A story caught my eye on Catholic News Agency, according to which:
Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans said that a local Catholic school must permanently ban corporal punishment for student misbehavior, even though many parents and alumni support the practice. ...
Since 1951 teachers and administrators at the historically black all-boys school have used an 18-inch-long wooden paddle, known as “the board of education,” to administer punishment to students for tardiness, sloppy dress or other minor infractions.
However, Archbishop Aymond and Josephite superior general Fr. Edward Chiffriller, who heads the school’s board of trustees, ordered an end to the practice.
A town hall meeting assembled to discuss the change attracted an audience that numbered over 600 and included current students from grades six to 12, current and former parents, grandparents, benefactors and friends of the school.
“Board of education.” Heh. Definite points for that.
Personally, I do not have an opinion on whether corporal punishment should be administered at St. Augustine High School—the school in question. My own conviction is that the issue of corporal punishment is one for parents to decide. I have known some parents who have successfully raised children using it seldom or never. I also know there are parents who feel it is has played an important and needed role in raising their children. The fact is that children are different, and some respond to different things. To one child a time out may be far more agonizing (and motivating) than a paddling. To others just the reverse will be the case. Whether corporal punishment is to be used in the case of their own children—and how much and when—is something that I view as within the natural law rights of the parents.
Because of that, I can see why a school might choose not to have corporal punishment on campus, simply in respect of the rights of parents who do not wish it administered to their children (quite apart from issues of lawsuits and such). I can also see a school having a policy of allowing corporal punishment for those children whose parents do not object to it (such a policy could be a little tricky, but doable). And I can see a school saying, “It is our policy to use corporal punishment in disciplinary cases. If you have a problem with that policy, feel free to place your children with another school that has a different policy.”
So, I don’t have a problem with schools taking different policy positions on this, just as I don’t have a problem with parents doing so. I think reasonable people can have a legitimate diversity of opinion.
I also don’t have a problem with Archbishop Aymond deciding not to have corporal punishment at St. Augustine. As the local bishop, that’s within his purview.
I would, however, offer some thoughts on some of the claims made in the CNA story. I have to say that I wasn’t at the town hall meeting, and so I don’t know exactly what was said or in what context, but based on the coverage provided by CNA, several things leapt out at me:
Corporal punishment can cause unintended physical injury and studies indicate it can cause physical, emotional and psychological damage, including loss of self-esteem and increased hostility toward authority, the archbishop said.
I couldn’t blame the parents at the town hall meeting who may have questioned this kind of claim. While scientific studies can tell us many useful things, something like a third of them turn out to be wrong, and they can often be skewed by the agendas of the scientists who perform them. There have been all kinds of social science and psychological studies that have been “cooked” to support claims like abortion doesn’t leave lasting emotional damage, divorce doesn’t really hurt the children, homosexual couples are just as capable of being good parents, etc., etc. The anti-corporal-punishment movement intersects in a significant way with the same constellation of agendas that has cooked the studies just named. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination to suppose that anti-spanking studies have been similarly cooked.
That’s not to say that they’re automatically wrong. They could be right. This is an empirical question, and the solution cannot be decided in advance. If reliable studies have been or are in the future conducted that show a net detriment to moderate spanking—for all children in all American cultures and subcultures—then that’s an important finding that needs to be taken into account. But there is reason for caution here.
I’d be rather doubtful that such studies would find this as I, like many, was the recipient of moderate spanking as a child. I was even paddled in junior high school by one of the teacher/coaches, and I don’t perceive it to have done lasting damage to me. I suspect the experience of many—including many of the pro-paddling parents at St. Augustine’s—is similar.
Along related lines:
The archbishop explained that he believes that “hitting a young man does not build character.”
Phrased in those terms, the claim has the ring of plausibility. Hitting people is not generally recognized as a way to build character. But one could suggest that this is prejudicial language, because we are not talking about hitting, stripped of all context. There is a difference between giving someone a swat when they’ve behaved badly and to motivate them to be have better and just randomly hitting a person for no reason.
Further, this argument might prove too much. All forms of childhood discipline involve causing some kind of pain in order to motivate the child not to behave badly in the future. Spanking uses physical pain. Time outs, grounding, docking an allowance, deprivation of TV or Internet privileges, and adding chores use another form of pain. But couldn’t one just as easily say, “Inflicting pain on a young man does not build character”?—or even more provocatively, “Torturing a young man does not build character”? Despite their surface plausibility as phrased, we can recognize them as using prejudicial language. And surely we cannot infer from such claims that all forms of childhood discipline are wrong.
But if that’s the case, what makes the use of moderate physical pain different from the others? Why is it disallowed while the others aren’t? It doesn’t seem intrinsically worse than the others. I know I’d much rather have a couple of swats than, say, be grounded for a month, or even a week. A lot of children, I imagine, would feel the same way. So it doesn’t seem that corporal punishment is intrinsically cruel compared to other forms of punishment.
In any event, sacred Scripture takes a positive attitude toward childhood discipline, for the author of Hebrew writes:
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it [Heb. 12:11].
The author of Hebrews doesn’t specify that he’s talking about physical discipline, though he surely wasn’t excluding it. There simply was no anti-spanking ethic in ancient Hebrew culture. Indeed, Proverbs counsels:
He who spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him [Prov. 13:24].
That’s not to say that we must use these methods today, but it does show that they are not foreign to the Judeo-Christian tradition, including in the New Testament period in which the author of Hebrews was writing. And even if the author of Hebrews (very implausibly) didn’t have corporal punishment in mind, he clearly acknowledged the use of painful discipline to train towards proper conduct.
Archbishop Aymond also reported that he had received a letter from an activist who wrote from Ireland, which is suffering an abuse scandal. The writer singled out the continued corporal punishment at St. Augustine.
This apparently met with significant opposition from local parents:
A statement published at the school website reported that the community “overwhelmingly supports” the punishment. Attendees at the town hall expressed “outrage” that “persons from a different culture,” such as the activist from Ireland, were discussing St. Augustine’s policy and were “attempting to undermine” the school without significant input from those affected.
“Many expressed outrage that African American parents have to haggle with non-African Americans about how to raise their own sons,” the statement said.
I can’t blame the parents for feeling this way. I am sure that the archbishop meant to cite the Irish activist’s letter in a positive way, perhaps as an illustration of how the Church need to go the extra mile to prove it is not abusing children, in light of the current abuse scandals.
But I can easily see how local parents would be outraged at the idea of a foreign activist, a person of a different culture, getting the local bishop’s ear and then he announces a policy change without the input of the people most involved and affected. If I were a parent at the school, my natural response would be one of outrage. (Though I hope I’d be open to an alternative presentation of the facts if it could be shown that something else happened.)
Though I think I see what the bishop may have been getting at by citing the letter from the Irish activist, I am puzzled by something else he said:
“I do not believe the teachings of the Catholic Church, as we interpret them today in 2011, can possibly condone corporal punishment,” he explained to a Feb. 24 a town hall meeting at the Josephite-run St. Augustine High School in New Orleans. While parents have the authority to administer such punishment, he could not “possibly condone” the school doing so, the archdiocesan newspaper the Clarion Herald reports.
One of the sources of my confusion is the statement that “parents have the authority to administer such punishment” (the Clarion Herald adds, “in their homes to discipline their children”) followed by the claim that the bishop could not “possibly condone” the school doing so (“especially in a Catholic school,” the Clarion Herald adds).
Huh?
If a parents have the authority to do something in their own home for the benefit of their children then why can’t the delegate the authority to do the exact same thing to teachers? Isn’t that the whole principle on which non-home schools operate? Parents have a natural law right to train their offspring (including the right to discipline them—childhood discipline is part of the overall education of a child, regardless of whether it’s corporal punishment or something else) and then they delegate that function or some of those functions to the teachers and officials at schools where they enroll their children.
So I don’t get that.
Perhaps the archbishop meant that they have the authority to do this in their own homes in the sense of “I think what you’re doing is wrong, but I can’t stop you in your own homes,” but then why point this out to them? Wouldn’t saying that they have the authority to do this in their homes and leaving it at that undermine his message that this is wrong and give permission to parents to do something in their homes that he views as wrong?
So I remain puzzled by this.
I am even more puzzled by the statement that “I do not believe the teachings of the Catholic Church, as we interpret them today in 2011, can possibly condone corporal punishment.” Really? I must confess that I don’t know what the archbishop is thinking of here.
I am unaware of any statement in the Catechism, the Compendium of Social Doctrine, any papal encyclical, any curial document, or any other magisterial document whatsoever that says corporal punishment cannot be used as a method of childhood discipline.
A search of the Vatican web site turns up only a handful of references to corporal punishment, and only one of them appears to deal with the use of corporal punishment with children. That one reference is in a remark made in passing by a participant in a panel discussion on democracy hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, the proceedings of which are expressly flagged as “although published by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, only represent the points of view of the participants and not those of the Academy.”
Of course, as a member of the magisterium, the archbishop could invoke his own teaching authority on the matter, in which case his own subjects would have to wrestle with the question showing the deference due to the local bishop’s individual teaching authority, but the archbishop appears not to have done this.
He did not say, “By virtue of my teaching authority as a successor of the apostles and as the shepherd of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, I declare my judgment that corporal punishment of children is wrong.” Instead, he appealed more generally to “the teachings of the Catholic Church.” He further enhanced the communal appeal by referring to how “we” interpret them today.
I am unaware of any doctrinal development that has occurred on the part of the Church’s magisterium as expressed in its official documents concerning this point, so I am simply at a loss.
I can also imagine counter-questions that might be posed, such as, “If the Church acknowledges that physical force can be used to achieve the end of self-defense or the defense of others, why can’t moderate use of physical force be used to keep children away from dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations (e.g., swatting a four-year old on the rear to train him not to run out into a traffic-filled street)?” or “If other forms of painful discipline can be used to properly train a child, why can’t moderate physical discomfort be used if that is what this particular child responds to?”
Finally, there is this statement by the archbishop:
“My image of Jesus is that he said, ‘Let the children come to me.’ I cannot imagine Jesus paddling anyone.”
I can imagine parents having several responses to this statement.
First, although I am sure that the bishop didn’t intend it to come across this way, there is always a danger when using an “I can’t imagine Jesus doing X” argument that it will come across as playing a kind of trump card with the intention of shutting off further discussion. If it is said that Jesus wouldn’t do something, that strongly implies that we shouldn’t either. We shouldn’t even talk about doing something Jesus wouldn’t do, right?
Further, because the person making the argument puts himself on the side of Jesus and—by implication—implicitly suggests that those on the other side of the discussion are not with Jesus, it can unintentionally convey a holier-than-thou impression, as well as being a discussion stopper.
I’m sure the archbishop had no intention of conveying such impressions, but it would be human for parents at St. Augustine’s to take such impressions away from the discussion.
There is another reason I am generally uncomfortable with arguments of this form, which is that they are not very reliable.
Jesus is most certainly a crucial point of reference for us morally. He is the all-holy, infinitely holy Son of God incarnate. But not every moral dilemma can be settled by simply asking, “What Would Jesus Do?”
For one thing, Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind had a very different mission than our own personal vocations. His situation was quite different than ours. He had a different mission, different responsibilities, different resources, and different rights. He also lived in a different century and a different culture. This facts create major asymmetries between his situation and ours, making any straightforward application of WWJD problematic.
Further, we tend to read what Jesus would do in terms of our own preferences and aspirations. There is a famous saying in biblical circles (a saying quoted by Pope Benedict in the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth), which is this: “By Their Lives of Christ Ye Shall Know Them.”
This is a reference to the fact that biblical scholars have a tendency to write biographies of Jesus (Lives of Christ) in which the portrait of Jesus that they end up painting just coincidentally happens to reflect their own personal ideology. If you want to know what a particular scholar’s personal ideology is, read his Life of Christ and see what portrait of Jesus he paints. This happens over and over again in biblical studies—so much so that it has become proverbial.
The same thing happens outside the scholarly community, in the ordinary world of pew-sitting believers. “I don’t think Jesus would do that!” has been used by many pious moralizers to object to all kinds of activity that is perfectly legitimate.
“I don’t think Jesus would watch television/go to a movie/attend a sporting event/read a secular book/etc. when he could be praying or reading the Bible.”
The ultimate end of that line of reasoning is Jansenism or scrupulosity—o r both.
Reading our own personal pious intuitions into what Jesus would do is simply not reliable. Jesus shocked the people of his own day by eating with prostitutes, sinners, and tax collectors. He could well shock us by watching TV, going to a movie, attending a sporting event, or reading a secular book. We just don’t know what he’d do in those situations.
Jesus is much less like our pious intuitions and much more like C. S. Lewis’s depiction of Aslan, who refused to be predictable or be boxed in by promises to behave in a predictable and harmless way. Like Aslan, you know that what Jesus would do would ultimately turn out to be good, but you don’t know what it’s going to be, and it may be quite surprising and even shocking.
Even if we knew exactly what Jesus would do in all circumstances, though, we still should not follow his example in all particular outcomes. It is not God’s will that we do this. It is not God’s will, for example, that we all follow Jesus’ example of being celibate in this life, or that we all try to walk on water, or perform miracles, or announce teachings on our own authority. We may (and must) look to Jesus for the fundamental principles that inform our life and conduct, but these cannot be applied in a simplistic WWJD manner.
So what about the claim that Jesus wouldn’t paddle anyone?
I don’t know that they had paddles in his day, but they did have comparable devices: belts, rods, and whips.
And we know that Jesus used at least one of those. According to St. John’s account of the clearing of the temple (quoted from the NAB):
He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.” His disciples recalled the words of scripture, “Zeal for your house will consume me” [John 2:14-17].
These people presumably weren’t children, but they were behaving badly, and our Lord saw fit not only to spill their coins and overturn their tables (leading to a hopeless confusion and probable loss of income for the money-changes in question), he also saw fit to make a whip and start swinging it at people.
And note that he is swinging the whip at people. The text says that he “made a whip out of cords and drove them[i.e., those who sold ... as well as the money-changers], with the sheep and oxen.” So he didn’t just use the whip on the animals. He swung it at the people, too.
It’s easy to say that it’s hard to imagine Jesus paddling someone, just as it’s easy to suppose that he wouldn’t splatter people’s money, overturn their property, and physically attack a group of businessmen. Surely the meek and mild Jesus would never do those things! Our God is a God of order, not chaos, after all. And violence never solves anything.
Yet here we have the Savior of mankind brandishing a whip.
It seems like Jesus might be willing to paddle quite a few people.
What do you think?
Before I go, two further notes. Catholic News Agency reports that the no-spanking policy may not be working out as hoped:
St. Augustine High School principal Don Boucree told the Clarion Herald that discipline at the school has suffered since the school stopped paddling five months ago. It has had to resort to a “zero tolerance” policy for unacceptable behavior.
“What has happened is that the infractions that would have stopped by now have continued to rise, causing the severity of the penalties to increase,” Boucree commented.
Fortunately, the parties may still find a mutually acceptable solution:
Fr. Chiffriller [head of the school board of trustees] said the decision would be revisited and discussed, while supporters of corporal punishment said that the discussion was not over.
Archbishop Aymond suggested prayer and dialogue as a way to determine God’s will and to resolve the issue.
Let’s pray for those on both sides of the discussion, that they may be openminded and charitable and together find the best policy for this school—whatever that may be.
Comments
Post a Comment
As a citizen of New Orleans and a supporter of St. Augustine High School’s right to handle discipline as they see fit, I thank you for this very thoughtful column.
I was an abused child. What goes down at St. Aug is NOT abuse, but loving preparation of men for the world which they will encounter.
Thank you.
I’m too young to remember corporal punishment in schools, but every older person I speak with about it looks back with a certain fondness for the loving care they knew their teachers and administrators really had for them. Of course, they didn’t like the paddling at the time, but they appreciate the lessons it taught them. I think it is much more humane, inasmuch as it treats students as humans who can learn and be corrected behaviorally, to use corporal punishment. Other methods generally rely on embarrassing students (something St. John Bosco never supported) or giving them meaningless time-outs. Detentions are a joke. Only adult teachers with adult minds think of them. Adults would be terrified to have to stay at work or school longer than necessary, and to an adult, the day is much shorter (and detention much longer) than to a kid. Kids aren’t afraid of detention. I remember getting a lot of them in 5th grade. I’d just sit there for a half-hour and use my imagination. Over the course of the year, it gave me many hours of fun away from responsibilities to sit in that classroom and play games in my head. A good paddling, though, that would’ve brought me right back into the real world, and I’d have adjusted my behavior much sooner and would’ve learned to be grateful for discipline much more than a student who doesn’t gain anything real from detention.
Let’s set some things straight regardless of our opinions on corporal punishment.
1. The good bishop is out of line. He has overstepped his bounds into the territory of another. It would be better he address his own glaring problems that even I 2,000 miles away can perceive as clearly as I see the sun in the sky.
2. The Josephite superior can say something, but we may consider that this is an issue of subsidiarity. And so, this is a private matter between single mothers and the folks who they have asked to stand in as surrogate fathers.
-End of discussion
While I understand your point, it would be a mistake to suggest that all or even most families at St. Augustine are headed by single mothers.
“He did not say, ‘By virtue of my teaching authority as a successor of the apostles and as the shepherd of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, I declare my judgment that corporal punishment of children is wrong.’”
If he had, an appeal would have been made to the CDF the next day.
As a dad of 2, let me tell you that I find extremely sad to find out today that there is still a Catholic case for corporal punishment of children. There are so many creative other ways for parents to teach their children to behave appropriately.
I couldn’t read this whole thing, I had to stop at the part where you were questioning the evidence about the effects of hitting children. Um, I don’t need a scientific study to tell me that *hitting* children is always wrong. Period. We can begin with first principles. All that it it teaches children is that it is okay to use physical violence to get what they want or to make other people comply with their authority.
And using the Gospel to justify this? I’m sorry, with a whip you don’t actually strike the animal, but you make a cracking sound that alerts the animal to move out!
Turn the other cheek.
No one said there were no alternatives. However, when an organization has a proven track record of positive results with a group - African American Males - whom the rest of the educational establishment has written off as uneducable troublemakers - why muck with that system?
Archbishop Aymond is a good cat, truly. He joined hundreds at an abortion clinic a couple of weeks ago to lead the Rosary in protest. He is revitalizing the local Seminary. He’s doing a lot right. He’s on the wrong side on this one, though. Wanna know what I really think? Archdiocesan attorneys have probably told him that corporal punishment might leave the Archdiocese of New Orleans open to a potential lawsuit somewhere down the road and, AS IS THE NORM IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, he has sided with the lawyers. This is an Archdiocese (and I’m sure it’s not alone) that is petrified of getting sued and allows lawyers to run the show.
My guess is that the respondents are, like me, middle class Caucasians. That is, they do not need to concern themselves with the behavior and well - being of African American males.
In my opinion it seems like paddling as punishment only served effectively in the short term. Once the paddling stopped behavior of the students worsened causing more severe punishments. As a parent I strive to use punishment as a teaching time for my children, and hopefully help cause an inward change. I try to help them develop their morals and sense of right vs. wrong. I want it to have a lasting long term effect, so that in the future they decide to do the right thing because they want to, not just because they might get hit if they don’t.
I feel the same way about the over use of rewards/awards. Our children need to develop an inward motivation to do good and acomplishment.
Angie, you are misreading the case.
In fact, it’s not that behavior has grown worse, but where as previous infractions would be dealt with corporally, without the instrument of corporal punishment, St. Augustine, which does not tolerate misbehavior, has to suspend and expel students.
As a parent, I use corporal punishment sparingly—usually as a consequence of my children not listening to my attempts to correct them or not getting the lesson when lesser means are used. I tell them “you can listen with your ears, or listen with your backside—you choose.”
As a teacher (in a public school in a mostly sane state), I’ve never administered corporal punishment but have been called upon to witness it. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. We always call the parents first, though. If the parent declines corporal punishment, we suspend the child—returning to them their natural rights as parents. Faced with the natural right to have their children at home with them for three days, most parents think swats are just fine.
Those of you arguing against Corporal punishment are not paying attention to what Mr. Akin wrote.
I love Archbishop Sheens thought of corporal punishment “Every child needs a good pat on the back,provided it is often enough,hard enough and low enough.”
Don Bosco thought that physical discipline when done by a teacher or non parent,only caused resentment and hatred.He therefore forbade corporal punishement in Salesian schools.
I’m sorry, but those advocating that African American males need to be disciplined in a different way then any other child need to really reread their words. Black children should not be hit. White children should not be hit. No child should be hit in the name of control. Period.
And if the school has lost control of the kids because they can no longer hit them, that is a direct result of establishing a power structure based on physical control and pain, fear. Once the threat of violence is removed, the behavior cannot be controlled. This proves that corporeal punishment teaches nothing.
If this was such a great form of teaching kids how to behave, they would have the internal character to continue to behave once the threat of physical harm is removed.
But they have been taught nothing—except that they do not have to develop internal motivation, but only fear someone physically stronger then them.
And Laura, do you speak as a parent or anyone invested specifically in the well - being of African Americans? Are your children targeted for violence and police brutality at a higher rate than other children? Has society written of your children as ineducable, preparing them for nothing bu prison?
My guess is, no.
Michael,
As a matter of fact I live in an urban environment and spend hours every week volunteering in my kids’ inner city public school. I am personally invested in the well being and future of my neighbors, and my kid’s friends, of *all colors*. Our school treats everyone with respect and the kids know it is a safe place where any violence, physical, verbal, etc. will not be tolerated.
Hitting anyone, *anyone*, undermines their dignity as a human person. If we want our children to treat others with respect, we need to first treat them with respect. If we hit our children to get them to comply, guess what they do when a peer doesn’t comply with them? They hit. Because that is what we have taught them.
What makes you so sure that you have to hit black children? What leads you to make uncharitable assumptions about my race?
But you are not an African American parent,
The rest of the country writes off African American males. St. Aug has a proven record of successfully and effectively educating boys to become men.
I did not say you had to hit anyone - I would and cannot.
However, I know well enough I have no business presuming to tell African Americans how to raise and educate their children, particularly when, as is the case of St. Augustine, the methods clearly work.
Jesus would most likely spank someone if it was needed. Revisit Exodus 32-33 for a good examples. On Jesus (God) and punishment: “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” or how about “Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.” I know as a parent, this rings some bells - I’ve at least said something similar.
Jesus used the whip on two different occasions, right?
This type of nonsense is why adults lack discipline and moderation; because they lacked discipline as children. My prayers is that reason will impede the good Bishop’s efforts.
With all due respect to those who do not think spanking can be good…
(not that I am arguing for a School to do so..)
From a few years ago:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/parenting/pa0021.html
” also don’t have a problem with Archbishop Aymond deciding not to have corporal punishment at St. Augustine. As the local bishop, that’s within his purview.”
Really?
Is it in his purview then to ban sodas from the cafeteria or tell parents what lunches they must provide for their children?
Please provide me with Church teaching that, from a faith and morals perspective, puts this matter within the Archbishop’s purview.
“I’m sure the archbishop had no intention of conveying such impressions, but it would be human for parents at St. Augustine’s to take such impressions away from the discussion.”
That is an incredibly charitable way of interpreting Archbishop Aymond’s words and actions. From where I sit, the facts don’t support such a kind interpretation being the most likely. The bishop is being arrogant and heavy handed in a decision best left to local communities. For him to justify his decision the way he has, it would seem most likely that the bishop is more attune to modern psychologists than Scripture and that he is extremely disconnected from and condescending toward his flock.
Of course it is within the archbishop’s purview, based on the fact that he is liable in the case of lawsuits against his diocesan institutions—no matter how ridiculous the lawsuits be. I also believe that is EXTREMELY unfortunate, but so are the other (frustratingly limiting) liability-related decisions that have been made in so many Catholic schools over the past several years. No hugs from teachers to the little kids. No ability to help struggling parents by offering (as a teacher) to drive their children home after school. No individual academic assistance to struggling students outside class time, unless you (the teacher) are supervised. And so forth. I would think if parents sign a waiver it would take care of the liability issue. But in our sue-happy country, that apparently isn’t a guarantee of anything.
“All that it it teaches children is that it is okay to use physical violence to get what they want or to make other people comply with their authority.”
Whether that would be wrong would rather depend on what they want, and what authority they are trying to assert. It would be perfectly moral licit to strike someone trying to pour alcohol down your throat, or rape you, or kidnap you, and again if you are a policeman, you may force people to comply not only with your own authority but with other people’s.
My husband and I do not hit our 3 children, yet they must overhear classmates being hit by their teachers with wooden paddles just outside class as a knee-jerk reaction to minor infractions such as not turning in homework or horsing around, without parental consent or notification, not required by Tennessee State Law. Our local school board members Ignored our written/verbal presentation at their meeting in April during “National Child Abuse Prevention and Awareness Month” to Demand they Prohibit Corporal/Physical PAIN AS PUNISHMENT of Children in our Schools.
If school employees hit schoolchildren with wooden paddles in view of the public, they’d be arrested and imprisoned for criminal felony assault like any other person, be they a Parent, Babysitter, Priest, Police Officer, Lawmaker or U.S. Supreme Court Justice!
School Corporal Punishment is already illegal in schools in 31 U.S. States and Prohibited by Federal Law for use against convicted felons, murderers and child molesters, in ALL U.S. Prisons!
Schoolchildren are the ONLY GROUP OF PEOPLE LEGALLY SUBJECTED to Corporal Punishment!
Get the disturbing facts, search and read a couple pages of “A Violent Education”.
Please add your voice at Unlimited Justice dot com National Campaign to End School Paddling of Children.
The Texas Senate is currently considering legislation approved by the House, HB 359, to require Parental Consent for schoolchildren to be paddled at school. The bill barely passed in the house, it was defeated one day, then the next reversed with amendments to exclude communities with a population of 50,000 or less! So much for EQUAL access to safe and healthy learning environments! Texas schools report paddling approximately 50,000 students each year.
Please call or email Texas Senators and urge them to approve HB 359 to require parental consent for schoolchildren to be paddled in school. Paddles were not allowed to be brought into the Texas Capitol by protestors as they are considered dangerous/deadly weapons! Currently Texas law allows physical force with no safety standards or limits other than not resulting in death for school employees to maintain order in 21st Century schools!
An article regarding the “Discipline” Policy at St. Augustine said that most parents and students would not mind bringing back the corporal punishment policy as long as group paddlings stopped, where an entire group of students was “Paddled” for the actions of one student.
Also, if corporal punishment is such an effective method of “Punishment”, why are the same students paddled repeatedly? The U.S. should have no need for prisons, they could just beat convicted prisoners once and only once, then release them to leaders of our communities and to be emulated and admired by the public at large!
There are different schools of thought as regards punishment. Prudence should guide any group of persons deciding on this issue. I believe in unconditional positive regard in training of children but at the same time, there is need to emphasize on reward and punishment, positive stimulus and motivation as well as deterrent and corrective measures to enable growth in the right direction. The problem with our society is that the whole idea of freedom and liberty which parents wrongly apply. Some neither take responsibility for proper upbringing of their children nor allow schools to help form them properly. Education is wholistic in personality development. Some form of punishment might be compulsory in schools. Remember the ethical principle, only the guilty might be punished.
Ms. Worley:
Your comment gives the impression that parents and students object to the discipline policy. To my knowledge, both parents and students support the original policy o corporal punishment. Could you provide a link or at least a more thorough citation that we might see the article in question ourselves?
Also, you suggest that “the same children” are repeatedly spanked. Can you support this?
“While scientific studies can tell us many useful things, something like a third of them turn out to be wrong…”
Nationally syndicated columnist Dennis Prager has an adage concerning “studies”. In his view, studies either confirm what you already know through common sense, or they are wrong. I concur.
A, you make an excellent point. But where the Archbishop has faltered is to pretend this decision was borne out of religious concerns. This is yet another example of how the Successors to the Apostles have ceded control of the Church to attorneys.
I never hit my kids. I hit the neighbor’s kids.
How can you look down at scientific studies and comment that, “something like a third of them turn out to be wrong.” Scientific studies have facts to back up what they say. Learn to find the facts that back up what you say.
So let me ask a question to you who think it is always wrong to “hit” a child and that corporal punishment is “violence”.
Is it always wrong, always violent, to knife someone?
You’re probably gasping and saying, of course. But suppose the one doing the knifing is a surgeon, and the person being knifed is a patient paying him to remove a tumor?
You may argue that “knifing” someone is not cutting them with knife in a surgery. But that’s my point; we can’t call paddling “violence” either or refer to “hitting” students, which is an emotionally charged, non-objective term. We can’t reduce corporal punishment to categories like “violence” because violence depends on intent, not on the actual physical action, as I’ve demonstrated. The point of corporal punishment is to control behavior, like any other discipline. You can impose whatever judgmental sociological mumbo-jumbo constructs you want on corporal punishment, but the fact is its goal and intent is the same as discipline we readily admit is legitimate.
Why don’t these kids magically and permanently learn discipline when paddled? Because it takes time, age, and a lot of paddlings before a kid can develop the character of self-discipline. As with any discipline, it doesn’t happen overnight. Possibly, younger students with less experience with paddling more quickly revert to their natural behavior than seasoned students. We don’t know the breakdown of which of the recidivists got how much paddling so we really can’t say that paddling did them no good.
And let’s be honest: A swat on the rear end doesn’t do physical injury, unless it’s done incorrectly, I don’t care what you say. I think Jimmy made this argument but if you argue it does psychological injury, one can make the same argument of any discipline.
By the way I don’t care how many laws there are against it for anyone because they’ve all been passed by ... well, let’s just say people who I don’t think have an appreciation for the real issues.
Location: St. Theresa Catholic School, Fresno CA Date: Early 1950’s. In my Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd Grade classes we had a classmate named “Buzzy.” He had Down’s syndrome. We were all told by sister (Sisters of St. Joseph of Chrondelent) that Buzzy was our brother in Christ and he was *different* and that we had to love and respect him. One of boys made fun of him on the playground one day and sister patiently counseled him. However a few days later he did it again. At 3:00 he was told to go to the convent and report to Mother Superior. I understand the conversation went something like this: Mother Superior (MS)” Johnny, why did you tease Buzzy after Sister Jean told you not to”? Johnny (J)” ..Well Sister, I was only… “ MS: TELL IT TO THE MARINES! Where’s your Rosary?” J:” I don’t…” . MS You know you’re supposed to have it with you at.. Never mind, I have an extra, here.. Now, you will go into the parlor and kneel in the corner and pray to the Blessed Mother to ask her Son to forgive you for your cruelty to Buzzy”. J:”. Ye..ye..ess Sister. How many decades?” MS: I’ll come out and tell you when you’re finished.” About 6:00 PM, Johnny’s father came to pick him up saying “Get your butt in the car young man, you’re in big trouble.” Under the CSJ’s in the 50’s if you screwed up, you wished corporal punishment was an option.
NC Senate moves to reduce spanking in schools
The state Senate moved Tuesday to limit corporal punishment in public schools, approving legislation that would allow parents to save their misbehaving students from a paddling by telling school administrators to keep their hands off. The 50-0 vote sends ... May 2011
Don’t take my word for it, search and read just the first page of “A Violent Education” you will be disturbed at the shocking legal child abuse taking place in 21st Century American Education.
Well, if John Bosco was able to disipline his students most of the time without resorting to corporal punishment, why shouldn’t we try out? Bosco did inflict punishment(even corporal), though very rare if:
a) The students deliberately defied his reason and commit wrongdoing with full knowledge after much advice and reminder-so a student who commit wrongdoing without adequate knowledge or reasoning or even due to sheer forgetfulness(though not deliberate ignorance) will not be punished, though they will be given a friendly advice and teacher will even do some reasoning with them to let them comply the rules with both intellect and heart.
b) the wrongdoing of a student gave out scandal thus have the risk or in actual led other students to commit the same wrongdoing-this includes disrespect toward the teacher as this particular act of disobedience will lead other student to break even more rules, thus the teacher lose the authority over the student
c) the student who was to be punished was fully aware that he was indeed wrong and even agreed that the punishment was right and just and was beneficial to both himself and to other-so, contrition was to be made and the punishment inflicted was in fact to repair the damage the student had made
d) the teacher or authority who administer the punishment must not do it just because of the hurt pride or simply ill temper or even emotional trauma, but must admister it calmly yet firmly-though punishment inflicted out of just anger is not wrong, yet it is not always beneficial for the student, the student might even get damaged emotionally. Just anger can only be unleashed if it is truly beneficial to the student who commit wrong doing, yet in most cases this is ambiguous, so just stick to the gentleness when even inflicting punishment. A person who can master his anger can indeed master the world.
e) the consequence of the wrongdoing would be very immense that the student was to be punished immediately in order to save others and even the students himself-this can be done even if the wrongdoing is done out of ignorance or forgetfulness, but the students must be made aware of his wrongdoing and its consequences and the reason the teacher punished him after the incident
This is only a little portion of the precept of Bosco… Pray for us, Don Bosco.
There were 4 girls in our family. My Dad usually worked 3-11pm or 11-7 pm so my mother was the disciplinarian. I got my share, as did my sisters, of spanking, but only as a last result! I always learned not to do that behavior again. My one younger sister did not.She had to be punished several times .My mom tried everything, witholding tv, no playing outside, no allowance and spanking. Lynn was just a strong willed child, and still is as 2 60 year old adult.She has lost jobs 3 times because of the same behavior. Let’s face it, some people just have difficulty learning discipline. They want to do it their way. We feared the sisters sat school and knew what awaited us at home if we misbeaved in school. The nuns had as many as 60 children in a classrtoom and had very little trouble keeping a well behabed classtroom.It seemed Lynn had no problems behaving there. I have a cousin about 10 years older than I who was a techer. She told me , when they took the discipline out of the teachers hands, the children showed little respect and so much as said, We don’t have to and you can’t make us.” I agree with Bishop Sheen and the bible, ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child” and “Do evrything in love” not in anger but in love .We discipline our children because we love them and want them to grow up as well behaved children. I believe Jesus would use a swat to the padded posterior, after all he used a whip on the money changers. I think the parents and the priest of St. Augustines have found a proven method, even the principal was a student there and the recipient of the board of education. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If they have the parents permission I say OK.
Square Dancing as an Image of the Church: http://blog.adw.org/2011/05/square-dancing-as-an-image-for-the-church/
Michael Patrick: you are an idiot.
Michael Jeter: what difference does it make if someone is an African American parent-or a a parent at all? Oh, I get it, like -you’re not a woman or your not a parent so don’t tell me about abortion. I understand.
Well, Robert Pentangelo, not exactly. The rest of this country, by and large, throws up its hands when it comes to educating Black males, and America loses generation after generation. St. Aug’s program, which has included corporal punishment, has worked since the school’s inception, producing community, business, and government leaders. Now, if you care specifically about African American males, and you have a program that is working, why would you seek to change that? If St. Aug were failing, one might have justification, but this school is successful where so many others fail: in the education of African American males. More, the community - the parents - support the school as is. The people who object tend to be middle class Caucasians whose children will not be targeted by police because of the color of their skin, whose children have a better chance of being employed after school because of their parent’s connections and ethnic backgrounds. In short, when middle and upper class Caucasians have to face the same indignities as African Americans, then perhaps they should tell African American parents how to raise their children. Now, if there were clear evidence that the practices of St. Aug constituted abuse - leaving physical and emotional scars - there would certainly be a case for change, but there is no such evidence.
You are so arrogant; you just repeat the same argument over again-and since there are schools with largely ethnic minorities that do not employ corporal punishment that are successful this refutes your argument. You assume it is corporal punishment that makes the difference for which YOU have no evidence. You are making a racist argument; because someone comes from another race they cannot “tell” someone about child rearing. Can poor white parents tell affluent black parents about child rearing and punishment? Maybe you can see the illogic of your position. If the parents are so good at what they do, why does the school need to use corporal punishment?
You dodged the abortion analogy, I see. I think I just whipped your butt on this argument. But don’t feel bad; it was done with love.
You are welcome to your judgement. I do not think you whipped anything. My argument revolves around the right of African Americans to self - determination, to continue a functioning process which has served that community.
The abortion analogy I would make is that whether one is a parent or not, one should have an interest in building a society which protects life at its most vulnerable, as we will all return to various stages of vulnerability.
Whether one is an African American, an African American parent, or none of the above, one should have an interest in how young people turn out. If St. Aug had a record for turning out drug abusers, rapists, thieves, murderers, and other criminals and unproductive members of society, one might want to change the program. However, St. Aug has a record of producing strong Black men who provide for their families, hold responsible positions, and provide leadership in their own and the larger community. Now, it remains to be seen how invested those of you who wish to remove corporal punishment are in the development of strong Black Male leadership. My guess? Not very much.
Since
(1) Jesus used a whip on the money-changers and
(2) Since Mr. Akin would rather be whipped than kept late or made to work extra hours, then I guess
(3) Mr. Akin is arguing that when he or other adults screw up at work, they should be given a good paddling by their bosses? That this is an acceptable solution to the problem at hand?
My argument is that children should be taught, not terrified. Their actions will have consequences when they are adults; their actions should have consequences now. But those consequences should be realistic ones. If a kid forgets his homework in my classroom, he stays in after school and does it in front of me. If a kid talks back—well, oddly, since I respect the children I teach, this rarely happens. When it does, they write a letter to their parents explaining what they said and why. What children break or misuse, they must repair. When children fight, they have to work together until they come to a solution.
Hitting kids is easy. Discipline (and education) is hard.
Sophia,
Are you implying that St. Augustine High School did not provide discipline or education before this injunction?
Almost 50 years of graduates would disagree
Of course it is inconceivable that Jesus might whip someone. The reading from John does not specify that Jesus used the whip against humans, and John specifically does not mention a whip when small animals are involved, only animals difficult to move. But more than that, look at what physical violence is. Although the person who administers violence knows when he or she will stop, the victim cannot know. Although the torturer thinks he or she knows how much pain is being administered, there is no way to measure another’s pain. The terror of a victim of torture is real and always causes deep damage. Furthermore, Jesus would never strike anyone because corporal punishment is a violation of the dignity of the person. Physical abuse is as bad as sexual abuse. The argument that someone who has been subjected to physical abuse does not see it as bad is a false argument. that one can become numb to its effects, as a victim of sexual abuse can become numb to the situation, does not change the reality. Generations of scarred adults does not mean the next generation should be scarred the same way. When there is a doubt to the interpretation of a moral issue, one can look to the lives of the saints for guidance. St John Bosco came to see that physical punishment is never beneficial in the rearing of a child. The violence and torture that reign in my beloved adopted country of Mexico has grown from the belief that resisting torture is a sign of manliness. People are being dismembered, flayed alive, burned to death, all because of a callousness to what violence, even in its most subtle forms, engenders in the human soul. Physical violence as a corrective? Never!
Hey Sophia. Good luck with that approach in my old neighborhood on Chicago’s south side. My buds would have had you for breakfast.
Father Coogan,
You are reading this passage idiosyncratically in order to conform it to your pacifist views, and your suggestion that spankings are akin to torture and as bad as sexual abuse is beyond the pale.
Hey Mike: so tell me do you denounce the use of torture by the United States, its allies, and Israel?
Your thug friends in Chicago might find Sophia tougher than you might surmise.
Robert,
I don’t “denounce” much of anything since I don’t do press releases. The Church fairly plainly teaches that torture is impermissible, and for that reason alone I disagree with any use of torture to secure information, etc., if that is what you are asking (though the Church’s teaching in this respect has certainly evolved oddly and is arguably more nuanced that is commonly appreciated). But in any case this as relevant only if you believe that corporal punishment torture is simply a variant of torture. But go ahead and libel as torturers the sisters and brothers whose hard work prevented my buds and me from turning into the thugs you so cavalierly assume—no skin off my nose. I’m sure that Sophie is a fine person and teacher, but her methods would not work in some environments.
I don’t know what they are doing at St. Augustine’s except it is called corporal punishment-I am not libeling anyone-as a lawyer I tried to avoid doing that. I was simply probing your core values.
Glad you are against torture but since you don’t do press releases do you respond to direct questions-I was not asking you to state the Church’s teachings on torture-that is easy to do-I was asking if you oppose the policies of the countries I listed.
Thx.
Robert,
I oppose any practice or policy that violates natural law, and if the Church says torture violates natural law that is good enough for me. Now pray tell what Israel’s policy in this respect has to do with St. Augustine’s practices vis-a-vis corporal punishment? To the extent you are trying to suggest that garden variety corporal punishment is a variant of torture and therefore a violation of natural law then you are accusing many saintly religious of such violations, which is libel in my view. Now maybe you are not making that connection, but if not then what exactly is your point?
Mike Petrik,
I do not completely understand the idioms you use, but I admit that my position is extreme, based on my lived experience. I do think that the Gospel challenges us to be extreme. We all know that the Church wants us to form our consciences and live accordingly, and that the church teachings give enough leeway that sometimes we take extreme views, even contrary views. I do not claim that my viewpoint is the only one that Church teaching permits, but I shudder when, in the deliberation of this topic, I see so much verbal violence being thrown around. I like the way Jimmy Akin analyses the issues he presents. But, yes, to me physical violence and verbal violence and sexual violence is the same. There are degrees, but we cannot measure the degree of violence we inflict. If I were the object of some of the scathing comments above, I would certainly feel hurt, wouldn’t you? Having a thick skin is a sign of being a victim of violence, not that the violence is acceptable. How will the world become more compassionate if we are not radical in our commitment to peace?
Robert Pentagelo: I’ve just seen your defamatory remark…calling me an idiot without cause. I hope you’re carrying adequate insurance for libel as when I find out where you’re from you can expect a lawsuit to be filed against you. Michael Patrick.
Ah, sorry guy but that is not defamatory but a constitutional exercise of my free speech. I am an attorney myself so I would be happy to defend your ridiculous lawsuit. When I win your slap suit, I will then get attorney fees and damages against you.
Haven’t the Church’s lawyers covered this yet? The very last thing any Catholic school should allow is corporal punishment. Yeah, some kids, and I was one of ‘em, needed some “reminders” when my mind was preoccupied with something other than math tables; but not in this day and age. Hasn’t the Church been bled green enough?
There are other “means of attention getting” like a very low mark when it comes to “effort” and “paying attention” that a kid could receive on his/her report card with double signatures required for readmittance into class. Should parents be BACKING the teachers? That’d get more “desired results,” and far fewer expensive, and worse, DUMB lawsuits!
All I had to hear was my father asking, “Grades are one thing, could you tell me about this decline in your effort column.”
Ohhhhhhh, you know those had to be dreaded words! AND I GAVE ‘EM TO ALL MY KIDS, TOO! AND GOT BETTER RESULTS! LOL!
Steven,
I agree, which is why I will only send my kids to schools with students who want to learn from intact families who value education and who live in neighborhoods where behavior as hooligans is not the norm. The heck with those other kids. I’m sure giving them low marks for effort will do the trick. LOL.
Mike: We can’t always pick n’ choose how “intact” the families of our kids friends are so while they were growing up we always kept reminding them to have a “head’s up” circumspect outlook as to why those families aren’t intact, save for widowhood. Like every couple, my missus and I haven’t agreed on everything, but this ONE KEY THING WE AGREED ON is we’re in it for the duration; i.e. till one of us “checks out NATURALLY,” and not in the buff with somebody other than our doctor who’s never going to be impressed enough to care. LOL
Another major help is for parents to place their kids in smaller public school systems if there’s no affordable parochial or decent private school available. Home schooling isn’t for everybody and even some of the most successful home schoolers I know of have worked out accommodations with the local schools so their kids don’t miss out on sports, etc. Of course it isn’t for parents who both have to work. The days when moms could stay at home are far and few for most moms, even if they do or haven’t felt the need to “prove” what they can do in terms of juggling jobs and the most important obligations in their lives (besides those relating to Faith) their marital vocations and raising (not “parenting”) their children.
We’re old fashioned, but don’t give up hope that time tested values and techniques of raising kids and building families will never return. Sooner or later, more and more children of divorced parents will say, “NO, I won’t be like them, I won’t allow this generational biblical curse nonsense shape my attitudes and I will meet the person of both our complementary dreams, interests, needs, etc. and we’re GOING TO MAKE IT TILL WE CROAK, and when He’s ready for us.”
It does make a difference when the kids know Mom n’ Dad will always be there. It did for my two brothers and I and it did for my wife and her two sisters. I came from a military family where sometimes my dad was on extended tours (usually ahead of us before we moved as he got our living arrangments made, etc) or on TDY. He could’ve gotten a job with SAC, but he said it was a divorce machine back in its early days and still is and always will be. Besides, which did I enjoy better, having him around to make sure I never goofed off on homework and got to live in Morocco, Texas, and Wiesbaden Germany, or way up in Maine or the Dakotas.
One other thing: whenever he was home, and that was far more often than the opposite case ... to my mom’s delight (and relief!) ... we always had dinner together and discussions were lively and disagreements, so long as they didn’t verge on disrespect or get too loud, were more than welcome: they were expected.
Idyllic. It shouldn’t have to be. BTW, we had our share of service “brat” hooligans, too. But God help ‘em if they got their dads in trouble with the brass. Or in one of my brothers’ cases, on the bad side of the nuns out in Cheyenne, WY. That was back in the Fifties when they looked like THE NUN in the Blues Brothers. That brother, the middle one (I was the youngest by five years)... Sigh, what can I say? He later retired from the Army as a Brigadier General.
Steven, I hear ya, but you miss my point. I agree that modern times do not allow for corporal punishment as a practical option. But the consequence of this fact is that schools will fail those kids who do not grow up in families of the type you describe. The idea that the guys I grew up with would have been influenced by threats of bad marks for effort is laughable. The sisters and brothers did not smack us very often, but the threat of it was real and effective, especially if it was public and humiliating. But now we let rather strange new pacifist principles undermine effectiveness. The kids may fail, but we can feel mighty good about ourselves.
Mike, thanks for setting me straight. You’re right. And what good comes from just “feeling good” about something if it’s not really all that good for our kids in the long haul?
None of us, save for hopeless egotists, will ever learn (only) from our successes. Failure and rational fear of failing prods one to do better because consequences make “good teachers” whether we like facing them or not.
Making Reggie Jackson look ridiculous at the plate (whenever he’d strike out with a huge whooosh in a game’s first innings) would often prove fatal later for a young or rookie pitcher later on after Jackson learned what the kid threw earlier. That’s life, too.
To: Robert Pentangelo
Okay big mouth tell me where you are so I can serve the summons on you and we’ll see just how great a lawyer you are in a court of civil law, if, that is, you defend yourself.
You can think what you like but you can’t say what you like in print that injures my reputation…that’s called libel unless you can prove to the contrary and I want to see you do that.
I’m prepared to spend a lot of money to put your tongue in its place….somewhere where you choke on it.
Michael,
Don’t waste your money. You’ll lose. Calling a person an idiot on an Internet blog is not defamatory. It is, however, extremely bad manners and the mark of a shallow thinker, something that is corroborated by Mr. Pentangelo’s other rather sophomoric posts.
It is said in the New Testament that Jesus found children playing games in God’s house of prayer and abruptly whipped them and sent them out. Just as he overturned the tables saying that the money changers have made the tabernacle into a den of thieves.
There is no such statement that Jesus whipped children in the NT-more internet legend.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.