Peter over at With A Grain of Salt, after reading Matthew’s story on Dazed Primates, Big Gulp’s, and Redemption was reminded of a story of a mess created by his children after the Easter Vigil Mass.
The family attended a little celebration in the presbytery. Caught up in the festivities, they lost track of the wrecking balls on little legs. After a desperate search, they discovered to their horror that the kids had broken and entered into the assistant priest quarters and in a stroke of absolute genius of miniature menace had rubbed Vicks Vap-o-rub all over every surface of the room. In the process, the kids had managed to get as much Vicks in their eyes as they did the room and thus were cowering with tearing red eyes awaiting their certain doom.
Believe it or not, this is where the story gets wierd…
The children were in such distress from having rubbed the Vicks into their eyes we took them to clean up in a bathroom before the mandatory smacks and banishment to the car with mum, while I made profuse apologies and embarrassed offers of compensation for anything that was damaged in any way.
The assistant priest was livid with rage. He demanded that I spank the children and was undeterred when I said they had already been punished and were going home to face more serious consequences. He demanded I bring them back inside and spank them there in front of him. The party spirit faltered somewhere when the whole house rang with cries of “I want to see them spanked!” Even the next day, when I called to ask for an itinerary of items I could replace he refused compensation but insisted “Justice is not done till they are spanked in my presence.”
For the next few weeks we had homilies and parish bulletins repeating the theme of spanking as justice and the right of adults to be protected from children.
I’ve been a little twitchy around the smell of Vicks ever since.
Now, I can understand the priest being somewhat peeved or worse. But going Al Capone (“I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND!) on the rugrats seems a wee bit much. However using your homilies and the bulletin to wage a Vicks vendetta must definitely be frowned upon in the priestly handbook, no?
I think father should have paused long enough in his vap-o-rampage to have a “what would Jesus do?” moment.
I think it would be very funny if we all chipped in and sent Peter a case of Vicks for the holidays. It would be even funnier if we sent one to Father.
Be sure to pay Peter a visit and give him your sympathy (plus he has a good graphic to commemorate Father Bruce Banner). I would like to say as a parent we have all been there, but I don’t want to go anywhere near there.
September 26, 2008 at 6:23 am
Having been terrorized by brats who have never been given a punishment they actually pay attention to in their lives– and many of them were related to me– I fully support the demanding that they be punished where the harmed party can see it.
The parents failed in their duty to the children– to keep them out of basic trouble– and to their hosts– by letting the children cause damage and destruction.
I still have *scars* from those who were “punished enough” when they were little.
No sympathy at children who set fire to their foot while trying to burn down a barn.
September 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Wow! I found the insistence that they be spanked in his presence to be a bit “disturbing” to say the least. I hope he was just a bit grumpy, and nothing worse…
September 26, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hmmm. I went over to read the original post and stopped when I got to this part…”after 20 minutes I realized I hadn’t felt a tug on my sleeve.” So…no sympathy for the parents. I’ve got 5 children and 1 on the way–after 2 minutes, if I don’t hear or see one, I’m off looking. I certainly can understand the priests anger with the situation, but find it truly incredible that he would DEMAND them to be punished in a manner suitable to him. We experience similar moments each Sunday at Mass with a certain few children in our parish. It’s truly horrifying to watch to children running all over the altar, jumping up and down in the chairs, banging the bells while the parents chat it up with their friends.
September 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm
No one can be constantly on top of their kids 24/7. I sympathize with the parents here.
I also believe Peter would have been entirely justified in telling the “good” Father to place his attitude where the sun never shines.
September 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm
f,fs: You don’t have children, do you?
See, I’ve been at the mercy of other folks’ ill-behaved children, and (sigh) even seen my own act in a way completely contrary to everything they’ve been taught. Children need discipline, but it is NEVER appropriate, and, yes, truly creepy, for another adult to insist not only on the form the discipline is to take, but also to watch it happen.
There’s also a big difference between a lapse in a social setting (which this was) and consistant bad behaviour during Mass or other situations where children are expected to sit quietly.
Dad should have looked Father in the eye and said, “These children are my responsibility. I have failed. I should be the one punished. Now, did you want to do the honors, or shall I fetch my wife to spank me while you watch?”
September 26, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Oh, and letting your children destroy someone else’s quarters because it takes you twenty minutes to realize you don’t know where they are is appropriate?
And people wonder why so many places are unfriendly to children!
September 26, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Being a priest I have some sympathy for Father, but he went a bit overboard with the homilies. Another good reason I don’t allow children in the rectory in most circumstances. It may be that he thought the kids would get off scot free. It happens all the time. Priests are generally not used to having children get into and wreck stuff. This makes them less sympathetic when it happens. I have watched my nephews and nieces devastate valuable objects. I don’t let them near my things lol. All that said Father does need to relax a bit and rack it up to experience. Fr. J
September 26, 2008 at 6:46 pm
lots of judgement going on in here….
September 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“Oh, and letting your children destroy someone else’s quarters because it takes you twenty minutes to realize you don’t know where they are is appropriate?”
No. No one is suggesting that it is. Neither is it appropriate to accommodate an adult seeking satisfaction, however warranted, in watching another adult discipline his children. The child can demonstrate sufficient remorse to the offended party, even hear a word or two of reproach. But anyone who doesn’t think that such public display is an indulgence of aberrant behavior, needs to get out of the house more often.
September 26, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Foxfier, formerly Crack-inhaler-ette.
“The parents failed in their duty to the children– to keep them out of basic trouble– and to their hosts– by letting the children cause damage and destruction.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for that! That is probably the funniest thing I heard all week.
If you ever blessed with fruit from your womb, I am quite certain you will change your tune!
September 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Somehow, I don’t think that my children destroying the property of others will make me more likely to sympathize with parents who let their children cause damage when they are guests.
It sure didn’t work with my parents, nor the parents of my husband, nor any other responsible adults I know.
September 26, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“Somehow, I don’t think that my children destroying the property of others will make me more likely to sympathize…”
You really aren’t paying a bit of attention, are you? No one is excusing the kids. The issue is about the prospect of indulging a man, who may get his jollies seeing children being in pain.
In other words, maybe he’s a pervert. Is that clear enough now?
September 26, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Gee, what's more likely– that the parents who let their kids break in and *cause physical damage* to their host's property (and feel bad because they got some of the vics in their eyes) are going to let the kids off as "punished enough," and the harmed party wanted proof that they actually got punished, or that the priest is an S&M pedophile with a daddy kink?
September 26, 2008 at 8:12 pm
The first prospect can be handled without the priest getting to watch. (Please, you don’t think that’s a little twisted???) The second should be avoided regardless of the remoteness of possibility.
You never read Shakespeare “The Merchant of Venice” in school, did you?
September 26, 2008 at 8:56 pm
foxfier,
I didn’t realize this was such a charged topic. Let me clarify.
I don’t believe that the children behaved well.
I don’t believe that the parents behaved responsibly.
I do believe that the behaviour was a lapse, not a pattern of behaviour, based on the subsequent action of the parents: “I said they had already been punished and were going home to face more serious consequences.” The parents were upset with their children’s behaviour and offered to make restitution.
I do believe that the priest crossed the line from justice to vengeance. He dragged the incident from the venue in which it occurred into the the entire parish. He attempted to usurp the parents’ authority in deciding both how and where their children were to be punished.
It would be different if the parents attempted to excuse the behaviour of their little ones, or laugh it off, or get angry with the priest for leaving the substance where the little darlings could get their hands on it. There are parents like that. You know them. I know them. In such a case perhaps the priest’s ire could be excused. But that’s not the case here.
This seems far more like a matter of sinful anger than righteous wrath.
September 26, 2008 at 9:10 pm
All,
Please be advised that CMR has a strict no drinking and commenting policy.
You know who you are. (or maybe you don’t)
September 26, 2008 at 9:49 pm
It’s true that there are parents who let their children rum amok and destroy property without so much as batting an eye. It doesn’t sound like that was the case here.
Also, people who don’t have children seem to think that it’s possible for parents to control their children’s behavior, as if they are not unique individuals possessed of their own dignity bestowed by God, with their own free (and impetuous) wills. They are not property to be managed… I think this is Catholic teaching, right?
I learned early on that children of a certain age cannot be micromanaged to the point of never misbehaving or never physically breaking things. I don’t care if the parents took their eyes off the kids for 2 minutes or 20 — I’ve seen my own kids wreck stuff in the blink of an eye.
The temptation to spank them can be strong, but in my experience it just doesn’t work. But this story is about more than just corporal punishment from the parents; it’s about *public* corporal punishment.
I agree with the posters who said that the priest went far beyond justice and into vengeance. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say it wasn’t something worse.
— Anon For Now
September 27, 2008 at 1:15 am
Anyone who believes raising well behaved children is a simple matter of properly applied firm discipline should spend a few weeks herding cats to get a vague idea of what it’s all about.
The cats are a heck of a lot easier.
September 27, 2008 at 6:15 am
What a carambola of a situation!
I think we can all agree that such an incident is symptomatic of the bleakness and, well, desperation of a society that sees having children as a liability. We are so barren that we’ve forgotten how to deal with children anymore. I’m not saying that the children were right in destroying another’s property– but that something trivial as spreading Vicks all over a room had been SO blown out of proportion. That priest was a moron for behaving that way; what lack of charity! These are children he’s dealing with, not petty criminals! Why demand something as PERVERSE as seeing another man’s children spanked in front of your very eyes for such a minor infraction as this? And yes, this IS a minor infraction; these people are lucky they did not have to EAT Vicks to survive. And yes, such a thing happens in the Third World.
Perhaps a more sensible solution would be to have the children clean the mess they made, under his supervision? Certainly no need for such a humiliating act as being spanked in front of complete stranger! And people wonder why soooo many Catholics fall out of the Faith– it is because of scandalous actions such as these. Our Lord was stern in His principles, but He did not seek a vendetta on those who wronged Him. Whatever happened to ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’?
While I am not yet a father, I certainly am well acquainted with how messy children can behave sometimes. I’ve had to grow up with them and take care of them all my life, and believe me, they are very perceptive, and certainly very, very impressionable. What the priest was suggesting was absolutely HEINOUS and DEROGATORY. But then again, for many so-called traditionalists, PROPERTY rights are so much more important than HUMAN rights.
If I come off as self-righteous, I am sorry, but this is just something I find very, very wrong. A priest must, above all, be ready to FORGIVE. What the children did is definitely WRONG, and good for their parents for setting them straight. But I fear that the priest here acted almost in malice, causing a great scandal. That, in my eyes, is the greater sin here.
September 27, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Darn those public-school teachers.
— Mack