Some commentators have criticized Vermont and Ohio for not taking sexting (which is done especially by teenagers) seriously enough. Others have lauded them for saving young adults from a lifetime of stigma and legal problems due to youthful indiscretion. At the heart of this debate is the question, “How much should government legislate morality?”

I have to say that I agree with those who support removing sexting from the felony class of crimes. Sexting is not a sign of a sexual predator (though it can certainly be used for sexual harassment). It is a sign that young adults are not being taught to respect their body or their sexuality. This is the kind of respect that has to be taught in the home. While the government and law enforcement may need to back off from punishing texting, parents, teachers and our society need to step up.

The good thing about the various responses to sexting is that I have not yet heard anyone claim that it is a good thing, or that it is no big deal. Even Ellen Goodman, known for her lack of sexual wisdom, went no further than coming close to calling it good:

The vast majority of pictures are sent to romantic partners. A lot of what we are seeing is young people exploring trust and intimacy. But it’s often boyfriends — or ex-boyfriends — who hold the trump photos. And when that trust is broken and photos hit cyberspace, it’s girls who pay a social price in humiliation and ruined reputation.

Eighteen-year-old Jessica Logan of Ohio committed suicide after her boyfriend put her naked photos out in public, but it was also girls who bullied and harassed her. The girl who trusted was socially ostracized more than the boy who violated that trust. Go figure.

Of course, she cannot resist finding within the issue a feminist cause. That aside, she almost assumes that what’s happening with sexting is part of a healthy process of “exploring trust and intimacy.” Of course, to “explore” trust and intimacy by sending naked pictures of yourself to your “lover” is like “exploring” a financial investment by selling your home and all of your belongings to make an initial investment to see how things go. Sex is the physical sign of a willingness to totally give yourself in trust and intimacy to another person. It should be the last step in the growth of a relationship after trust and intimacy have been explored through friendship and a lifelong commitment to raising a family together has been made.

However, to Ms. Goodman’s credit, she does actually admit that sexting is misguided – a bad idea.

We do not need to criminalize sexting. Instead, parents need to step up and ask themselves some serious questions:

1. Is my adolescent child mature enough to use new technology wisely?

I’ll give you a hint -for most high school students the answer is no, despite the fact that most high school students have cell phones with cameras, etc.

2. Does my adolescent child need a cell phone?

Again, just because all of her friends do doesn’t mean your daughter needs one too. The answer is probably no.

3. Does my child know how to honor his or her body and fertility?

Having “The Talk” is not enough — and students in high school do not learn how to respect the bodies and their fertility even in “sex ed.” Parents – this is your job and it takes commitment, time and knowledge!

4. Does my child focus on developing friendships first before starting to date?

Dating in high school is focused on two things – status and sex. Students who do not have a boyfriend or a girlfriend feel unwanted, like they are losers. Many times dating relationships become a selfish quest for how much two people can snatch from each other – emotionally, financially and/or sexually. Selfless love is best learned when a romantic relationship starts out as a friendship and slowly progresses toward romance, giving two people a chance to know each other and slowly grow in trust and intimacy.

Parents, if you need help teaching your children to respect their bodies and their fertility, and to grow in trust and intimacy the right way, check out the Parent’s Place website. This is a parenting resource put out by the Diocese of La Crosse Office of Family Life. I had the honor of working on this website as designer and secondary writer. It is a great resource for parents.

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 really got me thinking about it was watching a couple of Christmas specials with my children. The first show we watched was the modern movie Elf and the second was the Christmas classic, The Year Without a Santa Clause. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with these shows in themselves. But what struck me as I watched them was the Santa mythos that they promote.

In this mythos, Santa represents the belief in the unreal. To use Santa’s own words (in Year Without a Santa Clause), “I believe in Santa Clause as much as I believe in any dream, and where will people find happiness if they lose their dreams?” Furthermore, Santa receives his power (much like Tinkerbell) by the belief of the people. This belief, along with a vague concept of “peace and goodwill,” are what constitute the “Christmas Spirit,” which is fundamentally the meaning of Christmas. Not only is Jesus not “the reason for the season,” God doesn’t even play a role. When Mrs. Clause in Year Without a Santa Clause “goes straight to the top” to straighten out an argument between “Freeze Miser” and “Heat Miser,” she goes to see Mother Nature.

If the Santa tradition was just a child’s story about a mysterious, jolly figure who leaves presents for good children in the middle of the night, I would have no problem joining in the fun. But the Santa mythos has become much more than that, or perhaps much less.

Like many Catholic families, my wife and I are considering the alternatives. I am leaning toward telling the story of Saint Nicholas of Myra (the original Santa Clause), and leaving a few mysterious gifts under the tree, leaving my children to wonder if Saint Nicholas had really visited them. We would then give Christmas presents in celebration of Jesus’ “birthday” – from us and from the family rather than from Santa. Then, when my children begin to figure out that the gifts from St. Nicholas are actually from us, we could much more easily explain about imitation of the saints and receiving the true gifts from Heaven. Hmmm . . .

It’s just a thought, but the more I think about it the more I’m warming to the idea. The Santa mythos is just too sterilized. Why not offer my children a real “myth” that naturally leads to the greatest Myth¹ of all?

End Notes

¹The original meaning of the word myth is a story that tells a culture’s foundational story — not necessarily a fictional story.

[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.

[adrotate group="1,2"]

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.

Sure, it might seem that the young man who sits at home in his bedroom all day refusing to hold a traditional job appears to be doing nothing, but when he eventually leaves the house, he might become one of the world’s greatest writers, as was the case with Oscar Wilde.

Or, he (and eventually she) might be enforcing his political beliefs against the traditional work system . . .

Tom Lutz’s book is about the way Americans view those who don’t work, whether by choice or condition, and how many people who were viewed lazy by American standards were actually exercising great minds but were marching to the beat of a different drummer.

The book tells the story of Benjamin Franklin, whom John Adams considered one of the laziest human beings he had ever known. It also tells the story of Oscar Wilde, who lived a lifestyle of the idle rich but produced some great intellectual works, and of Karl Marx, who protested the traditional work system by refusing to work but who was a workaholic in his own right.

Our American work ethic, busy all-the-time culture certainly needs to revisit its views of true recreation and leisure. This book may help us do so.

However, the conclusions drawn by the reviewer are predictably overboard.

And maybe, just maybe, parents, after reading this book, will begin look (sic) at their child as more than a representative of a lazy generation, but more as a person trying to figure out his or her place in the world. At least, after they take a nap.

This creative twist of an ending revisits the idea in the introduction of “children sitting on the couch on a beautiful day, playing video games, content with lackluster grades.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us that virtue is most often a middle way between extremes. Certainly, the workaholic attitude our country has adopted is not healthy and does not lead to much happiness. It also damages family life, marriage and personal sanity. On the other hand, laziness and idle use of time is not the road to happiness either. The idle rich often get themselves into trouble out of boredom, or become engaged in alcohol or drug abuse to fill the emptiness of an unfulfilling life. As a teacher, the answer I most often got when I asked students who their summer vacation was is a shrug accompanied with, “Kinda boring.”

The virtue of industriousness is a balance between these two extremes. Benjamin Franklin is actually an excellent example of this virtue. John Adams considered him lazy only against his New England work ethic, which is reflected in our modern mantra “time is money.” However, Franklin’s apparent idle time was taken up with learning, thinking, writing, experimenting and exercising his creativity. This “idle” time made his productive time even more productive since his productive time implemented ideas generated during his “idle” time.

Are children sitting on the couch playing video games, content with lackluster grades engaged in a similar use of time? Don’t be too quick to say no. Video games can stimulate creativity to some degree (some of them draw the imagination into a story line, for example). However, they can also be addictive and truly idle time. Formation of the virtue of industriousness would demand the limited use of video games, television and other passive entertainment. The key is to balance leisure time with greater doses of recreational reading, informal learning, thinking, writing, experimenting, exercising creativity, physical exercise and other active forms of recreation.

Children often need adults to stimulate this kind of activity. I sure did. My mother kicked me out of the house on a regular basis because I was doing nothing but watching TV. I thank her for it, because the time I spent outside was usually truly recreational. I engaged in creative play (with others or with myself), explored, daydreamed, got physical exercise, and came to appreciate nature.

We need to avoid the trap of thinking that we and our children are “human doings” instead of “human beings.” However, we must also avoid the trap that says we should leave our children alone to follow their own path. Children need adult guidance to find the balance of virtue. But adults need to make sure they have this balance in mind – and in practice – themselves so they can pass it on to their children.

Work Cited

Farguheson, Ivy. “History Shows Slackers Not New.” Marshfield News Herald. 21 September 2008. 11A.

Doing Nothing: A History of Loafers, Loungers, Slackers, and Bums in America Written by: Lutz, Tom – Published by: Farrar Straus Giroux – Published on: 2007-05-01

Leisure: The Basis of Culture Written by: Pieper, Josef – Published by: St. Augustine’s Press – Published on: 1998-10-01

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.

At my wife’s family’s Christmas celebration the kids are turned loose at a designated time and everyone rips into their gifts in an atmosphere of joyful chaos. Adult eyes are everywhere, watching our own children opening gifts, trying to watch for our nieces and nephews opening the gifts we got them, watching our children try to steal their cousins’ toys, receiving words and hugs of thanks all at the same time.

At my own family’s Christmas celebration, everyone receives their gifts and then we take turns opening one gift at a time. So one person opens one gift, shows it to everyone, says thank you (with words – hugs come later), and then the next person opens one gift. The children get a little antsy to be able to open their gifts, but they do enjoy watching everyone else open theirs (and have to be reigned in once in a while when their desire to help gets a little overbearing). It takes a very long time to get through all of the gifts, and we’re usually hot and tired afterward. But the ritual is accomplished with much eating and much laughter.

I then ask the audience, at which celebration would you rather be the giver of the gift? Despite the fact that my description of my parents’ celebration always seems more boring than the actual event, the audience invariably chooses it over the celebration of my in-laws. Why? Because everyone is watching the recipient of the gift open it, taking the time to see what the gift is, taking time to appreciate it together, and sharing in the love behind it. Even gag gifts make their way into this ritual, signifying our knowledge of each other and an appreciation of our family’s collective sense of humor. The giver of the gift is appreciated at least as much as the gift itself.

Teaching our children to receive gifts well perhaps needs to go beyond reminding them to say “Thank you.” It may require parents to teach their children how to

• recognize gifts that come in not-so-obvious forms that might otherwise go unappreciated
• appreciate the meaning behind certain gifts, “This was your grandfather’s carving knife. He gave it to you because he hopes you’ll enjoy wood carving as much as he did.”
• take the time to appreciate one gift before rushing on to another
• learn how to appreciate gifts that were not on the wish list
• learn how to accept disappointing gifts with graciousness and love

The main idea is to teach our children that the gift is a sign of love from the giver. The gift is meant to be enjoyed, but the giver of the gift should be appreciated and loved more. Think of the implications of teaching our children the art of receiving a gift well. Especially when they realize that all created goods are gifts from God, given to us as signs of His love.

What would it mean to move through life enjoying the gifts, but loving the Giver more? It would mean living a life of supernatural temperance. Temperance as a natural virtue helps us to find a balance in the enjoyment of physical goods and pleasures that is healthy for us spiritually and physically. Supernatural temperance adds to that healthy balance the awareness that every physical good and pleasure is imbued with the meaning of the love of God. When we focus on the Giver more than the gift, we are able to enjoy the gift even more because we receive both the goodness of the gift and the love of the Giver.

The implications for human relationships are the same. We would interact with others in an attitude of gratitude and love, recognizing all the ways that they offer themselves as gifts to us (and, of course, returning the gift of love in service to them as well). Battling selfishness and greed would be made easier by the enjoyment of the love of neighbor.

The implications for chastity are amazing. What would it mean to see sex within our romantic relationships as a gift? What would it mean to receive that gift well, to focus on the love of the giver more than on the gift itself? Sex before marriage would be seen as ripping into the gift early, without regard to the giver (since it does not yet reflect the true commitment of married love). However, the gift of one’s sexuality (the ability to give and receive love as a man or as a woman – which extends beyond the act of sex or even the context of romance) would be shared in the context of true love. Sex within marriage would be seen as a mutual gift of love, not just a means to pleasure. Of course, the pleasure is enjoyed as well – and even more since it comes with the awareness and sharing of love.

Focusing only on the gift (materialism) offers only temporary and incomplete happiness. Focusing on the giver leads to enjoyment of the gift, plus appreciation of the love of the giver. What a beautiful way to live our lives.

Check out these books at the From the Abbey bookstore about giving and receiving love.

Crystal Star Angel is about a boy who wins a special gift by discovering the true meaning of love. This is a great book for teaching children about giving and receiving gifts. This is a Christmas story.

Divine Pity explicitly makes the argument about supernatural temperance and the importance of loving the giver more than the gift.

[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.

My response to her first question was, “Well, it depends.” Here’s the reasoning process I shared with her. The virtue of temperance has two sides to it. On one hand, it keeps us from abusing or overindulging in the enjoyment of physical goods. On the other hand, it forbids us to disdain physical goods. All physical goods and the ability to enjoy them are signs of God’s love for us. We are meant to enjoy them. However, we must always remember that the most important thing is the love of the Giver, not the gift itself. Temperance helps us to find this balance of proper enjoyment of the good things of this world.

When it comes to chastity (a virtue that falls under the more general virtue of temperance), one guideline that helps us to find this balance is the fact that touch is a form of communication. The level of physical touch in which a couple engages should accurately reflect the level of intimacy (knowledge of each other), trust and commitment they have built in the relationship. To touch each other in ways that communicate more intimacy, trust and commitment than actually exists in the relationship would be to use your body to lie, which damages the relationship because intimacy, trust and commitment can only flourish in the presence of truth. The most intimate forms of touch need to be saved for marriage because the level of intimacy they communicate is only possible in context of a publicly avowed permanent, total and life-giving relationship (and only by the sacramental grace granted to us through the sacrament of marriage).

On the other hand, if a relationship has reached a certain level of intimacy, commitment and trust, it is proper and good for that intimacy, commitment and trust to be communicated by appropriate touching. Kissing, holding hands, stroking the cheek, touching the face & head – all of these are intimate forms of touch that are appropriate before marriage when they are accurately reflect the relationship.

In addition to the accurate communication guideline, a couple should also be careful not to ignite more sexual passion than they can control without getting frustrated. This is another problem with the most intimate forms of touch. An engaged couple may accurately communicate their level of intimacy, trust and commitment when they engage in the most intimate forms of touch (short of sexual intercourse), but when this kind of touching does not lead to completion of the sexual act, sexual frustration results. Exciting sexual passions that cannot be fulfilled is not a loving thing to do.

So, kissing before marriage can be appropriate and good when it accurately communicates the nature of the relationship and is not done purely for pleasure and thrill. However, kissing before marriage is not always necessary – as long as the couple communicates the true nature of their relationship in other ways. Kissing is not the only way to express love.

There are a number of reasons why a couple may choose not to kiss before their wedding day. For example, a couple close to marriage who find it increasingly difficult to control their passion for each other may decide not to kiss, so as not to ignite their passion until their wedding night. Even before they are engaged, individuals may know that they are excited to passion very easily, and so may decide not to engage in kissing. However, as a true and accurate communication of the nature of a relationship, kissing is a good that should not be despised.

Finally, we must always remember that human beings are persons to be loved, not things to be used. When we engage in any form of touch only because of the pleasure or thrill, we are using each other as objects. Pleasure is a good, created by God, but it is meant to accompany and to enhance the true purpose of touch – communication of love. Enjoying pleasure is not sinful, but seeking pleasure for its own sake without caring about the person you are receiving the pleasure from is like obsessing over the gift but completely forgetting about the giver.

Author’s Note

Celibacy and fasting are not examples of despising a good. In these practices, sex and food respectively are seen as a good, but they are sacrificed for the sake of attaining higher goods. To despise a good means to see it as evil. Someone who sees sex as evil is not truly living the celibate life. Someone who sees food as evil cannot truly fast.

These books from the From the Abbey bookstore are great aids for teaching young people about God’s plan for sexuality.

God’s Plan for You presents Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to teenagers. David Hajduk explains the plan of love that God has for each of us and how our bodies and our sexuality figure into that love. $16.11

Talking to Youth about Sexuality, a Parents’ Guide was developed with parents, doctors, educators, and catechists. This valuable guide helps you answer questions and encourage meaningful conversations with teens about the beauty and dignity of human sexuality and the value of self-discipline, purity, and chastity. $6.64

If either of the above items are out of stock, fill out a special order form and we’ll order them for you!

[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.

Mothers and fathers know that children are far from innocent, pure and selfless. In theological terms we would say that children are all physical appetites with no self-control. They are completely self-centered, honestly believing the the entire world exists to meet their needs. Their quest for food, comfort, entertainment and attention is constant and unrelenting. When they don’t receive what they want they throw temper tantrums or whine. When Jesus says that we must enter the Kingdom like little children, he is not talking about childlike traits of innocence, purity and selflessness. He is God. He knows better.

The vision of children as the ideal actually comes from a theological error adopted by the humanistic philosophical/psychological theory called Transactional Analysis (TA). According to TA the human personality is divided into three aspects (borrowed from Freud). The child is innocent, fun-loving, free and happy. The “parent” is the seat of high expectations (read here morality as well as social and personal ideals) and is scolding, sober, and squelching. The adult is the “real” person attempting to navigate through the world balancing the inner child and the inner parent. TA teaches that the main cause of unhappiness is that the parent takes over the adult and the inner child is suppressed. Psychological health occurs when the inner child is balanced with the demands of the real world (with the inner parent being all but suppressed).

The problem with this theory is that it denies Original Sin and fallen human nature. It holds that dysfunction enters the human personality as a result of environment and experience. A believer in TA would hold that if a child could be raised without the corrupting influences of society and family, the child would grow up to be pure, innocent, peaceful and happy. As Catholics and as parents we know the fallacy of this belief. Yet, it has found its way into popular thinking about children and even into our homilies.

So what did Jesus mean when he said we must enter the Kingdom as little children? The one trait that children have that Jesus admires is complete dependence. Children have no social status and no power. Recall that Jesus’ statement about children comes after the apostles ask which of them is the greatest. Jesus tells us adults that we need to realize that even with all of our sophistication, talents and education in the face of God we are still completely dependent. If we are going to make it to the Kingdom of God it will not be by our own power. It will be by the love and grace of God – just as a child receives nothing by his or her own power but only by the love of his or her parents. As our priest said, quoting St. Augustine, “Three things are needed to enter the Kingdom: humility, humility, and humility.”

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.

USNews.com: Selling kids cereal with sugar and toys

Harvard psychologist Susan Linn calls it “running the gantlet”–negotiating supermarket aisles filled with products heavily marketed to children. Today, in the face of a huge increase in childhood obesity, kids are bombarded by an unprecedented avalanche of food advertising. Indeed, food marketing aimed at children increased from $6.9 billion in 1992 to $15 billion in 2002.

The question I want to ask is, “Why does the advertising work?” Here is a clue:

“What the marketers want to do is get kids to nag their parents for the food, for the toys,” says Linn, associate director of the media center at Judge Baker Children’s Center in Boston. A 1998 study on the “Nag Factor” showed that 1 in every 3 visits to a fast-food outlet was attributable to children’s begging.

Here’s another question. Why are parents allowing their children to become victims of advertising rather than teaching them the virtues of prudence and temperance? If television advertising is brainwashing our kids into thinking they need to eat unhealthy foods, shouldn’t we control the television they watch and teach them how to analyze advertising? If our children’s appetite for sugar and fat is increasing, don’t we have the obligation to say no to them? Don’t we have the obligation to make them eat healthy foods?

How can the virtues of prudence and temperance help? Prudence is the ability to discern the greatest good and to make a plan to attain it. In this case, the greatest good would be the proper, healthful use of food. Helping children to grow in virtue would mean teaching them about good health, about the dangers of too much junk food, about the ways advertising tries to attract their appetites, and how to develop eating habits that allow for fun and health. Temperance is the virtue to help us balance our physical appetites. It helps us to enjoy physical goods and pleasures, including food, drink and sex, without over-indulging in them and without becoming slaves to our desires. This virtue is commonly known as self-control.

I know, it’s not easy to do. My daughter is only 13 months old and I can already see that guiding her to virtue is going to be a challenge. However, I also know that I have the right and the responsibility to help her grow in virtue. Teaching prudence requires more than giving our kids lessons in healthy decision making. It also means being vigilant for teachable moments to give our children opportunities to practice good decision making. Teaching temperance means using discipline to help our children develop self-discipline. This means telling our children “no” firmly and consistently as we go through the “gantlet” and dealing with the wining and temper tantrums that result.

It’s not easy, but it is our responsibility as parents. What is the consequence if we do not? We damage our children, and we damage our own identity as parents:

Before he ever saw children’s commercial television, says Foster, Morgan ate multigrain cereal for breakfast with fruit juice to drink. “Now, I’ve had to buy Scooby-Doo Cinnamon Marshmallow Cereal with Scooby-shaped pieces,” says Foster, “and when I ask if he wants milk or juice with dinner, he slips in, `I’ll have a soda.’ He was so excited when he found this new world of products. But for me,” she sighs, “I feel like I’ve given in.”

She had to buy Scooby-Doo Cinnamon Marshmallow Cereal with Scooby-shaped pieces? Why did she have to? What forced her? Her son? Who has the power here? Who has the responsibility? Who is the adult? As parents, we need to do a better job of taking responsibility for the well-being of our children. If we don’t, then we will not only be giving in, we will be selling out.

Powered by ScribeFire.

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.

Dr. Ray Guarendi is right! Not that I needed U.S. News World Report to tell me that. However, I find this article very interesting. Dr. Ray claims that parenting experts have ruined parenting by making parents paranoid that they might permanently damage their children, maybe even causing them to appear on Jerry Springer to reveal tot he world why they are so messed up. According to Dr. Ray, parents need only to have love for their children, a good moral compass and a firm, consistent hand in discipline. Author Rachel Hartigan Shea agrees.

But by the 1920s, one mother was so overwhelmed with child-care instruction that she confessed, “I try to do just what you say, but I am a nervous wreck just trying to be calm.” Indeed, the “century introduced a vision of children and of child rearing that entailed a new kind of vigilance,” says Ann Hulbert, author of the new book Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice About Children. It also introduced the idea that a good parent is, by definition, an anxious one.

American parents hadn’t used to rely heavily on experts, but much in the 20th century was so new that old standbys–grandmothers and religion–seemed to have lost relevance. With more than half of Americans living in cities in 1920 (up from a third in 1890), adults led very different lives from their own parents’. And they were enamored of the idea that science could improve child rearing as it had improved everything else. “It is childhood’s teachableness that has enabled man to overcome heredity with history,” declared one turn-of-the-century expert.

Isn’t it interesting that foresaking faith and family led to feelings of guilt and anxiety? Embracing the enlightenment ideals of scientific progress led to paranoia and feelings of inadequacy. The rub is that most of the so-called scientific advice was based on flimsy science. The desire to be scientific outstripped the ability. Today, over 100 years later, not much has changed. There are some scientific gems – I am especially fond of Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development and the theories on bonding – but by and large parenting advice is more political than scientific.

While this article makes some good points, it makes some questionable assumptions.

Women’s status was changing, too. The move away from farms freed women from a lot of household labor–and from having to give birth to enough farmhands to keep the crops going. Women were even heading off to college, but since motherhood was still regarded as the only true feminine vocation, experts worried about how to make it palatable to these educated women. The answer, supplied by pioneers in the new fields of pediatrics and psychology, was to professionalize motherhood. Under the guidance of Holt and Hall, and later John Watson and Arnold Gesell, mothers were to put aside instinct and become scientific examiners of their children’s behavior. (Fathers, it should be noted, were barely mentioned.) Holt required women to learn the latest research on nutritional matters and adhere to strict feeding schedules, while Hall deputized mothers as his research assistants by issuing lengthy questionnaires on everything from “doll passion” to religious experiences. Gesell issued color-coded charts for tracking urination, playtime, feeding, and weight; anthropologist Margaret Mead’s mother (a devout Holtian) filled 13 volumes on little Margaret’s development.

These claims are not completely ficticious. Yes, women’s roles did change with the shift from rural to urban populations. It is also true that psychologists encouraged women to become scientific observers of their children. However, I question the assumption that the professional advice to scientifically study their children was an attempt to professionalize motherhood because motherhood was teh only palatable vocation for women. In fact, Dr. Malcolm W. Watson of Brandeis University teaches that the focus on scientific parenting came from evolving theories of childhood, not from an attempt to perpetuate gender stereotypes. Isn’t it interesting that the same author that points out the myth of parenting experts so uncritically embraces a feminist myth of female persecution?

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.