However, as a teacher part of me dreaded this time of year. Students looking forward to summer vacation often wanted to begin their vocation a month early. Whining increased. Assignments arrived to my desk later. Bathroom breaks got longer. I felt a growing sense of frustration as my carefully crafted lessons fell onto deaf ears and daydreaming minds. I especially felt this sense of frustration as a teacher of seniors. I taught college level courses (Cooperative College Credit courses as well as Advanced Placement), and I saw my job as not only preparing these students for college but ushering them into a higher level of cognitive skill. I’m a bit of an idealist, so when seniors turn off and tune out, I find myself increasingly frustrated at their unwillingness to make the most of the time they have left in high school to grow in their ability to think and learn.

This frustration is nearly universal, and modern educational philosophy has begun listening to the whining of seniors as if it were the wisdom of the sages. Articles like USNews.com: More Calculus? Toss the Frisbee! appear periodically at this time of year expressing possible solutions to the problem of “senioritis.”

Other articles recommend giving in to senioritis by offering early graduation, work study programs (which are usually nothing more than time off of school to work part-time jobs, despite efforts to implement an actual curriculum), or “human interest” courses (read “blow-off class”).

The article from U.S. News & World Report brings up a great point, and the solutions it offers are actually pretty good: making the senior year a truly culminating education experience (senior papers or senior thesis presentations) and/or linking the senior year of high school to college by having colleges set standards for the senior year that must be met for college admission the following year.

Only 36 percent of seniors say they do six or more hours of homework a week. Only 1 in 3 seniors takes a science course, compared with two thirds of European students. (To be fair, more than half of American seniors spend at least three hours a day working, about three times the international average.) The result is that many of the 70 percent who now go on to college either have let their knowledge base decline senior year or never acquired the basic knowledge and study skills to succeed. At some universities, as many as two thirds of the freshmen must take remedial courses–and many never return for sophomore year.

No one blames the students. “I’d act the same way,” says Kirst, who sees slacking off as the natural response to the confusing cues sent by colleges and school officials. By admitting students on the basis of their junior-year grades, for example, colleges send the message that senior year doesn’t really count. The trend toward early admissions only exacerbates the urge to kick back.

However, even this article may be missing the point. The underlying assumption is that the main purpose of high school is to prepare students for college, which students need in order to get a successful job. This underlying educational philosophy has (in my opinion as an educator) eviscerated the power of schools to offer a true education. Traditional Catholic education philosophy tells us that the purpose of true education is to teach us how to think so that we can discover the truth.

Instead of following the way that students actually learn, modern educational philosophy turns it on its head. Elementary teachers who see memorization as restrictive attempt to gain students’ interest through activities and arts, when in fact elementary students are primed for memorization. Meanwhile, goaded by reports about how little graduating seniors “know” about history and science, high school teachers attempt to cram facts into their students’ heads, focusing on memorization rather than forming students’ growing ability to analyze and to think critically.

Is it any wonder that by senior year most students see education as irrelevant? High school students who start their freshman year complaining, “When will we ever use this stuff?” in the face of memorizing dates, names and events are by their senior year driven to distraction by even more requirements to memorize “useless facts.” In truth, they should have already learned these facts, and should by now be engaged in real thinking about their subjects.

Of course, anyone who knows adolescents and young adults realize that even changing educational philosophy and practice won’t get rid of senioritis. Fallen human nature pretty much guarantees that students will seek luxury and fun over the true good of learning how to think. However, even this struggle can be a good thing if it teaches the self-discipline of putting off what we think we want for the sake of a higher good. One thing is certain – giving in to senioritis is not what is good for our young adults. It does nothing more than keep them children when they should be embracing adulthood.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Chuck Colson, a popular teacher on the importance of forming a Christian worldview and intellectual life, has often warned about the same phenomenon. “A World of Their Own,” a BreakPoint commentary, offered an excellent explanation of the isolated teen culture, which happens to precisely coincide with my own observations as a highschool teacher. After explaining one of the many school shooting tragedies that have happened in our country, Mr. Colson says,

If you’re wondering “Where were the adults?” it’s clear you don’t know how most American teenagers are growing up today. American teenagers operate in what has been called a “parallel culture” that operates free of adult interference.

As Leon Botstein, the president of Bard College, wrote in the New York Times, American high schools are the site of something unique in American society: “a gang in which individuals of the same age group define each other’s world.” This definition includes the imposition of standards that have no relationship to what’s needed for success in the real world.

Ironically, the claim by proponents of those who support “traditional” schooling is that children need to go to school in order to learn how to deal with social conflict and with the complexities of the social world. They fear that homeschooled children will grow up sheltered from the real world, and will therefore be unprepared for adulthood. What they fail to see is that the school culture is not a reflection of the real adult world. It is a unique culture that is often reminiscent of Lord of the Flies, devoid of adult rules and guidance. This culture produces such head-scratching cultural anomalies as “sexting” (sending nude photographs of yourself by cell phone), as well as increased risky behaviors involving alcohol, drugs ans sex. And the worst part of this teen culture is that adults are afraid of it. Or, at least adults think that they have no right to interfere in it. As Chuck Colson says,

So we’ve got American kids operating from an artificial set of rules unrelated to real life; they’re going to schools where adults don’t question those rules, watching media that validates those rules, and being wooed by advertisers who tell them how insightful they really are. Worst of all, their parents are complicit in the creation of the parallel culture.

Whether it’s because of a lack of time, or a desire not to “repress” their children, American parents have adopted a hands-off approach to parenting. Instead of direct supervision they get what’s called “guilt money” — money given in lieu of real parental involvement. The lack of supervision and the money reinforce the parallel culture. It’s created a creature I call the “autonomous teenager.”

The immediate result of the teen culture is alienated young adults who see themselves as alien to the adult world, who are incapable of relating to their parents, and who don’t have the first clue how to interact with the civilized world. Most young adults don’t even greet you when you enter their place of employment, and sometimes don’t even serve you with any sense of politeness or interest.

The long-term results of the teen culture are going to be even more serious. We already see people from my generation, currently in their thirties, who have never grown up. This trend is going to get even worse if it doesn’t turn around. We are losing sight of the purpose of culture and society, creating societies that alienate and isolate us rather than bringing us together in true social interaction. Raising a generation unable to socially interact within an adult world, incapable of true conversation (vs. the empty, shallow communication they are almost constantly engaged in), disinterested in intellectual discourse, independent rather than interdependent and ignorant of politeness and civility, is only going to damage it more.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What caught my attention wasn’t the tired debate about literature, but the underlying worldview of the entire indoctrination debate that is shared by both sides. As we abandon intellectual skills of reasoning and critical thinking as a culture in favor of more practical educational outcomes of fact memorization and job skills, our culture has simplified, polarized and politicized every aspect of social life.

Marxist principles have been dripping steadily into the minds of American youth for more than a century. This isn’t altogether surprising. After all, most parents want their children to be far left in their early years — to share toys, to eschew the torture of siblings, to leave a clean environment behind them, to refrain from causing the extinction of the dog, to rise above coveting and hoarding, and to view the blandishments of corporate America through a lens of harsh skepticism. But fewer parents wish for their children to carry all these virtues into adulthood. It is one thing to convince your child that no individual owns the sandbox and that it is better for all children that it is so. It is another to hope that when he grows up he will donate the family home to a workers’ collective.

Simple virtues such as sharing, respect, taking care of your surroundings, etc. have somehow become Marxist principles that are the sole possession of the Left. Teaching your child to share the sandbox will lead to that child embracing Socialism or Communism and fighting for the universal ownership of all goods.

The best way to make sure our children are not indoctrinated is to teach them to reason things out and to think critically. For example, thinking through the virtues listed above would help us to realize that virtue is always about balance. Sharing is a good thing as it engenders generosity and thoughtfulness of others, drawing us out of ourselves and making us aware the needs of others. However, the extreme abolition of all private property does not have these benefits. In fact, removing private property removes the option of generosity by forcing what should be freely chosen. Sharing is a balance between selfishness and extreme ideology. In fact, all virtue is a balance between extremes. Reasoning can help us see that. Politicizing cannot.

I am increasingly concerned with the division of our culture between Left and Right. If you are a conservative, you cannot care about the environment or promote generosity in immigration policy. If you are a liberal, you better promote universal health care and you can never admit to the benefits of the free market system. We are becoming indoctrinated – not by children’s books, but by our inability to think things through in a critical and reasonable way and by our tendency to accept ideas as all or nothing propositions.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There is little doubt that bullying is a real problem in our public and private schools. However, to accept that there is a real problem is not to accept the proposed solution. According to the editors of our local newspaper, the solution includes a state law against bullying. Wisconsin is apparently only one of 14 states that has not already passed one. A state law against bullying would

. . .give every child in the state the same protection against intimidation and establish a procedure for complaints to be filed and cases investigated.

It also would mean that bullying outside of the school setting would be banned.

A state law against bullying seems so reasonable. I have to ask, though, why is a state law against bullying necessary? While a state law would give authorities leverage to investigate cases of bullying, I doubt that it would actually do much to protect children against intimidation. A law will definitely not teach a child to become lovers of peace and justice rather than tyrants. The only thing a law will do is provide a penalty for those who are caught – after they have already become bullies. Such penalties do little to actually stop negative behavior.

The very fact that a state law against bullying seems reasonable to us shows the failure of our society to embrace the family as the first school of love. Our culture has grown dependent on social institutions, form daycare to the school system, to raise our children for us. A school system does not have the power of a family to teach our children virtue.

Our social systems are doing their best to address the problem

In recent years, school districts across Wisconsin have adopted policies against bullying and many have backed this up with in-service programs for teachers and programs in the classrooms.

We applaud all of these efforts to put an end to something that can have both a serious and damaging impact on children.

In addition, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has developed “Bullying Prevention Curriculum” guides that have been sent to all school districts.

The guides contain instructional units targeted to students in grades three to five and six to eight. The guides also include bullying prevention policy guidelines that describe elements schools and districts should consider in developing a policy related to the prevention of and response to bullying behaviors.

That’s a pretty standard school system response to negative student behavior – policies, inservices and curricula. Such interventions do not compare to the power of a family’s daily personal interaction with the individual child.

The problem of bullying will not be completely solved this side of the Kingdom. It is a result of our sinful nature. However, our sinful nature can be overcome in each individual through the power of Divine Grace and by learning to cooperate with that grace to turn our hearts away from evil and toward authentic goodness. We learn to cooperate with grace – to live lives of faith and virtue – within and from our family.

A call for a state law against bullying is a sign of failure. It means that we have given up on forming lives of virtue and have resorted only to doling out penalties. I am not necessarily against such a law. It is possibly within the interest of public safety. On the other hand, we need to ask if it is an overreaching attempt to legislate morality that is best learned in the family. Our culture has come to see parenthood as a temporary interruption in “real life.” We expect parenting to be as little an inconvenience as possible. Falling for the allure of educational experts claiming to make our children more productive and successful if they can get them into school as early as possible, we have abrogated our responsibililty for raising our own children, expecting the State or the Church to do it for us. But social institutions that treat children in the plural are largely incapable of instilling virtue in the individual. The family is the school of love. The only real solution to bullying is to rethink the way we are raising and educating our children. The solution starts in the home.

End Note

“Anti-bullying law long overdue.” Marshfield News Herald 10 November 2008. Gannett Press. 6A.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I was thinking about our culture’s obsession with what it calls “science.” How did we get to the point where scientists can comment on areas of life not observable by science (such as God) and be embraced as experts? How did we get to the point where scientists assume that knowledge within the realm of science are matters of personal conviction rather than objective truth? How did we get to the point that “scientists” make assumptions about where human life begins, the side-effects of contraception, contraception and abortion as “women’s health,” in-vitro fertilization as the best option for infertile women, a biological genesis of homosexuality, etc. are made without scientific evidence? Then it occurred to me. Our culture is once again embracing “authority” as a source of truth.

Arguments using authority as a source for truth used to be very common. People who had proven themselves as trusted experts in an area were cited as proof in support of a thesis. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas often cited “The Philosopher” (Aristotle) and “The Apostle” (St. Paul). It was not necessary for Aquinas to prove what these two authorities said; the fact that they said it was proof enough. Such weight of proof was based on trust. Cited authorities had proven themselves and general consensus trusted their conclusions. Of course, for Catholics the ultimate authority was God. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were trusted because throughout history God had proven Himself trustworthy.

Many historians mark Descartes as the beginning of the rejection of arguments by authority. His famous dictum, “I think therefore I am,” was an assertion that the only truth of which one can be absolutely certain is his own thought. In truth, rejection of authority began before Descartes. After the medieval period of history culture began to turn more and more toward humanism, rejecting God as the source of all truth. The Protestant Reformation damaged trust in authority by casting doubt on the authority of Sacred Tradition and on the Magisterial authority instituted by Christ. Interpretation of scripture, which was seen as the only legitimate authority remaining, was left up to each individual. The Renaissance was a celebration of human ability, even though much of the subject matter in art and literature was still religious. Arguments by authority were cast in suspicious light. By the enlightenment arguments by authority were completely rejected in favor only of truth that could be proven by science and reason. By the twentieth century even reason had been rejected so that only science was considered a trustworthy source of truth.

Today scientists and “professionals” are trusted as authorities because the assumption is made that their claims to truth are based on science. There is a very large difference between the modern and the ancient reliance on tradition. Whereas the traditional use of authority was based on trust of the individual, modern use of authority is based only on the often erroneous assumption of scientific validity. “Well, he has a PhD, he must know what the science says about the subject.” Furthermore, while an appeal to authority was traditionally seen as a valid proof for an argument, it did not stand alone. Even appeals to divinely inspired authority (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) were paired with further proof from reason and science. Today, the word of an authority is typically accepted uncritically without need for further proof.

In one sense we have come full circle, back to the use of authority as proof. On the other hand, our current resting point is not the same place at all. While we continue to reject established authorities such as Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas and even God Himself, we readily and uncritically embrace unproven authorities simply because of their social status as “professionals.” In the end, by ignoring solid claims to truth through science, reason and trusted authority and embracing the unfounded opinions of so-called “professionals,” we have set ourselves up to be duped.

A related book at the From the Abbey Bookstore!

The Truth of Things by Marion Montgomery.

Against the modernist belief that truth is subjective, Montgomery promotes a return to classical philosophy and logic. She uncovers a world of academia where meaningless themed classes such as “the Literature of Vampires” have replaced systematic learning. Marion Montgomery also analyzes how this trend has affected our culture as a whole. Anti-intellectualism has even grasped the Catholic culture, and we need to be aware of its presence. Montgomery’s writing is academic and heady. You may find it difficult to absorb for long periods of time. However, this is one of those books for which perseverance pays off. The ideas Montgomery presents are absolutely enlightening.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

Related posts:

1. Join the Crusade Against . . . Water Our politicized culture even makes science into a propaganda tool...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The first question was to define censorship. A public school librarian defined censorship as any attempt to suppress the free expression of ideas. When the moderator asked if I agreed with this definition, I said that I would add one more element to my definition. Censorship is the use of the power of authority to suppress the public expression of ideas. I stated that I did not consider the grassroots attempt to decide what should be taught in a community’s schools or what books should be in the school and public libraries to be censorship. It’s a matter of subsidiarity. Such decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of social organization. Furthermore, I believe that the public discourse that occurs when public works are challenged is healthy and good. A community should discuss what literature and media match the identity and purpose and which they consider harmful or contrary to community standards – and they should learn to critically, rationally and intelligently discuss these choices.

I do believe that whether or not particular expressions of ideas should be suppressed depends largely on the forum in which these choices are being made. Suppression of materials is perhaps less necessary in venues that offer more freedom, such as a public library. However, venues with a captive audience, such as school libraries and classrooms, may require more action to be taken based on community discussion. On the other hand, these forums need to offer more freedom by working with members of the community to offer alternatives to contested literature and media. Whether or not a particular public expression of ideas is suppressed by this process, I do not consider it censorship, but the free exercise of the democratic process.

I do not support a single person or minority making decisions for the rest of us what should be taught or made available in our community and what should not. Examples of disgruntled parents taking their case to court even though they were given alternatives to the contested literature would probably be considered censorship rather than public dialogue. Such action squelches community discussion. While authority may need to step in to make the final decision, it should do so only after listening to the community dialogue.

I summarized my point by challenging the popular interpretation of Fahrenheit 451. I don’t think the main theme of the book is censorship, but what happens when a community stops thinking. The blind acceptance of all ideas is just as detrimental to the health of society as blind censorship. The public discourse about ideas, including the occasional debate about whether or not a specific expression of ideas should be available in a particular venue, is healthy. The problem with the society in Fahrenheit 451 was not that the government started censoring ideas, but that the people did not want to be bothered with thinking. They would rather be entertained and taken care of by their government. They filled their lives with shallow, meaningless fun and entertainment. Books were burned because they led to the possibility of disagreement that would require people to think.

Of course, my ideas were not immediately accepted by the other panel members. To their credit, they were willing to consider them and we had a great discussion. As we discussed examples of “censorship” – both those that were considered acceptable and those that were not – we came closer to a consensus than I thought would be possible. We agreed that people need to think, judge and analyze what they read and see and hear. We agreed that sometimes choices need to be made in order to stay true to the mission of a community (to protect children, for example, or to offer good quality information, or to preserve the identity of a Catholic school). Also, I shared their anger at reports of valid scientific studies being suppressed because the results ran counter to the biases of the scientific community. I also agreed with their use of the standard of validity to select materials, even when the materials they would reject supported ideas that I believe are true (such as homosexuality being a condition that can be healed).

It was a fruitful discussion, and one that I really enjoyed. I can only hope that our culture will start to heed the warnings of Fahrenheit 451 – promoting intelligent public discussion rather than worrying so much about censorship. This reading program sponsored by our public library was a good start.

Read this book for yourself!

Fahrenheit 451 Written by: Bradbury, Ray – Published by: Ballantine Books – Published on: 1996-08-01

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

UK’s Largest Teachers’ Union Lobbies to Legalise Sex with Students

The story explains that the union sees an unfair discrimination in the law. The legal age of consent in the UK is 16. However, a teacher who has consensual sex with a student who is over the age of 16 is still charged for statutory rape. As a union representative pointed out, if that same teacher had consensual sex with a student from a different school, it would be legal.

Voices opposing the union warn of a slippery slope:

Gregory Carlin, however, a child protection activist and head of the Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition, said that such ideas were another sign of the erosion of legal protections for young people against exploitation.

“If the NASUWT philosophy has its day,” he said, “exploiting a 16 year old in a brothel would carry no extra penalty.” Under the same logic, he said, “Jail guards would be able to take their pick from their charges and foster parents would be spared prosecution for having sex with foster children.”

People who warn of slippery slopes are often dismissed as alarmists. The slippery slope argument is really just a form of the “logical consequences” argument. While it is true that this sort of argument can be abused (such as the assertion that laws defining traditional marriage will logically lead to keeping post-menopausal women or couples with diagnosed fertility problems from getting married), they can be valid arguments if they are based on a real causal connection.

In this case, the valid connection is the purpose of the law. The prohibition of sex between teachers and students is designed to keep a teacher from using his or her authority (explicitly or implicitly) to influence a student into bed. The teacher’s union can argue that the law is not necessary due to entrenched professional expectations. It would be enough for the teacher to be fired – he or she does not also have to become a registered criminal. However, the law is in place not only for the teachers, but also for people in other positions of power. To change the law for one would change the law for all. This is a firm logical argument.

Taking one small step away from firm logical argument toward alarmism, one can look at the UK’s loosening of moral norms and see where it is all heading. The age of consent in the UK used to be 18. They lowered it to 16 but successfully resisted attempts to have it lowered t 14. Europe in general now sees saving sex for marriage as an antiquated and irrelevant value. Now attempts are being made to erase the legal penalty for a sex within a relationship of power. It may not be too large a step for the professional expectation to soon erode too. After all, it’s just sex, right? This line of argument does not have the backing of firm logic. It is a bit alarmist. However, it isn’t necessarily wrong. It is based on knowledge of our fallen human nature, and on observations of other ways our culture has grown accustomed to calling evil good (who would ever have thought in 1950 that we would accept killing unborn babies as a form of birth control?).

We must use slippery slope arguments with great care. They are perceived as alarmist and extremist. However, if they are carefully formulated they can be a powerful reasoning tool. Hopefully the UK will take note of such reasoning before they slip even further down the slippery slope of free sex.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The article begins:

The French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal once claimed that “mutual cheating is the foundation of society.” For as long as there have been rules, it seems, there have been cheaters.

I would like to know the context of Pascal’s statement. He was, after all, a Catholic scholar and I find it difficult to believe that he was so defeatist. This statement, like “every law was meant to be broken,” indicates (with a wink and a smirk) that cheating is natural to human beings.

When we are faced with human depravity, we tend to defend our sensibilities in two ways. First, we try to shrug it off by convincing ourselves that it is inevitable or normal or inevitable. Second, we try to find a psychological explanation.

What’s going on here? Doesn’t anyone play by the rules? On Wall Street, the one-two punch of greed and competition is to blame, says journalist James Stewart. His coverage of the 1987 stock crash and insider-trading scandals earned him a Pulitzer and became the foundation of his bestseller Den of Thieves. All that money sloshing around, he says, “can drive people into a frenzy. . . . You’re thrown in that competitive situation at a very early age and exhorted to win at all costs.” And that win-at-all-costs ethic, critics say, is the foundation of the cheating culture.

In Hollywood, “you can get away with your embezzlements and your lies, and your murders, but you can never get away with failing,” according to Dominick Dunne, celebrated chronicler of the powerful and notorious. The pressure to succeed–and the fear of failure–Dunne says, is the perfect prescription for cheating. It may also be the root of widespread cheating among students. Consider: Seventy-four percent of high school students admitted to “serious test cheating” last year. That’s more than double the number who admitted this in 1969.

Certainly an overemphasis on success leads to cheating. I see this in high school students and their parents, or example. Sometimes we even get parents defending or even abetting the cheating by their children and offering the excuse, “Well, she has to get into college and she can’t do that without a good grade in this class.”

Obsession with success and the willingness to sacrifice integrity show a degradation of priorities and a false sense of happiness – a willingness to sacrifice transcendent goods such as honesty, truth and integrity for the sake of temporal, imperfect, and insecure goods such as money and success. Obsession with success brings constant dissatisfaction and cheating does nothing to alleviate the unhappiness caused by a disordered life.

Of course, there are other reasons for cheating as well:

But pressure to succeed isn’t a complete explanation. Undeniably, there is an almost romantic appeal to “beating the system”–particularly if the system, whether it’s the speed limit or the stock market, is perceived as rigged or unfair. Take the tax code, for instance. Nearly everyone thinks he or she pays too much or that others don’t pay enough. So Americans cheat to the tune of $195 billion a year, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That amounts to a whopping $1,600 per taxpayer.

While the first cause of cheating is a false sense of true happiness, the second is a false idea of the purpose of authority. “Sticking it to the man” has been in vogue since the 1960′s. Actually, it has been part of the American culture since the American Revolution when True Whigs held a philosophy that held all authority suspect. Americans hold that individuals need to grab all they can for themselves while authority attempts to keep them from it.

However, the truth is that authority is intended to lead us to authentic goodness, especially when our own weaknesses or ignorance would make attaining that goodness more difficult if not impossible. Often our attempt to “stick it to the man” or to “beat the system” are like my two-and-a-half-year-old’s stubborn refusal to wear pants.

And think about the reasons people give for cheating. We steal cable because “the prices are a rip-off.” We fudge insurance claims because “the rates are sky high.” We pocket office supplies because “the company can afford it.” All these rationalizations suggest people are perversely cheating to restore fairness. Is this tolerable?

Yes, sometimes the explanation of why we cheat is just that we’re selfish and whiny. We tend to think we are never getting enough because we are never satisfied with what we have.

So, whether we are revealing our messed-up priorities, our hubris, or our selfishness, we sacrifice much when we cheat. Cheaters destroy their personal integrity – the virtue of being who you were created to be. What’s more, since human beings are created to receive Truth, cheaters do great harm to justice between them and others, therefore isolating them from the bond of trust that creates a society. And what do we gain? A stapler? A few hundred dollars that we’ll spend foolishly anyway? A good grade that won’t even be remembered ten years from now? Even those people who rise to positions of power and prestige by cheating live with the constant fear that they will be found the fraud.

Furthermore, all sin does harm to society

No wonder many are now asking if there’s been a major shift in cultural standards–whether cheating and deceit have become accepted tools of the trade in the never-ending quest for success.

We have an innate sense that cheating is evil. U.S. News & World Report, the consummate supporter of bad science, explains:

Yet there is tension here as well. As great as the urge to cheat may be, we also have an almost hard-wired hatred of cheaters and a deep-seated urge to punish them. In fact, studies have shown people will go to great lengths to ferret out and punish cheaters, even when doing so is costly and offers no material gain. According to sociologists, this instinct to punish rule-breakers may date to hunter-gatherer societies, which were highly egalitarian–there were no hierarchical leaders. So when it came to sharing food, for instance, these minisocieties had to work as a group to punish any freeloaders.

It amazes me that everything can be traced back to the “hunter-gatherer” era of human history, as if this era (inexplicably) forever defined human nature. Truth be told, every time the “hunter-gatherer” era is used as an explanation for modern human behavior, the connection is based on a total guess. There is no evidence. This pseudo-scientific explanation is a “socially acceptable” alternative to the acceptance of natural law. We know that cheating is bad because human beings were created for Truth.

As Catholics, we know through Divine Revelation that human beings once knew the perfect life, but that Original Sin damaged our intellect and our will. Therefore we are tempted toward sin and deceit, yet we still hold goodness as our ideal. Cheaters never prosper – not because they are never successful but because they sacrifice the reality of who they are meant to be for the myth of what they wish they had.

[ad#naturallaw]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.