|
YOU
ARE NOW VIEWING PART III
ARTICLE NAVIGATION: PART I |
PART II | PART III | PART IV
NOTE:
Selecting Print View above enables you to view Parts III and IV on a single
page without the pictures..
Part III: Moral Relativism the logical choice from
a child's perspetive
 |
 |
|
What
happens in the minds and emotions of our children when their parents
break up?
|
In a contemporary world, where the family meal is among many of the 'movable
feasts', and where in consequence for a certain part of each week, a child
lives with one parent and for the next part of the week, with the other
parent values become relativised, not out of any insidious love
of vice, or a direct denial of an Absolute Being, but out of something
inherently virtuous in itself filial love. If God is love, and
love is not Absolute, as my parents have divorced, then there in fact
can be no God such is the conclusion that
an intelligent child contemplating the divorce of their parents can logically
construe. If God doesn't exist then it necessarily follows
that the Church is purely a fantasy. God thus ceases to exist, not because
of any theologically deficient argument, but by way of a breakdown of
primary human relationships: wife and husband, father and mother.
Not infrequently the impact of a divorce results in a turning away from
Church by the parents, thus further re-emphasizing in the minds of the
children the inadequacies of the Truth as preached by the Church; if a
God-ordained marriage is over, God must be dead. Such apostasy can spread
in chaos-like fashion throughout heart-broken, extended families, fanned
like fire by a warm breeze, but here carried by the strong winds of fractious
emotions, and broken hopes. The child, being a spiritual being, may in
time find religion, but whether this religion is the religion of his or
her parents is extremely doubtful for the religion of the parents
has been tried and found wanting, as is evidenced by their failed union
a 'disaster' originally sanctified within the walls of the Church.
The Church thus becomes the whipping-post for human fallibility.
Similarly if one Truth cannot contradict another Truth, then a child
in order to recognize the Truth in a divorce scenario, must make an explicit
moral choice. Either the Church must be speaking the Truth regarding love
and commitment, or the Truth must be incarnated in the way in which their
parents; people whom they do know, and who have been caring for them,
are living. Thus the Church's arguments are inevitably deduced as being
fallacious not because there is in fact no Truth in what the Church
teaches, but that the parents own a 'higher' Truth, as they have a far
more 'sacred' role in the life of the child. Ironically, parents thus
begin to take on the role of God in a family in which God is not credited
with existence for what surer piece of ground is there to securely
tie an anchor, than for a child to do so at the gateway as to how they
as an individual, came into this world. To believers, God is recognized
as the ultimate existential Being, but without God,
we rely on our parents for giving us meaning behind our existence; God
may also have been called upon by a child without any previous religious
exposure within the family, as a last port of call from despair.
Alternately, for those children who live in the absence of parental example,
the most immanent presence for the child in their moral development must
become 'significant others': relations, friends, peers, the media (the
secular Church), or the Church Itself. Hence in the case of Marquardt's
study some children actually became stronger in their faith, post-parental
divorce through a necessity to hold on to God for want of all other
support structures being taken away from them. Yet in this latter case
there must have existed a strong faith in this child prior to the divorce
in order for the child to have 'tried' God for support.
The Parent/Child relationship and the evolution of morality
 |
 |
|
Parents
by the way in which they lead and have led their lives, educate
their children in moral theology, in a far more pervasive fashion
than the voice preaching from the pulpit they are immediate
to the child, and not only a 'Sunday friend'.
|
Parents by the way in which they lead and have led their lives, educate
their children in moral theology, in a far more pervasive fashion than
the voice preaching from the pulpit they are immediate to the child,
and not only a 'Sunday friend'. John Paul II
affirmed this notion when he described parental instruction and example
as the child's "First Experience of the
Church". (John Paul II, 1981, par.
39)
The child whose parent smokes marijuana, fornicates, lies, and is verbally
abusive, may still love their parent very much but, without an
arbitrary, immanent, consistent form of morality, entangled inextricably
within this love may be an unwillingness to question their parent's behaviour,
for this very questioning could be seen, as a breach of this love, and
all they, the child, have in this life to hold onto, in a world without
God is parental love. In a situation in which the child lives with
such a parent, it is naturally easier for physiological and psychological
survival to accept the parent's poor example as being Truth.
Similarly, a child whose parent's divorce, may not wish to condemn this
separation on the basis that they love each of their parents equally,
and through this love seek to affirm the wisdom of both parent's actions.
Critically though, it is logical to assume that the child who cannot affirm
the wisdom of such a fundamental family decision, as whether the family
should stay together, has every right not to trust any future decision
these parents make, and rebel; for if the parents 'cannot get the large
questions right', what gives them the credibility to get less important
questions right? For harmony sake, at least, it becomes 'better' for the
child in a broken home, to trust and affirm; and by way of this affirmation,
create in their minds the notion that love can be as temporary as commitments
made to people or to institutions; hence the quoted Rutgers University
findings regarding children from broken homes being far more likely themselves
to divorce or to co-habitate. Thus when it comes to the child of a dysfunctional
family making choices, should this child be criticized for making choices
on the basis of a relativism that caters for their parents not being condemned
as morally bankrupt or ambivalent? Should we as a society, be surprised
then, if what is taught at places of higher learning reflects in good
measure a ridicule of the traditional family unit, if we assume that many
of those who have become qualified to teach in these institutions are
in fact 'happy' products, of what are essentially in Christian terms at
least, 'unhappy' situations?
 |
 |
|
Not
just all theory some personal background to this series of
articles.
This series of articles by Dr Kania was partly triggered by the
editor's son, Ben Coyne (pictured above at right) posting on Catholica
a link to the film "Zeitgeist". Part 4 of this series
is in fact entitled Zeitgeist. The editor, Brian Coyne, explains
in further detail in today's
email some of the background to this discussion. Dr Kania
was one of Ben's home room teacher at secondary school.
|
We have seen the impact of parent's lifestyle on children, but there
is conversely a no less powerful line of influence that runs from child
to parent. A parent may indeed be a practicing Catholic, but when faced
with a daughter who is sexually promiscuous, or a son who abandons his
wife, then the parent's love for their child, for not wanting to lose
the bond between them, readily blinds itself to the Truth. In this way
the second generation can by moral laxity affect the previous generation,
in altering the standards of the first generation, by way of the love
the parents have for their children. In family breakdowns, it is not unusual
for the parents of 'warring' parties to side with their children
especially in the case of an acrimonious divorce, and irrespective whether
their child is in fact in the right or the wrong, with regard to tabled
accusations. In consequence of such a scenario as depicted, the practicing
Catholic parent may be repulsed from attending Church, as they do not
wish to hear their son's or daughter's behaviour condemned from the pulpit;
the parent rightly loves their child, but now, as distinct from previous
occasions, will not hear one word said against these behaviours, as the
situation has now become far too personal: "Why
should the Church deny my son, or my daughter, some right. I have been
good to the Church!"
Outside of the Church, in the supermarkets and car-parks, there these
parents meet with other parents, whose children have moved from the Church
teaching, and consoling one another as to the archaic nature of the Church
they resolve to stay away. It is a heart-breaking situation for
the parent, for they have in fact been sandwiched between two forces that
they love dearly, the Church and their children. Mention has been made
of the Chaos Theory flow on of emotion through a family, and according
to the original depth of bond between family members, the 'shock' at a
rupture in one part of the family reverberates across generations.
Family Exodus in the Catholic Church
Yet
neither party, child or parent in such scenarios can be justly criticized.
Even the 'best' families are struggling today, inasmuch as the counter-Gospel
message is no longer whispered but shouted through the media, and through
educational institutions. What was once even too shameful to be posted
in brown paper envelopes to an adult male; now can find its way to the
e-mail address of a young child. John Paul II
was to write regarding this new-world moral order:
"faced with a society that is running the risk
of becoming more and more depersonalised and standardized and therefore
inhuman and dehumanising, with the negative results of many forms of escapism
the family possesses and continues still to release formidable
energies capable of taking man out of his anonymity, keeping him conscious
of his personal dignity, enriching him with deep humanity and actively
placing him, in his uniqueness and unrepeatability, within the fabric
of society". (John Paul II, 1981, par. 43)
Wherein His Holiness' comments contain many eternal Truths, the pressures
against family life are so invidious that the power to repel these threats,
is surely tested. The family that prays together,
may have a greater chance of staying together, but how can the Church
concretely assist a parent who has devotedly done everything that they
can to nurture a son or daughter in the Faith, only to see their child
become addicted to drugs, or be pregnant at the age of fourteen, or suffer
depression and commit suicide? Is the Church prepared to walk hand-in-hand
with families, in a time of such great moral storm and stress, and if
so, how so? If the Church is not ready, that is
of no surprise, for nor are many governments it seems if It cannot
become so, the Church will become increasingly irrelevant, in a western
world losing a grip on the notion of God.
Encyclicals, Papal Declarations and Apostolic Exhortations contain powerful
messages, but the Church needs to act on teachings, so that the very Truths
that are espoused by Her, do not become just another ill-frequented text
on a dusty library shelf. No matter how profound the Truths spoken by
the Church they become mere platitudes if they are not supported
by action. Part of this action is the need to openly and vigorously reach
out to the needs of families, Catholic families, who in the midst of their
suffering in the chaotic moral climate, have become alienated from the
Church. The Church has a pastoral role, not only for the ten per cent
that attend the Divine Liturgy each Sunday, but much more so, to those
of Her flock, who speak ill of Her, who feel slighted by Her. (cf.
Luke 5: 31-32)
No greater task is there in the Church today, than to seek out the disenfranchised,
and open a constructive dialogue, a dialogue that in no way dilutes the
Truth of the Church but serves to show that the Church loves not
only by what She says, but also in how She prays, and in how She acts,
with mercy, understanding and warmth. This is the real Church of Christ,
a Church that fears the loss of even one soul a Church that searches
for the one lost sheep, despite holding in its fold, ninety nine. Yet
we are speaking here of a catastrophe for the Church, and not a mere agrarian
parable, for whereas one lost sheep in itself is a tragedy, whole families
that fall from the Church, are the worst kind of cancer infecting the
Bride of Christ for herein lies a domino effect, that runs across
generations. Pontiffs may call for parents to meet the challenges
the family faces "with courage and great
interior serenity", but in a vale of tears, sometimes
a person needs to be guided back to the safe harbour, for want of being
able to see their way to safety. (John Paul II, 1981,
par. 53) How does the Church propose to
meet this task? The surest means of outreach is of course through the
media.
Choosing blind-folded
The modern absence of religion in the life of many in the West, also
means that whereas in the past, choosing a partner in marriage meant a
bringing together of spiritually like-minded people, today the choice
is not so simple. The power of love still draws people together, but today
this means that often a man or woman must frequently forgo their 'abstract'
Faith for a 'concrete' partner who, in all probability, may not have religion.
By agreeing to disagree, a religious vacuum is created around the family
hearth, so as to bypass prospective conflict over values, and to create
harmony in the family home. Yet this 'agreeing to disagree' is also fraught
with danger.
 |
 |
|
Website
of The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
|
In The Social Health of Marriage in America
(2001), Who Wants
To Marry A Soul Mate?: New Survey Findings on Young Adults' Attitudes
about Love and Marriage, the authors of the study, Barbara
Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe,
comment that of those who took part in the research, "An
overwhelming majority (94%) of never-married singles agree that 'when
you marry you want your spouse to be your soul mate, first and foremost.'"
The study revealed that young people today are searching in a prospective
spouse a spiritual connection. That this would indeed be the case is logical,
for even if deprived of formal religion in the home, the human person
still seeks the quenching of their innate spiritual desires. Yet the critical
issue for these people looking for such a 'soul-mate' is in fact where
to find them. With Churches now nearly empty in Australia, where are
those institutions in which a single man or woman, by virtue of simply
entering the doors could assume that within those walls is a person who
at least subscribes to a set of values similar to their own? In the Church's
place one can go to a bar, or a sporting event, but in the goulash of
morals that you encounter at such places, how is one to recognize among
all the lovely faces, in a great crowd, that one person, with whom 'a
spiritual connection can be made'?
Rutgers, also reveals in another study, (Ten
Important Research Findings on Marriage and Choosing a Marriage Partner
Helpful Facts for Young Adults November, 2004),
that: "The more similar people are in
their values, backgrounds and life goals, the more likely they are to
have a successful marriage. Opposites may attract but they may not live
together harmoniously as married couples. People who share common backgrounds
and similar social networks are better suited as marriage partners than
people who are very different in their backgrounds and networks."
The modern demise of the Church, with regard the loss of so many baptized
individuals from the Sunday pews, has in fact led to a cycle, in which
consecutive generations are 'lost' as the faith of the individual is diluted,
for the compromises that are made in the process of selecting a spouse.
Two Church-going Catholic parents, may do everything in their power to
instil the Catholic Faith in their child, but the decreasing probability
of that child finding a spouse from the same religious background, who
they are compatible with as people, is a major problem. Yet as the research
indicates compromising values in marriage, become one significant cause
of divorce; hence the Church has spoken wisely when She advises that:
"In the appropriate preparation for this
type of [mixed] marriage, every reasonable effort must be made to ensure
a proper understanding of Catholic teaching on the qualities and obligations
of marriage, and also to ensure that the pressures and obstacles mentioned
will not occur." (John Paul
II, 1981, par. 78)
CONTINUED
IN PART IV
ARTICLE NAVIGATION: PART I |
PART II | PART III | PART IV
Readers may also be interested in the
series by Peregrinus
which examined the Scriptural understandings of Divorce and the
different perspectives taken by different Christian churches.
Bibliography:
See the Bibliography
at the bottom of Part IV.
Photo Credits:
Clicking on the images will take you to the original source and or further
information.
|
Andrew
Thomas Kania is a visiting scholar at Blackfriars Hall at the
University of Oxford, where he is completing a book on Dag Hammrskjöld.
He has taken 12 months leave of absence from his position as Director
of Spirituality at Aquinas College, Manning in Western Australia
to complete this task. Prior to this appointment at Aquinas Dr.
Kania was a lecturer for the School of Religious Education at the
University of Notre Dame Australia as well as for the Catholic Institute
of Western Australia at Edith Cowan and Curtin Universities. Dr.
Kania belongs to the Ukrainian Church and is interested in ecumenical
issues as well as contemporary problems facing religious educators.
|
©2007
Dr Andrew Thomas Kania
[Andrew Kania's Archive]
|