Misanthrope Girl has blogged on the sacking of three nurses after the three nurses who, dismissed from their jobs because the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) deemed them to be unsuitable after they failed its checks. Go read it - she argues the point well, based on a Telegraph report of the precedent set when the High Court overturned their sackings.
Apparently, their heinous crimes included:
One of the nurses broke the law by leaving her 11-year-old son at home alone while she went shopping. Another was cautioned because while he was at work, his wife left the couple’s children alone for a short period. The third kissed a colleague without permission.Master Patently is 11. He is regularly left alone, perfectly safely. The nurse apparently "broke the law" by leaving his son alone. Exactly which law would that be, then?
Also, while I am at work, Mrs Patently sometimes leaves him on his own. She may do many other things while I am not there - who knows? Am I liable to be cautioned for whatever she does? Is she my chattel, suddenly? Is anyone brave enough to tell her that?
And as regards the third offence, I'm not specifically aware that I have done this, but I don't make a habit of seeking explicit permission before kissing people.
I seem therefore to be a multiple offender on several counts, so I shall await the 6am alarm call. But no, wait - none of these "offences" were deemed worthy of prosecution. None were deemed serious enough to justify taking the offenders to a Court, judging them in line with the principles of justice, and exacting a punishment as prescribed by law. Yet that decision can be reversed by the ISA in its infinite wisdom, who can decide that these people are unworthy and must be sacked, their livelihoods removed. This is, of course, a far, far worse punishment than any fine that could have been imposed by the Court for their "offences".
Remember; we are paying for this quango to prevent perfectly good nurses, whose training we have paid for, from working in our hospitals where their skills may be of some use. We are then paying (no doubt) for lawyers to represent the nurses in the High Court, while a Judge (who we are paying for) listens to the arguments of the Government lawyers (who we are paying for) while they unsuccessfully try to argue that we should not pay compensation for ruining these people's lives. We then pay for the compensation claims, of course. Remember that next time Mr Balls tells us there is no scope for cuts.
I know of a youth club where the caretaker - who was never alone with any of the youths in any case - was fired because a parent had "discovered" that the caretaker had a conviction for a sexual offence many decades previously. Except, inevitable, the caretaker had had his conviction quashed on appeal.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to paedo-hysteria and child-rearing-hysteria the rule of law means nothing.
Ouch.
ReplyDeleteWhat, really, is the point in having an expensive and detailed system of testing evidence against criminal subjects if we are then going to ignore its output and punish these people anyway?
BE. Astonishing story. There are some areas in the modern world in which neither morality nor justice counts for anything. Generally, anything even vaguely connected with sexuality will trump any other consideration.
ReplyDeleteMan cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures.
St Thomas Aquinas
I should add for fairness' sake that the management of the youth club did not want to fire the caretaker but were basically forced to by the parents of the children who attend the club.
ReplyDelete@Albert
ReplyDeleteMan cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures.
St Thomas Aquinas
Can't true spiritual joys come from carnal pleasures? I think a smile is often true spiritual joy. You need to live a bit, Albert. ;-)
Measured,
ReplyDeleteWho says I don't live a bit?!
@Albert
ReplyDeleteI know these things. You are quoting St Thomas Aquinas for a start. ::[sigh]::
But, hey A, don't let me stop you from describing some carnal pleasure. It may give me some spiritual joy. :o)
I think perhaps we need to agree what is meant by "live a bit".
ReplyDeleteHow much St Thomas Aquinas have you read BTW?
None at all*, but St Thomas Aquinas was celibate, wasn't he? [Yes/No]
ReplyDelete*directly.
So is "living a bit" to be equated with not being celibate? Seems a surprising measure, measured. It means a prostitute lives more than someone who is celibate, and very likely entails a prostitute lives more than someone who is not a prostitute. Are you in the wrong job measured?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of prostitution:
Yes the Angelic Doctor was celibate. However, when he decided he wanted to join the Dominican Order his family (who wanted him to be in the more aristocratic Benedictine Order) kidnapped him and locked him in a castle. In order to tempt him away from his chosen life they introduced a prostitute into the cell. He took a log from the fire and drove her off with it.
What a guy!
Hi Albert
ReplyDeleteMan cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures.
St Thomas Aquinas
You have taken celibate in the meaning I meant, that being sexually abstinent (as opposed to being unmarried for religious reasons). The Saint was unmarried, and celibate, possibly for other reasons other than religious. Who knows?
Carnal means having to do with or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures.
Joy means to fill with ecstatic happiness, pleasure, or satisfaction.
Pleasure is defined as the state or feeling of being pleased or gratified. So it seems to me that pleasure and joy overlap.
Addicted means to become physiologically or psychologically dependent.
My propositions are:
1. One can experience true spiritual joy in carnal pleasure.
2. One does not necessarily, and indeed is unlikely to, become addicted to carnal pleasure, if one does not experience true spiritual joy elsewhere. Many people live dull lives, including me.
On this basis, I think St Thomas Acquinas' view is misleading and/or misinformed but given he was celibate, this is understandable. Without a doubt, St Thomas Acquinas was an expert in many things such as philosophy and faith, but since he failed to explore the alternatives on this occasion, I suggest we do not place much weight on his assertion. However, if you still uphold this view, you may have found someone better to quote who had experience of these matters.
I am sure St Paul would have had a more measured approach.
Hello Measured,
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure about this bit:
Carnal means having to do with or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures.
It's the "preoccupied" that worries me. I don't think that someone who is preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasure can be spiritual - I think that's just contradictory.
However, "spiritual" can go with being carnal in the non-preoccupied sense. A married, sexual active person can still be spiritual. Hence we have married saints, and the writings of Pope John Paul II on married love.
The trouble is, I think when St Thomas uses the word "carnal" he means the former, not the latter.
Pleasure is defined as the state or feeling of being pleased or gratified. So it seems to me that pleasure and joy overlap.
If they overlap, then there is a difference. Therefore, although there may be overlap, there will be the bits that do not overlap.
In other words, it's a bit like saying that because cats and dogs are both mammals, therefore cats and dogs are the same.
One does not necessarily, and indeed is unlikely to, become addicted to carnal pleasure, if one does not experience true spiritual joy elsewhere. I think Aquinas would say that that is the case, and that it is not falsified by the fact that people fail to find much pleasure in things that are carnal. He means that is where they are ordered to looking for it.
Hence we have married saints,
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I have heard that the Roman church even has a few married priests these days!
Therefore, although there may be overlap, there will be the bits that do not overlap.
But surely carnal pleasures flow from the bits overlapping?
Seriously though, what surprised me about your line of argument, Albert, was that you countered Measured's argument by arguing that it suggested a prostitute was living the high life. That (in turn) suggests that the opposite of celibacy is free* and wanton sex with any and all. To my mind, nothing could be further from the truth, or more harmful - for such a linear view implies that carnal pleasure is in principle wrong, a slippery slope** which must be avoided where possible and tolerated only where necessary.
I would agree immediately that such pleasure is wrong when obtained outside a loving and stable relationship, but within such a context it both brings joy and tightens the bonds of love*** between the couple concerned. The linear approach, on the other hand, creates an atmosphere of "naughty" and "wrong" around what is a natural expression of love - thereby driving the couple apart.
(Also, one of the aspects of the English language that so endears it to me, is the impossibility of discussing this issue without entering the minefield of double entendre - or, sometimes, single entendre).
*as in "unconstrained"... before you ask where the free prostitutes are
**which it could be, depending on what you get up to and how you do it
***or others, depending on what you get up to and how you do it
But surely carnal pleasures flow from the bits overlapping?
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Seriously though, what surprised me about your line of argument, Albert, was that you countered Measured's argument by arguing that it suggested a prostitute was living the high life. That (in turn) suggests that the opposite of celibacy is free* and wanton sex with any and all. To my mind, nothing could be further from the truth, or more harmful - for such a linear view implies that carnal pleasure is in principle wrong, a slippery slope** which must be avoided where possible and tolerated only where necessary.
Errr...no. I said "It means a prostitute lives more than someone who is celibate" - that follows directly from measured's unqualified premise, "and very likely entails a prostitute lives more than someone who is not a prostitute." That would follow depending on how Measured wanted to arrange the premises.
Well, Measured concluded that St T did not live a bit, on the basis of his celibacy. If joy can flow without guilt from carnal pleasure, then he was indeed denying himself a valid opportunity to live a little. That, I think, is Measured's premise - that carnal pleasure may be acceptable and that therefore St T was missing out.
ReplyDeleteIt is the reverse assumption that caught my eye... that the reverse of celibacy, i.e. the extreme end of the spectrum of carnal pleasure, is prostitution or the use of such - and (particularly) that carnal pleasure is a spectrum extending linearly. I say no, carnal pleasure is a landscape not a spectrum, with peaks that are acceptable and peaks that are not.
Do you agree with me on that, or do you see the pleasures of the flesh as a slippery slope toward sin?
If joy can flow without guilt from carnal pleasure, then he was indeed denying himself a valid opportunity to live a little. That, I think, is Measured's premise - that carnal pleasure may be acceptable and that therefore St T was missing out.
ReplyDeleteIf that's all measured meant then her point is trivially true. I think I have answered all your points already...methinks I am being wound up on two fronts.
If that's all measured meant then her point is trivially true.
ReplyDeleteMeasured?
I think the discussion arises from the fact that the Church has historically seemed to frown on carnal pleasure and to hold up celibacy* as the ideal to which we should aspire. Baby-making then becomes a necessary evil, as it were**. I'm genuinely unsure where the Church currently stands on this - you seem to be endorsing it in your appreciation of St T, but I doubt that is intended.
Do feel free to tell me to get stuffed and mind my own business, of course.
*Except for Anglicans, of course, where homosexual encounters seem to be compulsory?
**in which case, I suppose we have the ends justifying the means...!
...methinks I am being wound up on two fronts.
Yes, probably. But it is fun ... try it, live a little (oops!)
I think there are some false opposites here. Yes the Church upholds celibacy, but not as a model for all to aspire to. It can hardly be the aim of the married. Therefore, baby-making is not an evil at all. Just because one state can be regarded as better does not mean another state cannot also be regarded as good. Neither does it mean that someone may not in fact live the good life to a higher degree than the person who lives the better life.
ReplyDeleteAlbert,
ReplyDeleteJust because one state can be regarded as better does not mean another state cannot also be regarded as good.
Indeed. So returning to my original point, pleasure and joy overlap and if they overlap, they are indeed not mutually exclusive. We are, after all, mammals. ::[sigh for you trying that cheap argument]::
I concede that carnal pleasure in the wrong sense from a moral standpoint is not without temptation and I am aware that addiction can occur, but this is not relevant if you read the quote. The Aquinas quote was far more emphatic when [man] is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures. I still hold out that this premise is false. There is no need to attempt to narrow my argument.
I deliberately did not enter into a discussion about prostitution. 'Prostitute' or 'prostitution' has not been mentioned by me until here. I have no experience of this industry and as I am not at expert in this matter, I, unlike others, am not about to pontificate about it.
When I wrote "you need to live a bit, Albert", it was partly in jest and was NOT meant to tell you to go and lie with a prostitute. It just meant broaden your horizons and realise that scaremongering is less effective in this day and age. Even if you still think the premise is correct, I do not think Aquinas was not the most appropriate Saint to quote. Go on, concede I have a point. ;-)
We are agreed that some carnal pleasure is good. Some carnal pleasure is bad. Some carnal pleasure is right from a moral standpoint and some carnal pleasure is wrong. I suspect there is more overlap between good and right than any other category and this is where spiritual joy is most likely to arise, but the boundaries are blurred and there are bound* to be other variables. I like Patently's analogy of it being a landscape with peaks and troughs. Probably more troughs at the prostitution end, but there is no need for me to go there to prove this argument.
I am now concerned that I can infer you think carnal pleasure should only be enjoyable when trying to create a baby. Really?
Patently,
I couldn't have expressed half of it better myself. But only half of it mind, so don't get cocky. ;-)
*no comment!
May I quote another Catholic theologian?
ReplyDeleteThe prevailing attitude…was one of heavy disagreement with a number of things which the [speaker] had not said’. (Ronald Knox)
Your original point was to do with "living a bit" and "carnal pleasures". It sounded like you were equating the two. I have challenged that.
1. I take carnal (as I think Aquinas takes it) to be not simply physical pleasure like sex, but disordered and sinful pleasure (it needn't in fact be physical - pride is not physical, but it is carnal). This may not be how anyone else takes the expression, but that is what I meant when I used it.
2. Disordered physical pleasure is necessarily unspiritual, for spiritual pleasure is necessarily ordered.
3. Spiritual pleasure gives true joy, and unspiritual pleasure deprives us of true joy, accordingly, unspiritual pleasure is the opposite of living a bit. Since the highest spiritual pleasure does not require sexual behaviour, it is perfectly within the power of a celibate saint to experience it and talk about it. Indeed, as a saint who experiences the highest joys, he is best placed to talk about it.
when [man] is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures
I think this is true of necessity. What man seeks most is happiness. If then he does not find happiness in God who is the chief good, he will necessarily seek it in what is not God or ordered by his goodness, that is in carnal pleasures. The fact that he may not find pleasure there no more makes it not an addiction, any more than a drug addict who finds he no longer gets decent highs thinks he is free from his addiction.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteTime for some tough love.
Please can you:
i. provide the link where carnal is defined as sinful, rather than of the body or temporal. If this is you on a frolic of your own, you really should have made that clear at the outset. I cannot find a mainstream definition that defines carnal as sinful;
ii. Explain clearly why it is necessary for man to become 'addicted'.
We seek security and love and with that comes the desire to please others and happiness. This is most vividly evidenced in children. Most people who go to work everyday are not pleasure-seeking or hooked on cheap thrills.
You are moving the goalposts, so you must be a cricketer. :-)
I'm not moving any goal posts. On the contrary, not only can I show complete consistency of my terminology over the course of this conversation, I can show consistency over nearly 2000 years.
ReplyDeleteTake this passage from St Paul:
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit Gal. 5
Now "flesh" here is clearly used to mean sin and is opposed to the Spirit.
This is how it appears in the Latin Vulgate, St Thomas was using:
dico autem spiritu ambulate et desiderium carnis non perficietis caro enim concupiscit adversus spiritum spiritus autem adversus carnem haec enim invicem adversantur ut non quaecumque vultis illa faciatis
In the Latin "flesh" (σαρκὸς) has become "carnis" and this is the word St Thomas uses, e.g. ST 1 q.114, art.1.
As for addicted, this is simply because everyone desires. We cannot live without desires. Therefore, he who does not desire the Spirit, desires the flesh. Or, as St Paul says "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."
Albert,
ReplyDeleteFascinating research. It has taken me time to assimilate it and in fact I am not sure I have in its entirety.
From my interpretation, St Paul is the more considerate and is far more moderate. I think you and I can both agree that devotion to a faith will distract believers from lustful thoughts. I suspect that is as far as we can go, apart from saying that in general this diversion of attention should protect vulnerable individuals and benefit the cohesion of communities.
So, until the next patinando, stay strong.
It was fun while it lasted Measured. Thanks for playing.
ReplyDeletestay strong?
I'm always strong: the Lord is my strength and my salvation!