The Joy of the Truth » Culture

The Entrepreneurial Spirit and Catholic Social Teaching

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:18:28 +0000

I am always fascinated when God introduces an idea to me from many directions all at once. It started with receiving a book from my brother-in-law that got me thinking about running From the Abbey as a serious business. From there, I have been led through a string of resources from a variety of places that have all brought me to the same theme. Here’s the list:

Making Work at Home Work by Mary M. Byers (from my brother-in-law)
A podcast from The Chesterton Society on an economic theory called Distributivism (see more below)
Various “training” / motivational CDs from Amway International’s training program
Conquer the Chaos: Hot to Grow a Successful Small Business Without Going Crazy by Clate Mask and Scott Matineau

So, we have an Evangelical Christian source (1), a Catholic source (2), a secular source from a specific (“affiliate”) business model (3), and a secular source from a general business writer (4). Strangely, all four of these sources shared the same core messages:

The old corporate model of capitalism is broken
People are seeking freedom by going into business for themselves
Going into business for yourself is better because it puts the decision making power in the hands of a few people
Going into business for yourself means that your skills and creativity can truly be appreciated, and can truly be applied to serving others
If they are able to do it right (of course, how to do it right is where each source differs), private entrepreneurs can find financial security (the two secular sources stress getting rich)
Getting rich is not the answer to happiness for the private entrepreneur (yes, even the secular resources said this!)
True freedom comes from having a transcendent purpose in your work and having more time to invest in relationships and family (yes, even the secular sources said this!)

So, all of these sources extolled the virtues of private entrepreneurship because it has the potential to give people control over their own lives, to truly serve others, to discover the dignity of their work and to get their priorities straight!

The second source, the podcast from the Chesterton Society, introduced me to an economic / social theory called Distributivism. This theory specifically promotes the idea of family-run businesses, seeming to capture the free market idea of capitalism while at the same time embracing the agrarian family-based economy promoted by Thomas Jefferson. I have not researched this theory extensively, so I cannot evaluate it personally. However, its proponents include G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc. On the other hand, its critics include the ACTON Institute, a trusted source for balanced views on the economy. I included links to both below for your further research and mine.

Whether you embrace Distributivism or not, Catholics can agree that private entrepreneurship is one way to promote the principle of subsidiarity. The freedom and control that private entrepreneurship gives to families and individuals is a very good thing. Going into business for yourself is not the solution for everybody. As all four of these sources also recognized, there are many challenges and dangers in doing so (becoming enslaved to your own desire for success, for example). However, it is one solution that is not often encouraged in our culture or in our educational system. Perhaps it should be.

I am finding that working at home, while not yet a financial solution for our family, offers me the ability to remain creative and actively engaged with the world while I stay home with my children. Finding the necessary balance between work and home is very difficult when they happen in the same place (I just told my 4-year-old to leave me alone so I could finish writing this article). However, there are also many joys – including allowing my children to participate in my work and being able to take breaks to read to them and play with them. I am growing in confidence that this will become more than a hobby business, that I can make it financially successful by finding the right tools and creating the right systems. I am greatly enjoying the creative challenge involved in building this business. Of course, since From the Abbey exists primarily as an apostolate, as the business grows so does my ability to serve Christ and His Church (including you!).

If you are looking for a solution to the slavery of the job, check out the resources that I found (and others – I am still hunting for more!) and see if a home-based business is right for you. It is a challenge and a risk, but it could just be the path to the freedom you are looking for. Subsidiarity works!

Modernism Gets It Wrong – Again

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:18:11 +0000

A new law requiring insurers to cover the costs of chochlear implants for children has drawn opposition. What is the complaint? Is is that . . .

Government has overstepped its bounds, once again meddling in affairs that should be left to market forces?

the law puts undue burden on small business who now have to pay a higher premium to insure their employees?

the law does not do enough to help children born deaf or severely hard of hearing?

Nope, not that either

So what is the complaint? It comes from Audism Free America:

The notion that being deaf is an affliction and an abomination which alienates one from society and leaves (one) dependent and isolated is a myth,” the petition states. “We do not wish for your state to be mislabeled as promoting eugenics and linguistic and cultural genocide.

Taken from “Ear-implant law draws dissent“, Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

What this petition seems to be saying is that deafness is not a disability but just another part of cultural diversity. Therefore, to mandate a procedure that could enable children who are deaf or severely hard of hearing to hear more is like trying to bleach African-American skin white so that African Americans can fit into a white culture better.

Such a ridiculous statement has its roots in modernism, the philosophy that truth is created by personal experience and perception. Modernism celebrates diversity, not because every human person has innate dignity, but because every individual has his own truth. In the case of the petition from Audism Free America, modernism is saying, “Who are you to call deafness a disability. From our perspective, deafness is normal and hearing is an abomination.” Yes, I have heard some proponents of “deaf culture” take the argument that far.

The problem with Audism free America’s position is that deafness is a disorder. Human nature includes the five senses as a normative and universal constituent. In other words, the senses make up part of what it means to be human, and a diminishment of the senses is a diminishment of something that a human person should have (however not a diminishment of their humanity or dignity). Therefore, deafness is a disability based on the standard of human health. Modernism does not believe in disability because it does not believe in a universal standard of human life or of human health.

The problem comes in how we look at disabilities. We tend to look at people with obvious and severe disabilities and say they are disabled and we are not. I have been around severely disabled people all of my life, and I have learned that there is no “they” and “us.” Fallen human nature is fallen for all of us. Disability is not a matter of having one or not having one, but a matter of degree and of kind. People who are disabled in one area of life are also extremely able in other areas of life. The term “disabled” becomes a problem only when we let it define a specific segment of the human family.

One can see the same line of thought in the homosexuality movement. The Church calls same-sex attraction “disordered” because it is opposed to the universal human purpose of sexuality. Modernists see this as an insult that alienates a specific segment of the population. However, the Church realizes that every person’s sexuality is disordered to one degree or another, so calling same-sex attraction disordered is actually a statement of solidarity, not one of divisiveness. Again, modernists rankle because they do not believe that a standard for “normal” sexuality even exists.

I had friends in high school and college who were deaf and hard of hearing, and I learned sign language in the course of our friendship. One of these friends had been brought up in the “deaf world” and had a difficult time relating to the “hearing.” The others tried very hard to interact with everybody, and counted a number of the “hearing” among their friends, even those who did not learn sign language. It was not the deafness that isolated them. In the case of my one friend, it was his desire to see his deafness as something that set him apart and his consequent unwillingness to form relationships with those who would not share his unique “culture.” He had implicitly bought the lie of modernism.

In the end, the petition from Audism Free America isolates deaf people from the rest of us by accentuating the differences rather than acknowledging the fact and universal nature of disability. And their modernist bent would keep children from getting help to overcome their disability. That is just not acceptable.

Counting the Cost: Lines Drawn in the Sand

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:34:58 +0000

When Barak Obama was elected president of the United States, thanks in large part to liberal Catholics, I stated that I hoped God would turn the evil of empowering a pro-death party into good for the Catholic Church by purifying our intellect and forcing us to stand up for the Truth more strongly. President Obama’s recent commencement address at Notre Dame University provided a clear sign that God is indeed at work.

How many times have pro-death speakers been invited to speak at Catholic universities in recent years? How much protest did you hear? Last May, Catholic Answers and other groups published long lists of Catholic universities that opened the door for commencement speakers who did not represent Catholic teachings. Protest was fairly limited to these groups and one or two bishops. Suddenly Notre Dame’s invitation to the president draws lay people and bishops out of the woodwork to protest and to stand up for the truth about the sanctity of life.

Archbishop Chaput out of the Archdiocese of Denver offered a statement that beautifully articulates exactly why Catholics are rising up. Is the sleeping giant (the Church, not the bishop) awakening in America? What wonders will God work when His saints finally arise?

Sexting, Parental Standards and the Law

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:00:22 +0000

A lot of buzz has been going around about the attempts made by Vermont and Ohio state legislatures to remove “sexting” (sending out naked pictures of others by cell phone) from the list of felonies that could label someone a sexual predator.

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:

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.

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.

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!

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.

Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:08:15 +0000

There are inherent dangers in criticizing certain causes such as the prolife movement when one is a Catholic educator. People will often assume that such criticism reveals leanings toward the culture of death. In the case of my last blog article, Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement. I honestly didn’t get much reaction at all, but some of the reactions I did receive on the John 654 Catholic Social Network seemed at first a bit defensive. Margie provided a wonderfully thoughtful response. She also provided a link to the actual document in question.

I am willing to admit that I may be ignorant of the total ramifications of this issue. Margie made the point that some prolife groups are filing lawsuits over this document, which shows that the “accusations” are not routine and are serious. I hope that she is right, and that these lawsuits do not prove to be frivolous.

However, after reading the entire document I continue to be convinced that prolife reactions were more alarmist and propaganda than legitimate self-defense. The document was a “lexicon” – a glossary to help law enforcement agents understand the lingo used in documents from the Department of Homeland Security. One of the definitions in this glossary was

antiabortion extremism – (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities.

Margie reflected reactions that I have heard from prolife groups – that this definition amounts to an accusation that prolife groups are violent. What I see is a very narrow definition of people who are willing to commit violence in the name of anti-abortion activism. This definition does not even pertain to prolife groups, but only to the few violent whackos who have placed bombs at abortion centers or shot at abortion providers.

Secondly, I have heard prolife leaders ask why prolife extremists were singled out. While it is true that pro-abortion extremists were not mentioned in the lexicon, other “liberal” causes were. The lexicon included terms such as leftwing extremist and environmental extremist. All of these “extremism” terms are used in the same way as the term “Muslim extremism,” specifying a subgroup of a population who are willing to use violence in the name of their cause.

Whether or not I am correct in my read of this situation, my warnings remain true. Alarmism and propaganda have no place in the prolife movement. These are the tools of the enemy because the enemy does not have the weapon of Truth. Truth is stronger in the end than emotional deception. We weaken our own cause when we react with only emotion rather than with reasoned passion.

Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:11:54 +0000

Many pro-life groups have been abuzz about the memo issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI that seemed to indicate that pro-lifers were considered potential terrorists by the government. I first heard this complaint from Janet Parcell’s America. Mrs. Parcell tends to be a little alarmist, even though she does a great job of making Christians aware of issues happening in Washington long before those issues become common knowledge through other media outlets. I am disappointed to hear the same alarmism coming from Life Issues, an organization I truly admire.

Tagging Pro-Lifers as Rightwing Terrorists

There’s been much talk about the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warning America about potential rightwing terrorists. One of the sources of these terrorists they predict will be veterans returning from war. I always thought of them as heroes. A second group they pointed their finger at was those who are “dedicated to [an] opposition to abortion.” Another of their concerns was people who believe government has taken control away from state or local authorities—exactly what Roe versus Wade did. I never thought working to protect innocent unborn babies was remotely an act of terrorism. But I guess we’re in good company with the veterans. Kidding aside, this new document could be used as a platform for a pro-abortion president to try to silence his opposition.

From Life Issues Radio Transcript 05/04/09

I think we need to exercise a little bit of prudential caution here. I have noticed that pro-life reports are becoming ever more alarmist and hypersensitive since President Obama took office. We do ourselves no favors by playing this game. This “document” was actually an alert memo – something that is by its very nature temporary. It was intended to give law enforcement a profile of potential for violence so that they could catch early signs. It was not intended as a permanent profile of criminal populations.

The memo’s mention of veterans was not an indication that all veterans are violent threats. Rather, it was an indication that veterans are more likely to be disgruntled or even angry at the current administration (especially given their strong support for Bush & McCain), and that anger could potentially lead to violence because any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

Likewise, can any pro-lifer claim that our stress levels have not risen since President Obama took office? Isn’t it possible that some of the less emotionally stable members of the vast pro-life movement could express their increased frustration in violent ways? The memo was not stating that all or even most who are opposed to abortion are likely to be violent, but simply that the current political situation has increased the ire of pro-lifers, and any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

My guess is that under the Bush administration, similar memos were issued about homosexual activists and ardent abortion supporters. Just because we didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean the memo wasn’t there. These memos are routine.

A more legitimate target for concern is the press that chose to make this memo public while ignoring similar memos that could have been interpreted to call homosexual activists terrorists.

Pro-life groups really need to exercise more prudence. It does us no good to use propaganda and “political speak” that have no truth behind them. When we do this, we turn the fight against abortion into just another political wrangle. We have the Truth behind us. We should use it.

Giving In To Senioritis – Extending Childhood Yet Again

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:08:16 +0000

May is the month for students to look forward to graduation and the approach of the end of the year. The classroom tends to take on an air of spring lightheartedness mixed with impatience for summer vacation. As a student I actually enjoyed this time of year – when homework could be done outside and the monotony of book work cold be broken by games of frisbee or volleyball, or even just a walk in the park or a bike ride.

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.

Teen Culture – a World of Their Own

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:57:19 +0000

In my teaching and writing for the diocese, I very often warn parents against the isolated “teen culture.” The modern school system encourages adolescents to learn socialization from each other. I often declare, “I don’t know who thought that letting ignorant, unformed adolescents socialize each other was a good idea.” Yet, critics of homeschooling most often state “lack of socialization” as their reason for opposing homeschooling. Children who do not go to school will not be socialized, they fear. The fact is that socialization can only truly happen when adolescents learn what it means to become adults and to live in adult community from adults. That is not happening.

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.

Explicit lyrics linked to sex among teens: scientists

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:00:44 +0000

After many indications by studies, but few verifications, a new study finally verifies that explicit lyrics in songs are linked to sex among teens.. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been watching the trends over the past 30 years or so. However, it is good to once again have science catch up to the Church and verify what we have always held to be true.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things (Phil 4:8).

Scripture is filled with warnings about guarding your senses in order to guard your mind and heart against evil. While Christians are often criticized for being “isolationist” and “protectionist,” I know in my own life that the areas that I failed to protect myself have become my largest areas of struggle for holiness as an adult.

It is true that a true attitude of isolationism and protectionism does exist within some Christian circles, and that this is not a healthy and true understanding of Scripture. Creation and culture are good things that are sometimes influenced by evil. To create a separate “Christian culture” that parallels but does not intersect human culture is not what Christ wants for us. Yes, he tells us not to be transformed by the culture, but to let our minds be transformed by the Holy Spirit, but he calls us to then go into the world and transform it.

Furthermore, natural law tells us that human culture is a necessary part of human life. To isolate ourselves from culture not only robs us of the chance to bring the Gospel into the world, it robs us of true human life.

We need to find the balance that allows us to find what is True, Good and Beautiful within human life while we interact with culture, but also to avoid what is false, evil and depraved. We need to make the good things in culture even better by revealing the supernatural as well as the natural source of their goodness. We also need to try to heal areas of our culture that have been given over to evil and depravity.

On the other hand, we cannot give ourselves to the culture to be transformed by it (as has sadly happened to many in the Catholic Church and in many Protestant communities as well). Listening to music or watching movies that glorify in using people as objects of gratification, or enacting violence against others, or in other evil acts only draws us into the lure of sin. Christians begin to wonder if they are really missing out on something (“You certainly will not die. No, God knows that when you eat of this fruit you will be like gods who know good and evil.”).

It is always interesting to me when secularists claim that certain ideas that are found in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition are just “religious opinions,” only to have science “discover” the same ideas eventually. Science plays catch-up with revealed Truth all the time. To me, that’s one of the greatest proofs of the truth of our faith.

We really should not be surprised that immersing ourselves in the message that evil is good would eventually turn our minds and hearts toward evil.

[adrotate group="1,2"]

The Joy of the Truth » Culture

The Entrepreneurial Spirit and Catholic Social Teaching

Related Links:

Modernism Gets It Wrong – Again

Related Links:

Counting the Cost: Lines Drawn in the Sand

Related Links:

Sexting, Parental Standards and the Law

Related Links:

Alarmism & Propaganda in the Prolife Movement Revisited

Related Links:

Alarmism and Propaganda Have No Place in the Pro-Life Movement

Related Links:

Giving In To Senioritis – Extending Childhood Yet Again

Related Links:

Teen Culture – a World of Their Own

Related Links:

Explicit lyrics linked to sex among teens: scientists

Related Links: