort of… Morality 101.

  • Black_Rose says:

    Given that all of this is unfolding in the context of Catholic morality, in a Catholic institution, by a teacher who contracted to uphold the Catholic standard in her conduct, your comments are sounding increasingly unrelated to the topic at hand.

    What is really interesting about that particular case:

    Premises:

    1. Kathleen Quinlan was a employed by a Catholic school

    2. Since her employer was a religious institution, it is the just prerogative of a non-profit institution to dismiss employees that do not conform with its institutional values and flagrant violate those values.

    3. She had an abortion under “normal” circumstances, and she actions explicitly undermines the mission and values of the Catholic school,

    Conclusions:

    4. Therefore, it is proper and just that Kathleen Quinlan should be fired and not “entitled” to further remuneration, since her procured abortion unequivocally contradicts the expressed values of her institution.

    5. Any appeal to “liberal” anti-discrimination laws would be done in bad faith because the consequence of a successful appeal for compensation would undermine the integrity of the Catholic school and comprise its ability to pursue its mission.
    —–
    Sounds fairly simple. I don’t see how one can elaborate further or the value of a concurring opinion. This, to me, is just fodder to galvanize the participants of the culture war.

    What’s to argue about this case?

  • Zippy says:

    Kathleen Quinlan did not get an abortion.

  • Black_Rose says:

    Well, I only gave a cursory glance (and incorrectly inferred that due to the discussion about “pro-life” in the first few comments when the issue was about her promiscuous behavior), after putting a bit more attention to this particular case, her case seems somewhat sympathetic (since she did not get an abortion) since male promiscuity would be visibly imperceptible while a women is vulnerable to be noticed if she becomes pregnant.

    I understand her reasoning, although I do not necessarily agree with it, but why should I take anyone’s side here? She has a tenable secular case.

    This case has little to do with morality and “justice”, and more with secular jurisprudence (which is not my bailiwick) such as the definition of “discrimination”. I do not think this case would even be “interesting” (asides from its value to arouse attention from the participants of the culture war) since it seems doubtful would set a landmark legal precedent or overturn a major decision.

    I had little interest in discussing cultural war issues and consequently my attention lapsed.

  • Chris says:

    We need to distinguish folks, between true morality, and the eleventh commandment “Thou shalt not get caught”.

    Because this world ignores true morality and fervently obeys the eleventh commandment.

  • Black_Rose says:

    In actuality, this case has little to do with morality at all. One can credibly argue that she should not get fired because the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Fourteenth Amendment protect her from “discrimination”. But I cannot make such an argument or counteract it, since the legal reasoning inherently needs in formulating such an argument requires on to possess an extensive knowledge of the relevant, prior court cases and an understanding of the reasoning used to reach those decisions and competent understanding of legal theory. I possess neither and it is doubtful anyone here possesses the legal knowledge or even the interest to acquire it. But the consequences are quite predictable if she wins: there would be conservative/traditionalist agitprop about how destructive liberal thinking is pervading our culture and legal system, or equally possible, it would just be ignored.

    What Quinlan has done was certainly immoral, but her case would not be judged on that basis.

  • DeNihilist says:

    What about her signature on a contract? Pre-nups hold up in court. Soon our word will mean nothing?

  • Chris says:

    @ DeNihilist. Her words mean nothing. The contract is fungible if the court invents penumbras. As they will, and they do in family court, where breaking prehups and trusts is standard practice.

  • […] I find the ACLU useful. They are reliably wrong. It is a useful compass: if they advocate for something, the correct response is generally the one they are not taking. And in the current round of church bashing they are claiming that “pregnancy rights” give a woman a pass on any other moral duty. Black Rose is one of those very logical types who at times says things that are far too accurate. And she summed up this case perfectly. […]

  • Mike T says:

    @freddy,


    And maybe this woman is repentant, too. You don’t know. And you don’t know the details of what motivated her law suit.

    As I already pointed out to you, part of repentance in all times and places is accepting earthly punishment for your sin when it comes to you as a consequence for your decisions. I defy you to show me any solid example of repentance in Christian history contrary to that.

    And so what? Isn’t the Church always supposed to be ready to forgive and ready to help those in need? Shouldn’t we expect a deeper charity from the Church than some hoity-toity expensive private school?

    No, it’s not. The Church is not supposed to give preemptive forgiveness for unrepented sin because that is indulging sin.

    I’m not understanding your question. Did the married man come to me (as his employer) and confess? Is the affair going to be publicly known, say, the married woman’s husband is divorcing her? Will the man’s continued employment give scandal, or can I have him take a “back-seat” position? Does the man’s wife work outside the home and can she support the family? What exactly constitutes “torrid” anyway?

    It is a simple question and your last question-response is just reaching (if you cannot possibly imagine without asking what constitutes a “torrid affair.”) If a man who signed a morality clause in an employment contract did what I describe, would you enforce the contract as written?

    Perhaps I’m just stupid because your answers continue to make no sense to me, which is why I keep asking questions and making comments. I keep hoping I’ll get to a point where I can make some sense of your arguments.

    It has been made very clear why she was fired. Your interpretation that it was due to her pregnancy is against all of the evidence and arguments that have been forth here. The real reason, which has been repeatedly restated was due to a morality clause in her employment contract that kicked in when she fornicated, the pregnancy minus a wedding band being the tell tale sign she violated it.

  • Zippy says:

    De Nihilist:
    Soon our word will mean nothing?

    The word of a pregnant woman means nothing.

    Everyone else’s word means something. But pregnant women are not really moral agents: they are mere objects that we use to showcase how charitable we are to the secular world in an attempt to convert it.

  • Our Heroine says:

    Joanne over at Egregious Twaddle has a great post up today about taking responsibility for the results of our sins. True repentance, she opines, requires an admission of culpability. She further points out that fellow Christians do not aid sinners by shielding them from the consequences of their sins (especially if they are not repentant). She writes in a totally different context to the debate occurring here, but I found her willingness to accept responsibility for the results of her sin, and her honesty/optimism about how that willingness will heal her soul quite refeshing and inspiring. It reminded me that the negative consequences of our bad actions are very often how God strengthens our virtue.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/egregioustwaddle/2013/01/the-cat-the-cardinal-assigning-moral-culpability-when-the-will-is-ill.html

  • Gabriella says:

    I wish I knew how to discuss Red Cardigans behavior without unjustly tarnishing her image. I have no doubt that being talked about in these comboxes is stressful…BTDT.

    I’ll try to discuss the issue more abstractly rather than referring specifically to Red Cardigan. I have faith that she will come around to understanding where she went wrong here…though it might take a little while for her pride to recovery and to be able to look at it objectively.

    She seems to have feminism influencing her perspective and I can’t throw a stone there. I see some of my own prejudices reflected in her behavior. If she wasn’t super defensive about it it would be nice to talk about it because she is generally a very smart person. She is just very touchy on this topic.

  • Gabriella says:

    Oops. I meant to put that on the other thread.

  • Proph says:

    This is so cut and dry, I am amused it has managed to generate 100+ comments.

    Do you want to live in a good society, or a bad society? If you want to live in a good society, you have to take into account the fact that man is a social animal and that his good is intrinsically bound up with the good of others. That means the behavior of individual people can’t be regarded as if it were mere flailing about in the vacuum but as real behavior with real consequences and thus real implications for the organization of man’s social life. What I do affects other people, so I *really should* act the way I want other people to act.

    Thus when a person does something bad, they need to be treated accordingly, by everyone. This is because “bad” is always bound up with some “good” (as fornication is bound up with the pleasure of sexual release or the creation of new life), so if “bad” is not constantly reinforced as such, inertia alone guarantees that it will triumph.

    Yes, this means great hardship for the person who did the bad thing. They might have to get a new job! They might have to move somewhere else! They might even need to find a new parish! But more importantly, it means hardship for *you*. It means you have to do the difficult, awkward task of firing someone, declining their invitation to dinner, reminding them that X is not okay, etc. And that’s hard, isn’t it?

    But so what? It will always be difficult to do the right thing. Do you want a good society, or a bad one?

  • Scott W. says:

    This is so cut and dry, I am amused it has managed to generate 100+ comments.

    Exactly. It reminds me of a story about the Mike Tyson rape trial where the prosecutor got exasperated and told the jury that if this had been anyone other than Tyson, the trial would have been over in fifteen minutes.

  • Vanessa says:

    It’s a lot like parenting. I’ve had to learn discipline for my children’s sake. I have to discipline myself and help my children learn to control themselves, too. I thought Gabby’s post was a good summary of that, as the bishops are our fathers in the Church and sometimes they have to serve out some tough love. To accuse these men of being merciless strikes me as incredibly unjust, but it’s en vogue now to snap at the heels of the Church leadership.

    The downside of discipline is that it’s very difficult and counter-cultural, and you often feel bad about yourself because you come off as a Big Meanie. The upside is that you don’t get fat. LOL

  • Svar says:

    Maybe, Paige, you should consider yourself first. Erin hasn’t done anything near what you do regularly.

    This is my last comment on the matter. Just know yourself. Making random attacks because you think it’s fun is not making a point, it’s just a personal attack.

  • Zippy says:

    Gabriella:
    I’ll try to discuss the issue more abstractly rather than referring specifically to Red Cardigan.

    FWIW, I basically roll my eyes when I see people trying to perform deep psychoanalysis of specific total strangers – or even people they know reasonably well – over the Internet.

    People do that a lot — Erin among them, as the transcript, and my personal name badge as a pseudo-Catholic chauvinist, show. In an ideal world I wouldn’t have to burn calories visually or verbally processing that sort of thing, ever; kind of like every movie ever made by Wesley Snipes. Not because it is insulting or whatever (it isn’t my nature to care about such things), but because it is a complete waste of time.

    Every second spent skimming drivel, psychobabble, etc is a second I can’t get back. It may provide a kind of ‘window into the soul’ of the speaker, I suppose (while typically, as a regurgitation of the speaker’s prejudices, being entirely irrelevant to its putative denotative content). But I don’t do windows.

    It isn’t that difficult to talk about attitudes and ideas “in the vicinity” of their origins and (sometimes only apparent) advocates while avoiding attempts at mind-reading.

    At least I don’t think it is that difficult; but the pervasiveness of it counts against my intuition here. I was actually going for a kind of ‘tit for tat‘ in characterizing the ideas Erin was arguing for above, eschewing my usual habit of quote-and-discuss whenever a particular individual is named, in a last-ditch effort to get her to actually see what she was saying. But even then the best I could muster was a link to the transcript and paraphrase of ideas with relatively minimal blank-filling. That’s as sloppy as I can make it, and I do try to reach people where they are.

    Our teenage wolf-pup Svar (not condescension, for readers who aren’t aware: he actually is a teenager, IIRC, and likely a better one than I was lo those many years ago) certainly has it in for you. I don’t know why. I’m not even slightly interested in knowing or adjudicating the whats and the whys of it. I am positively interested in not knowing.

    I am very interested in it not being discussed here. I haven’t read your eponymous hubbub at Cane Caldo’s and the odds of me reading it or anything like it are slimmer than the odds that a random quantum fluctuation will turn me into Simon Le Bon.

    But that’s just me.

  • Gabriella says:

    Zippy- I came to the conclusion that trying to psychoanalyze her was in poor taste. http://likeinbooks.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/people-are-still-people/

    I’m afraid Svar is not the only one as I have been debating (and over-sharing) on these blogs for about 2 years now. Some people have come to believe that this is because I crave male attention, and several have suggested my participation here is just one more attempt to get it.

    I don’t think it is a fair analysis as I will participate on nearly any blog that holds my interest..male or female… but in the spirit of not causing scandal I will comment here less. In the future I’ll just make my own posts as I have been doing. Anyone is welcome to comment.

  • Zippy says:

    Gabriella:

    I am not asking you to leave or comment less. I’m asking everyone, and especially Svar, to keep the personal stuff (including the kind of meta-discussion of persons who are involved in the discussion) to a minimum, despite what may occur elsewhere. Not as a moderator’s demand, but as a host’s request.

  • miliukov says:

    Not Catholic, Not Conservative, long-time lurker and occasional commenter at Red’s site. Gotta say, most of you guys are a bunch of jerks — you really should get out more.

    There aren’t a lot of things I agree with Red on, but she’s certainly been a great example showing the consistency of your Church’s teaching (which to be clear, I don’t think is true: full disclosure); and she does it with a mix of humor, indignation, tenderness, mercy and steadfastness, which is why a even a backslidden Baptist like me can find some measure of grace in what she writes.

    You guys can carry on arguing about whatever it is you’re arguing about (I lost the point ages ago), and IT WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO ANYONE WHATSOEVER, except your own empty shack of a life. Enjoy the ride

  • Zippy says:

    miliukov:
    We aren’t discussing everything Erin has written here. We are discussing a particular controversy, including her commentary on it. If you have something substantive to say about morals clauses, the Quinlan and/or Prill cases — anything substantive about the subject matter at all, I’m sure someone will engage with your ideas.

  • Vladyk says:

    Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, but right after releasing her from what was then an accepted legal punishment for breaking the wedding vow. Notice how He also says to her “neither do I condemn you.”
    The only hostage situation happening here is that imposed by Christ who demands of us to be merciful to even and especially those that do not deserve it, to release debtors from debts they cannot pay. To those who refuse, he promises hellfire.
    Every child is willed by God, even if conception results from fornication, God infuses the soul directly. His will trumps whatever agreement she had with that elementary school. Any scandal keeping her employed might cause pales in comparison to the scandal caused by throwing out a pregnant single woman when she and the life that grows within her are most vulnerable.
    It’s attitudes like yours that ensure that abortion will be around for a very long time to come, they form the very foundation of the culture of death.

  • Anymouse says:

    I will simply say I have to side with Zippy here.

    Oh, by the way, the purpose for human existence is to get a tenure track position. Zippy has attained that. Ergo, Zippy’s life is not empty.

  • Anymouse says:

    Maybe it is time for you to learn about how the world works, Vladyk.

    Have you ever heard about live in boyfriends sexually and physically abusing children? Ever heard how common it is? Have you ever considered that out of wedlock pregnancy is precisely the situation that can be the start of such horrors?

    If we can ensure that sex stays inside of marriage, we can reduce a lot of the disorder now extant in the world. But that will require moving away from sentimentalism.

  • Vladyk says:

    Anon,

    Maybe it’s time for you to read the Gospels. If Jesus is unrealistic, then no one is forcing you to be a Christian.
    It sounds like you’re saying that not only should this woman not keep her job, but she should not keep her child, that the state should take the child away from her and place him in a two parent home because otherwise he will be abused.

    Ps. Abuse never happens within marriages, oh no.

  • Anymouse says:

    Jesus is quite realistic. He understands reality better than any of us. He never commanded us to abandon our promises out of Christian mercy.

    And please don’t bull shit me. We know the social statistics and the social theory. You know this social circumstance is decidedly “non optimal”.

  • Vladyk says:

    Jesus commanded us to give people more than they deserve, and to forgive debts of those who cannot pay them.

  • katmandutu says:

    Excerpts from the Catholic Catechism quoted by Vanessa really gets to the heart of the matter.

    “2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

    2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” 85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in86″

    This woman committed sin by having sex outside of marriage. She fell pregnant as a result. She was employed by the Catholic diocese who rightly fired her.
    The danger here, (had this woman not been sacked)
    is that she may adversely influence the children in her care and so cause them to sin.

    As Jesus said:

    “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” 85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others.”

    The diocese had no other choice but to fire this woman.

    To me it seems that this woman has some sense of entitlement here..She appears to care not a jot about how this must look to young children whose parents are married, and who (one would assume) have been brought up in the Catholic faith.

    It’s all about her! “Poor poor me! I’m having a baby and the mean church fired me!”

    She appears unrepentent and is primarily concerned with SELF and pursuing the church for compensation, as well as punishing them! *shakes head.*

    The woman is pregnant.(not a cripple or suffering a disease.). She will have a baby soon… In AMERICA.. Not some third world country. She’ll be right! (as we say here in OZ) She won’t starve or end up on the street..

    She is certainly no heroine. And it’s sad how some people are of the opinion that this woman has somehow been slighted by the church..Nothing could be further from the truth.

    This woman has sucked people in and is milking it for all that it’s worth.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Zippy, OT again, but I just have to bring your attention to this!

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/j-matt-barber/all-life-not-equal-abortion-advocate-declares

  • Vladyk says:

    Because throwing out a pregnant woman and leaving her without a means of support doesn’t scandalize anyone….
    She might have fornicated, but God creates the child by infusing the soul, the child is the result of His Will. We have to honor that.

  • Random Angeleno says:

    I’m came a bit late to this thread… still throwing my cow chips in there …

    First, actions have consequences. That simple. Contracts can call for consequences for specific actions. Can’t take the consequence? Don’t do the action! The woman signed the contract that spelled out consequences for sinning. Now she wants all to know the contract isn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

    Second, to forgive the doer of a sin is a holy thing. Comes to us from Jesus. It is as much part of Catholicism as confession. It also helps one to set down the baggage and move on, to use today’s language. But forgiveness does *NOT* imply that the doer automatically gets to escape the consequences of their actions. Sinners may be forgiven by those sinned against, but that forgiveness is spiritual; the sinners still have to deal with temporal consequences of their sins.

    So I can speak of forgiving this woman for her sin of fornication as a separate issue from her sense of repentance (which I understand is none; did she ever confess her sin?), but I am still with the archdiocese in believing that sins like hers have consequences. Else what are Catholic moral standards for?

  • Vladyk says:

    Yet Jesus released the woman caught in adultery from the temporal consequences of her sin….

  • Zippy says:

    … therefore sins should have no temporal consequences.

    Vladyk, do you similarly object to the firing of Matt Prill, the Catholic teacher caught (by his students, because of circumstances not investigation) sleeping over at his girlfriend’s house? Would you object to firing someone caught engaging in child molestation or theft?

  • Scott W. says:

    Erin has a new post issuing this challenge:

    If Zippy and his commenters can say with full honesty and truthfulness that they sincerely hope that they would be summarily fired if they were caught committing a grave sin of any kind, regardless of the impact their loss of income would have on their dependents, then they are in the clear to insist that this is how this Catholic school should treat unwed mothers.

    I replied (comment in moderation queue atm) that if I publicly disgraced the school, I would offer my resignation and save them the trouble of firing me and giving me severance.

    And just for a little blue-sky thinking, let’s pretend Miss Quinlan applies for a new job and the potential employer calls the school for the history.

    Compare:

    “Yes, she worked here. She signed the contract that includes a morality clause and barely a few months went by before she violated it. Now she’s suing us. Good luck if you hire her and I hope you have good legal counsel on retainer.”

    To:

    “Yes, she worked here. She got pregnant which violates our morality clause, but she came to me first and offered her resignation and said she was sorry. Obviously she made a mistake, but she owned it, and she put her desire to protect the school and the children from scandal over her own needs which is both honorable and commendable. I think you should give her a chance.”

  • […] teaching first graders.   Critics think the diocese should have been more “forgiving” (under the critics’ understanding of “mercy”).  So far none of the Diocese’s detractors have chimed in to condemn the firing of Matt […]

  • RUs says:

    Vladyk
    His will trumps whatever agreement she had with that elementary school.

    What you seem too thick to realize is that you have taken one choice by God to grant life, and in profound arrogance have twisted it into your personal power to know and determine God’s will for everything else.

    You have also, by the way, completely ignored the rest of the conversation about mercy, and it makes you look extremely foolish.

  • Svar says:

    Zippy, I was angered at the way Paige was psychoanalzying a woman she barely knew and I was angered at the gleeful way she was attacking Erin, who is in error but is not a horrible woman. She was having fun doing this the same way SSM was having fun psychoanalyzing Lydia. And also, she was acting as if she had never done anything nearly as terrible as Erin, who’s only mistake was to get overly emotional.

    That is all.

    [
    Svar:
    I don’t fully agree with your characterization of Gabriella’s comments, even though I also did not find them edifying and indeed she herself has retracted them. I do agree that it was the same sort of ludicrous thing people were attempting with Lydia, someone I know well and they don’t, and separately that despite our disagreements here I would never call Erin’s orthodoxy into question even though she has called mine into question. That whole kind of discussion is a waste of time. Also, I’d ask you to please refer to commenters by their given handles in the threads here. Using handles from other times and places is confusing inside baseball. Thanks.

    All:
    This is the last comment about this tangent. Further comments on it will be summarily deleted. — Z
    ]

  • Svar says:

    I think people need to realize that Christ is the same God as the God in the Old Testament. God punishes and God damns the unrepentant.

    Also, saying “you’re aaaalllllll just a bunch of jerks!” is not a real argument.

  • Svar says:

    “Yet Jesus released the woman caught in adultery from the temporal consequences of her sin….”

    No He didn’t. He merely spared her life. He didn’t take away the shame or the dishonor.

    You’re making yourself look stupid by quoting that one passage from the Bible ignoring the rest where Christ does punish sinners.

    Once again, there is a Hell for a reason.

  • Svar says:

    I like how these amateurs think that they know more than the Fathers of the Church who were actual theologians. They have nothing. No appeal to logic, no appeal to theology, no appeal to authority and yet they still argue as if the adultress is the one who made sure that we don’t have to pay for our sins.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    Apparently Erin now has nothing left but the “hypocrisy” chestnut: get rid of all moral requirements in all jobs (presumably she means moral requirements not already covered by positive law — so if the law made it illegal to fire someone for stealing, she’d have to get on board) because insisting on moral standards is “hypocritical”.

    She still hasn’t said anything about the Prill case.

  • Zippy says:

    What’s more, I know of two local (non-diocesan) Catholic schools here which would definitely fire a married teacher for using contraception, if it became manifest in some way. So her rant that “nobody” cares is just flat out wrong. It may not comport with her personal experience; but it sure as Hell is true where I live.

  • Smizunek says:

    Zippy,

    What I said is that just because sins have temporal consequences, it doesn’t entail that in every situation someone who has sinned should suffer those temporal consequences. Case in point, the woman caught in adultery. Where Jesus saved the woman from a legal consquence of her action prior to her even displaying signs of repentence. Notice how Jesus didn’t say “well I could help you, but then what about all of the thieves, and murderes, what about their stonings? All woman throughout all time will think that adultery is ok, and that they shouldn’t suffer the consequences of their actions.”

    Just because an action has temporal consequences doesn’t mean that we are always justified in applying those consequences to a given situation, that acting mercifully might not demand something more. Especially in the situation of the school teacher where there is a moral obligation to her children.

  • RUs says:

    Smizunck, I think you are confusing temporal consequences with punitive consequences. They may have some relation, but they are not the same.

  • c matt says:

    Freddy:

    seems to me rather like the father of the Prodigal Son saying, “Son, there might be a position in the stables if you’re willing to interview, but if I decide to hire someone else, no whining and I don’t want to see your face around here again.” I thought that we, as Catholics, were supposed to be better than that.

    But you are omitting some very important details of the story – the prodigal son did not come back suing his father for additional inheritance. In fact, the son would have dropped to his knees and thanked his dad for the deal, totally recognizing he was unworthy of even that kindness. I just don’t see the same attitude on display here. It seems mercy and repentance tend to go hand in hand (recall the other parable about the wicked servant who was forgiven his debt, then went out and beat up someone else who owed him money).

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 How to tell that liberalism has distorted your moral sense, II at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: