Pet peeves in Ethics and Doctrine

[GregoryPalamas]

I teach Comparative Religions at a Community College. The first written assignment is for students to apply certain religious theories to ones own life. I frequently read things that puzzle and sometimes irritate me. Maybe it’s a generational thing but I don’t think so.

In Doctrine students often write: “God is always there for me” as the most profound doctrine they can imagine. I never read “I always do my best to be there for God.” What kind of generation of Christians are we producing?

In the Ethical area women students often tell stories of otherwise wasted young trivial lives followed by the wonderful gift of a new born child. They view the arrival of the baby as God giving them purpose. None are married and in no case is a father going to be in the life of the child. The lesson is rather “This baby gives me purpose. So, I will encourage others by telling them God will give them purpose.” But never is there a concern for the baby which will have no stable home. What am I missing here? Are we giving the message, intentionally or unintentionally that marriage is not necessary, that premarital sex is just fine, and that children don’t really need an intact family?

Help.

Dan L

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

huh. Full-time college student here. I think “yes” to your questions, but on the other hand it may be more an issue of wanting to write a “safe” reply rather than delve into anything too deep in a public class setting?

I know that is the case for me at times, teachers give the yadda - yadda about feeling comfortable expressing thoughts and such, but fact is that most don’t actually mean it - unless of course you agree with them or at least don’t disagree too much. If you’ve been in that type of educational environment your whole life - it can be very uncomfortable to have a truely deep and personal discourse in a class setting.

Just my personal experience…

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Martha,

Thanks for that reminder. It gives me a little hope. I’ll see if I can check out your theory.

Dan L

 

[chevalier]

I seem to know a couple of mothers who brought up a child alone and a couple who married the father for the reason of the child and none other. I’m pretty sure the former children get a better house than the latter, better example. The former have a loving mother, the latter have a family created for the only reason that they were underway. It probably makes a child feel even worse than knowing himself or herself to be conceived through a broken rubber.

With a single mother, the child is still around and it does give the mother a purpose. The problem is that the message shouldn’t be misread – the example is that, if it happens, the mother shouldn’t marry for the sake of the child alone because marriage is more than legitimatising a child and keeping the father around. Nor should she specifically seek out a man to fill the missing position.

Where I have a problem is the presumption that God makes acts fruitful rather than nature, when it clashes with rape. I can understand the idea of God making an illicit consensual act fruitful, but a rape? Someone breaking into a house, tying up the husband and raping his wife with him watching? I can hear “God wanted you to have that child and the way to make it happen was His to decide, not yours. Praise the Lord,” but we believe in a loving and merciful God. If God were making rape fruitful, we wouldn’t be giving post-coital contraception to rape victims.

My next pet peeve is chastity sites and chastity speakers telling people they can have as many romantic partners as they want at one and same time, so long as they have sex with none. That’s a big joke.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Chevalier,

In the US there are far more husbands and wives seeking to adopt a child than there are children to adopt. For a young single woman not to provide an intact environment for her child through adoption seems not to be an ethical decision one would want to live with.

Dan L

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

chevalier:

I seem to know a couple of mothers who brought up a child alone and a couple who married the father for the reason of the child and none other. I’m pretty sure the former children get a better house than the latter, better example. The former have a loving mother, the latter have a family created for the only reason that they were underway. It probably makes a child feel even worse than knowing himself or herself to be conceived through a broken rubber.
I’d have to disagree given the friends I have who had children out of wedlock - they would disagree too.
With a single mother, the child is still around and it does give the mother a purpose. The problem is that the message shouldn’t be misread – the example is that, if it happens, the mother shouldn’t marry for the sake of the child alone because marriage is more than legitimatising a child and keeping the father around. Nor should she specifically seek out a man to fill the missing position.
I agree marriage is more than just paternity validation, but the needs of the child comes first - I can think of no greater gift to a child than an example of a good marriage. I agree she shouldn’t go looking for a man to fill the position - it’s not just a vacant job awaiting an employee.
Where I have a problem is the presumption that God makes acts fruitful rather than nature, when it clashes with rape. I can understand the idea of God making an illicit consensual act fruitful, but a rape? Someone breaking into a house, tying up the husband and raping his wife with him watching? I can hear “God wanted you to have that child and the way to make it happen was His to decide, not yours. Praise the Lord,” but we believe in a loving and merciful God. If God were making rape fruitful, we wouldn’t be giving post-coital contraception to rape victims.
God made nature - that’s why we refer to natural law to get a basis on what is His design and what is mans at times. I believe firmly that even a child resulting from rape is a gift from God - maybe as the result of loving heart even when experiencing personal brutality. Yes, the act of rape is not from God - it is from the evilness of a sinfull man. A merciful God gives hope and joy to His children even in such dark times. And not everyone agrees with post-coital contraception. In your above scene, it is very likely that her dh would have to council her not to have it - that baby could just as easily be her dh’s!
My next pet peeve is chastity sites and chastity speakers telling people they can have as many romantic partners as they want at one and same time, so long as they have sex with none. That’s a big joke.
ahhh the we’re “just good friends” theory. Yeah, on that one I agree, what a load that only the inexperienced and very young believe. Shame on the speakers for encouraging such silliness.

 

[marvin]

Gregory

It sounds like you have a problem with what most young people believe about God. If I understand correctly, your students view God as all loving, all forgiving no matter what. That it doesn’t matter what they do or how often or how willfully they do wrong, God just looks the other way and continues to bless and reward them. If that’s what you’re getting at I think that you’re 100% correct and that this attitude is not exclusive to young people by a long shot.

 

[The_Angelus]

Well, I wouldn’t say that “God is always there for me” isn’t profound. I agree it’s a little disappointing, but this is what your students are in class to learn, right? When you think about it, they’re talking about omnipresence and the all-goodness of an all-powerful deity. That’s pretty profound. Okay, it’s elementary-level profound, but they’re getting there.

The single-mother/rape-victim dispute is never going to go away. But if we take a basic theological assertion and follow a logical progression, this is what I come up with:

Given: A child is a good thing. (Humanae Vitae)

Since a child is accepted to be a Good Thing, it follows that no matter the circumstances of the child’s conception, birth, family, or paternity, whatever the circumstances were, a Good result came from them.

Considering rape a Bad Thing (I don’t know of anyone other than the rapist who would consider it good), we have one Bad Thing resulting directly in a Good Thing.

Considering not having a father, or having one who’s in jail or something, to be a bad thing, we can still say the child is a good thing.

So whichever way you slice it, a bad thing has good results. I have always had the view that a child is a mother’s saving grace from her abusive marriage or rape or whatever. It is a good thing sprung from roots of evil. If she doesn’t want to be reminded of the circumstances, adoption is always there.

Sort of like the Fall of Man, if you think about it. It was an evil thing, brought about by Satan. But Jesus came down to save us because of it, which was a good thing. ONce again, good results from bad.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

marvin:

Gregory

It sounds like you have a problem with what most young people believe about God. If I understand correctly, your students view God as all loving, all forgiving no matter what. That it doesn’t matter what they do or how often or how willfully they do wrong, God just looks the other way and continues to bless and reward them. If that’s what you’re getting at I think that you’re 100% correct and that this attitude is not exclusive to young people by a long shot.

You perceive correctly and I agree with your assessment that it is a problem that affects all ages. In fact I’ve worked with youth who were much more devout than their parents.

Dan L

 

[chevalier]

Rob's Wife:

I’d have to disagree given the friends I have who had children out of wedlock - they would disagree too.

I was out of wedlock and I prefer my upbringing over one I could have got with a father and mother not loving each other.

I agree marriage is more than just paternity validation, but the needs of the child comes first - I can think of no greater gift to a child than an example of a good marriage. I agree she shouldn’t go looking for a man to fill the position - it’s not just a vacant job awaiting an employee.

The key here is “good marriage”. Pregnancy marriage rarely works out. A bad marriage gives the child a very, very nasty set of bad ideas. A single parent is way better than that. A child needs contact with a strong male figure, but there are uncles, grandfathers, older cousins, priests, teachers, friends…

God made nature - that’s why we refer to natural law to get a basis on what is His design and what is mans at times. I believe firmly that even a child resulting from rape is a gift from God - maybe as the result of loving heart even when experiencing personal brutality.

The loving heart of whose? Rape resulting in pregnancy I would see as a huge test rather than a generic gift. I could be convinced that it were a gift to be killed in the process of trying to commit a mortal sin but while still in the state of grace. Even killed in a very brutal way. But rape? Let’s imagine a proper lady, loving wife and mother, raped by someone of a different race with pregnancy resulting. I just can’t come to terms with the idea of sexual violence serving anything in God’s plan.

Yes, the act of rape is not from God - it is from the evilness of a sinfull man. A merciful God gives hope and joy to His children even in such dark times. And not everyone agrees with post-coital contraception. In your above scene, it is very likely that her dh would have to council her not to have it - that baby could just as easily be her dh’s!

Only if she were raped shortly after marital intercourse. Male sperm doesn’t last so long. Plus, there’s no such thing as “that baby” when it comes to an unfertilised ovum. If it already were a baby, post-coital contraception would be abortion. But that’s actually quite a likely result, as well. What’s more, the application of a post-coital contraceptive might even increase the chance of fertilisation or even increase the chance of fertilisation and then act as an abortifacient. For me, the risk of abortion is the only moral concern here. If you ask me, washing the rapist’s sperm away is morally neutral, if not a work of charity on the part of those who administer it.

ahhh the we’re “just good friends” theory. Yeah, on that one I agree, what a load that only the inexperienced and very young believe. Shame on the speakers for encouraging such silliness.

Agreed. I look forward to the day when I’m able to get a Church authority to investigate such things and restore order. I’m going to open a website soon, specifically on this subject.

 

[patg]

GregoryPalamas:

In Doctrine students often write: “God is always there for me” as the most profound doctrine they can imagine. I never read “I always do my best to be there for God.” What kind of generation of Christians are we producing?

I’m not surprised at all by that type of answer. We all should remember the emphasis on “God the Father”, God is like a parent, the “Holy Family”, we are children of God, etc - all through our youth. And what is a good parent? - someone always there for you, someone who always and unconditionally loves you (throughout your younger years at least), someone who always believes in you and always supports you. NOT someone you think about always being there for (unless you are a really weird young child)!

Your students are expressing their image of God as Father because that is the aspect of God they relate to the most in their young lives. What normal child believes that their parents need them? And the concept of God needing us is not an obvious idea.

 

[marvin]

GregoryPalamas:

You perceive correctly and I agree with your assessment that it is a problem that affects all ages. In fact I’ve worked with youth who were much more devout than their parents.

Dan L

You know, I think its a kind of hodge podge of new age ideas that have found their way in. No one dares speak of the “Fear of God” anymore. Many folks look at God as some dotting grandfather.
We know that His mercy and love are unconditional, but His temporal punishments are well documented in the scripture. Maybe people just don’t read scripture anymore.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

GregoryPalamas:

I teach Comparative Religions at a Community College. The first written assignment is for students to apply certain religious theories to ones own life. I frequently read things that puzzle and sometimes irritate me. Maybe it’s a generational thing but I don’t think so.

In Doctrine students often write: “God is always there for me” as the most profound doctrine they can imagine. I never read “I always do my best to be there for God.” What kind of generation of Christians are we producing?

These responses are equally valid, in different contexts:​

“God is there for us” - IOW, God can always be trusted; we can and do fail God, but never does God fail us. Our desire to please God, good as it is, is always secondary to His kindness to us: never its condition.

“Being there for God” is our response to this unfailing and universal & always-individual Divine faithfulness. God loves us as individuals - not as members of a crowd, but “as though” each one of us were the only creature He had made. Not because we are good, but because He is: all good comes from Him; it has no other source. It would be very odd if we acknowledged God’s love for us and for our neighbour - but did not respond to it. ##

In the Ethical area women students often tell stories of otherwise wasted young trivial lives followed by the wonderful gift of a new born child. They view the arrival of the baby as God giving them purpose. None are married and in no case is a father going to be in the life of the child. The lesson is rather “This baby gives me purpose. So, I will encourage others by telling them God will give them purpose.” But never is there a concern for the baby which will have no stable home. What am I missing here? Are we giving the message, intentionally or unintentionally that marriage is not necessary, that premarital sex is just fine, and that children don’t really need an intact family?

Help.

Dan L

Are you able to tell them what they need to know ?​

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I do tell them. But fornication is so widspread and common place that it doesn’t register that it could possibly be wrong. It’s a different age don’t you know?

Dan L