The Hidden Original Sin

 

The actual mandate of John the Baptist, in Luke 1:

“He will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

This suggests that the key sin necessitating Christ’s coming was a lack of parental love for children. This was the crucial of not indeed the original sin.

This is also why God made the Jews his chosen people: to end child sacrifice among the surrounding nations, most notably the Canaanites. Christianity then in turn ended the legal right of parents to murder their children among the Greeks and Romans.

Since this is the core issue in all morality, isn’t it odd that it is even today overlooked? Isn’t it odd that people commonly only speak of an obligation for children to honour parents?

That this is so shows the sin continues, unabated. We see it obviously, of course, in abortion. We see it in the callous sacrifice of the interests and lives of aboriginal children since the closing of the residential schools. We see it in the growing practice of genital mutilation of children. We see it in the unnecessary bullying of the education system.

We pretend, of course, to care about children above all. The Devil always says the opposite of the truth, to conceal his crimes.

The Real World of White Privilege

 

Most things most people pretend to believe are the opposite of the truth; for most people are in denial, and the Devil rules this world.

One example is “white privilege”: the idea that white people, and Asian people, have it easier from birth because they are given special advantages due to the colour of their skin.

I teach Chinese and Korean students. I have lived in China and Korea. I can attest that the life of an East Asian child is hell. I have had to watch kids beaten in front of me; over the Internet. I have had to try to teach kids unable to keep their eyes open, taking extra tuition on weekends, first thing in the morning,  and late into the night.

Jewish parents are similarly demanding. I have just finished “Maus” and Kafka’s “Metamorphosis” with my students. Either suggests the hell of a Jewish childhood. As does Cohen’s “Favourite Game.” If it isn’t the hypercritical father, it is the Jewish mother smothering you, making constant demands.

To a lesser extent Anglo and other “white” parents are demanding of their children. They allow them relatively little time for idle childhood fun: for listening to their favourite music, for playing with friends, for hanging out. They may go out for sports; but then they must bring home trophies.

By contrast, very little pressure is put on black kids or aboriginal kids. In part because many do not have a father around; but either aboriginal or African childrearing was always culturally relaxed. They get to be kids and do as they like growing up. They get praised and coddled. They are brought up to think they are wonderful, and deserve anything.

There is a similar contrast in how we raise boys and girls. Little girls are always adored, given the benefit of any doubt, and treated like princesses. Little boys get suspected of the worst and criticized. One of my earliest memories is of being driven out of a public playground, that I had innocently entered, and before I could actually do anything, by adults, because there were girls playing there, and “boys play too rough.”

This harsher treatment in childhood, this lack of parental warmth, may or may not lead to success in later life. Some are destroyed by it.

But it is certain that these white, Jewish, Asian, and/or male kids are not brought up with “privilege.” It is the black and aboriginal kids, and the girls, who are accorded privileges they did not earn.

Being used to privilege, they continue to demand it in adulthood, and cry injustice if they do not get it. The white, Asian, and Jewish men just grit their teeth, accept the expected abuse, and get back to the grindstone.

Father Joe

 

McCarrick. 

I once lived with a Catholic priest, who took his title “father” seriously. He considered himself equivalent to the father in a family. And he once wrote a piece for publication arguing that being a father was a kind of martyrdom, that a father dies every day for his children. His editor tried to convince him not to make this claim; it sounded bizarre. And I agreed with the editor.

Now that I have had a good deal of experience as a father, it seems yet more bizarre. It is the opposite of the truth. We parents live through the eyes of our children. They give us a second, perhaps a third, perhaps a fourth, life. Perhaps more: the chain of descent is a primitive form of immortality.

But Father Joe was adamant. He even mocked his editor for not agreeing. He saw it as an obvious insight. He was a martyr for his congregation, and felt good about himself for it. Accordingly, each parent was also a martyr, being killed by their own children.

I realize now that Father Joe was a narcissist. Many members of the clergy are: it is a role that proclaims “I am better than others.” The Bible calls them Pharisees. 

This would explain the supposed tragedy of parenthood. A narcissist would indeed consider the existence of the child (or parishioner) an affront to themselves, in that it requires them to consider the interests of someone other than themselves, and sometimes deny their own desires for another. Indeed, to demand this is, in the mind of the narcissist, an assault, even murder. Consider the “transsexuals” insisting that if you do not use their chosen pronouns, or let them use their preferred washrooms, you are guilty of genocide. This is the way the narcissist sees the world. This makes them dangerous and capable of violence.

This can then justify the narcissist in any kind of abuse of their children. Or, among clergy, any kind of abuse of young parishioners. They had better be useful to the narcissist in some important way, to justify their existence. 

There is a trope in Greek myth of a parent consulting an oracle on the birth of a child; and being told the child will grow up to replace them. As a result, they persecute and try to kill the child.

Of course, this is always simply true. In the normal course of nature, the child will outlive the parent. So what is the point of this oracle?

I think this is a literary convention to make objective the inner thoughts of the narcissistic parent: children are evil. They require attention, and they are likely to survive him or her. This is an affront to the narcissistic ego. 

Freud’s imaginary Oedipus complex probably springs from the same roots. There is much child hatred in the real world. Look at the numbers for abortion, for pedophilia, and for child sex mutilation.

Wise Words

 

“If you’re a child and your parents stop loving you, you don’t stop loving your parents.

You stop loving yourself.”

– Senator John Kennedy

Bad Parenting and Unconditional Love

 

Huckleberry Finn and father.

A model essay in a current school text outlines the two styles of parenting, strict and lenient, with their pros and cons. This seems to be the universal issue, at least since my own childhood and Doctor Benjamin Spock. And the politically correct position is that parents should be lenient. Indeed, spank your child, and you risk losing them to the government.

 This utterly misses the point. I think deliberately; I suspect another of many attempts to avoid all moral questions. Being strict or lenient is a secondary consideration. The obviously more important question is what the rules are, whether they are clear, and whether they are enforced consistently.

I suspect the term “lenient” is being used as a euphemism. It should mean not exacting punishment, or not exacting severe punishment. Instead, I think it now means not having any rules.

The Catholic Church, for example, is a model of lenience. It never exacts any punishment for sin. All that is needed is admission of guilt, and the matter is not mentioned again. Home free. Yet it is commonly condemned as strict.

In other words, “strict” means simply recognizing a difference between right and wrong.

Children need clear direction from their parents. Childhood is their time to learn. They suffer terribly without it. Moral ambiguity is the great danger, and the worst possible form of child abuse. 

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

If a parent is strict, that is no big problem for a child: they simply do not do the prohibited thing. If a parent is lenient, that’s fine too, so long as the rules are clear. Children naturally want to please their parents, often above all else. But if a parent does not tell you what they want, is unpredictable, erratic, unjust, or encourages things against your conscience, there is an insurmountable problem. You cannot avoid trouble. 

I suspect this very form of abuse is the root of most of what we call mental illness. 

Which is of course growing now by leaps and bounds.

Mad Dog!

 

An interesting insight into dog psychology from Wikipedia. I quote: “Attempting to teach Siberian Huskies aggressive behavior can lead to mental problems in the dog.”

It is reasonable to suppose that what causes mental problems in dogs is the same as what causes mental problems in humans. Not teaching aggressive behavior specifically, but, in both cases, teaching things that violate their conscience.

This is the result, most often, of bad parenting, by parents who themselves have no morals. These are the parents Jesus says would be better thrown in the ocean with a millstone around their necks, for causing “little ones” to stumble.

Sadly, it is those children who have the strongest conscience who will be most severely affected by such ill counsel--the best among us.

Modern psychiatry or psychology is unable to help the mentally ill, because they begin with the premise that there is no right and wrong. This makes mental illness “incurable.” Getting back in touch with objective morality is the cure.

Original Sin

 

Lots of us have trouble with the concept of original sin; including the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand." Paragraph 404.

After all, it doesn’t seem fair—that one person should suffer for the sins of another.

Indeed, it is not fair; but it is the essence of the Christian message. Jesus died for our sins.

And it is obviously, objectively true. We all benefit and suffer from the actions of others: our ancestors, our countrymen, most obviously, our parents. Some of us were lucky enough to be born in a rich family, some in a poor one. That has given us a better shot. We had nothing to do with that, and it is not fair. Some of us have had abusive parents, and some of us have had parents who coddled or spoiled us. That is not fair. Some of us were born in Canada, and some of us in Ukraine. We had nothing to do with it.

All of us trace our lineage back to Adam and Eve. Having sinned, and departed from original innocence, they passed this on to their children through imperfections in their upbringing. So we have Cain murdering Abel. Cain or Seth passed the seed of bad upbringing on to their children, who passed it on to theirs, on to Noah, who passed it on to Shem, Japheth, and Ham, who passed in on to the children of Lot, who passed it on to those responsible for founding Canada or the Ukraine, who passed it on to our parents, who passed it on to us. 

It is, necessarily, in all cases, essentially sin. It is only relative degrees of sin. All far short of original perfection, and so all fall short of proper parenting. All children suffer from bad parenting, to greater or to lesser degree. This is why Philip Larkin wrote:

“They fuck you up, your mom and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.”

 

Not to excuse parents—all parenting is not equal. Some parents are also intentionally evil. This is why Jesus says, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

This is a fundamental problem. This is the original problem. Because we are naturally inclined, as children, to see our parents as the measure of all things, as our ground of being, the source of truth and morals, as gods. Accordingly, the errors and the sins they tempt us to are difficult to erase, and probably require divine intervention. It is the first and most dangerous idolatry.

This is why the Bible says, more than once, that “the sins of the father are visited upon the sons, unto the third and fourth generation.” This is why, when one prospective Christian wants first to bury his father, Jesus says “let the dead bury their own dead.” This is why we must be born again. We must fight free of the taint of our upbringing.

The Christian message has often been perverted to be one of “family values.” That is not in the Bible; that is the opposite of the Biblical message

“Honour your father and your mother,” yes. But that means support them in their old age, and ungrudgingly. Idolizing them is the greater danger. It is comparable to idolizing your motherland. We know from Nuremberg where that leads. But idolizing a parent is a greater risk than idolizing your motherland.

It is the original sin.

Modern Parenting Styles

 

An example essay in the text from which I am teaching seems to have no concept of teaching values or ethics. It classifies parents as either “lenient” or “disciplinarian.” But the only point it sees for “discipline” is “safety and protection of the children.” No thought that learning discipline prepares a child to deal with adversity, to be independent, to achieve success through deferred gratification, or to restrain their instincts out of respect for the rights of others.

Perhaps worse, the essence of discipline is presented as not being permitted to play outside or make friends outside the family. These are a perfect way to prevent a child from learning ethics, or discipline, or how to deal with adversity. They are examples of treating a child like a possession. They are narcissistic on the part of the parent.

But the “lenient” style of parenting, as given, won’t teach ethics either. It is described as just letting the child do as they like, including howling in a crowded theatre.

Either of these “parenting styles” is child abuse. Yet they are presented as the only alternatives, and neither is condemned.

More evidence that our civilization has lost its bearings. Its bearings are its ethics.

Cold Distant Victorian Fathers

 

Cold and distant, perhaps, but not a patriarch

Friend Xerxes grudgingly allows that fathers are wrongly devalued in our current culture. Nevertheless, he is concerned about the greater danger of going back to “A cold, distant, Victorian father-knows-best who dispenses periodic packages of moral instruction.”

I wonder if that model of fathering ever existed, or whether it is purely an invention of modern feminism.

My suspicion is initially raised by the “Victorian” reference. Nobody now living is likely to have any experience of a Victorian father. I am in my late sixties; even my grandparents came of age in the Roaring 20’s, in open revolt against anything “Victorian.”

“Victorian” becomes just long enough ago to offer a conveniently blank slate, onto which we can project our prejudices.

But notice the name of that era. One woman, and her social opinions, set the tone then for the English-speaking world, and to a large extent for the world as a whole, for over 60 years. Victorian sentimentality, Victorian romanticism, Victorian aestheticism, could be argued to be distinctly feminine values. Strict rules of etiquette were promoted; again, most often a feminine concern. No room for a “patriarchy” there. The British Empire was literally a matriarchy.

Perhaps there was a patriarchy before 1837? Perhaps; or perhaps male and female roles were balanced for overall equality over the course of the millennia, and the long possession of the throne by a woman upset that balance.

Xerxes’s second example of oppressive patriarchy seems to be a TV show from the 1950s, which he mentions several times iin his original piece: “Father Knows Best.” The title might superficially suggest that, but it was somewhat ironic. The father in that show, played by Robert Young, was, in the words of Wikipedia, a “Caspar Milquetoast” character. Although sensible, even wise, he was generally not listened to by his children; certainly no disciplinarian. The wife and mother, again in the words of Wikipedia, was the “voice of reason.” 

So did this stern, powerful, “cold distant Victorian father-knows-best” ever exist as a social norm? Can you think of an example from literature—that is, in which such a character is cited with approval? I cannot. You might argue for the Biblical patriarchs, but that is not just very far back in time. While they exert great power over their family, it is questionable whether the Bible considers this power a good thing, or condemns it. Every Biblical patriarch, in their treatment of their own family, is portrayed as deeply flawed. 

I wonder too where Xerxes gets the idea that the father’s essential role in the family as spiritual guide and mentor, one which was indeed filled by the father in “Father Knows Best,” implies being “cold” or “distant.”

The obvious model of a spiritual guide and mentor for any Christian is Jesus Christ. Can one describe him in the Gospels as cold or distant? That seems the opposite of the entire point of the incarnation. Would you, for that matter, describe John the Baptist in such terms? St. Paul? St. Peter? Catholic saints in general? Not the descriptors I would use.

What about other religions. Krishna? Rumi? Shams-e Tabrizi? Socrates? The Baal Shem Tov?

What about literary figures? Obi-Wan Kenobi? Yoda? Gandalf? Cold and distant?

Where is that “cold, distant” image coming from—other than, perhaps, feminist anti-male prejudice?

The Parable of the Tenants

 

The Stone that was rejected.

Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders of the people:
"Hear another parable.
There was a landowner who planted a vineyard,
put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower.
Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey.
When vintage time drew near,
he sent his servants to the tenants to obtain his produce.
But the tenants seized the servants and one they beat,
another they killed, and a third they stoned.
Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first ones,
but they treated them in the same way.
Finally, he sent his son to them, thinking,
'They will respect my son.'
But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another,
'This is the heir.
Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.’
They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.
What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?"
They answered him,
"He will put those wretched men to a wretched death
and lease his vineyard to other tenants
who will give him the produce at the proper times."

Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures:  

The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
by the Lord has this been done,
and it is wonderful in our eyes?  

Therefore, I say to you,
the kingdom of God will be taken away from you
and given to a people that will produce its fruit."

The obvious interpretation of the parable is that it is directed towards Jewish authorities who rejected Christ.

But this is not satisfactory; if so, it would hold no meaning for us today. It must also apply to Christians, or there is no reason to include it in the Bible.

Each of us is given our various gifts: intelligence, fortunate birth, physical beauty, athleticism, and so on. Since we are not responsible for this, they are on lease from God. God gave them to us, rather than someone else, for a purpose. If we fail to return the owner’s share of the produce, if we fail to use them to bear fruit, we are like the tenants in the parable.

This surely means something more profound than simply tithing or giving to charity. It means that our overall intent must be the greater good; that whatever our special circumstances or talents are, these are applied to making the world a better place.

A second significance: whoever is being beaten, killed, and stoned, for their own morality—these are the servants of God, and our duty is to support and respect them. These are the cornerstones on which God is building the New Jerusalem. This echoes the Beatitudes: “blessed are you when you are persecuted for my name’s sake.”

No doubt many think and hope they are doing this when they support “Black Lives Matter,” or feminism, or “Idle No More,” or gay or transgender rights. This is delusional. Demonstrably, African Americans are not being persecuted, women are not being persecuted, and aboriginals and gays and transvestites are not being persecuted, in North America. Governments are mobilized to their advantage. More or less by definition, the persecuted will not have governments or popular opinion on their side.

So who are the persecuted? Who is actually being punished because they are acting morally? Think about it.

One way most of us can build a better world, most obviously, is in parenting. In that one situation when we are most responsible for the wellbeing of another.

Hence perhaps the appearance of the landlord’s son.

This need not refer only to Jesus: every child born is a child of God, leased to their biological parents as wards. How we treat our children is the ultimate test: are we passing on what we were given, or trying to keep it all to ourselves?

The issue of abortion springs to mind. The issue of child abuse. The issue, in particular, of parents possibly punishing children for acting morally or for their innocent faith.

How much care have we been taking to educate our children properly, especially in religious and ethical matters? Especially with both parents working, as is now the rule?

The civilization that does not devote its greatest effort to raising the next generation in its religious and ethical traditions is a civilization in decline. That vineyard will soon be given to other tenants.

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness; A Voice Crying in a Crowded Theatre

The film previews are finished, and the movie theater is quiet as everyone waits for the feature film to appear. However, the stillness is suddenly broken by a noise. The audience hears a sniffle. The sniffle soon turns to a cry, then a wail. There is an uncomfortable, or perhaps unhappy, toddler sitting in the movie theater. People start shuffling uncomfortably in their seats as they wait for what will happen next. Will the child be taken out of the theater, or will the parent pretend that everything is ok? Scenarios like these happen regularly. Bystanders wonder what the parent or caretaker will do. The action, of course, often depends on the parenting styles that adults use with their children. The two extremes are the lenient (laissez-faire) parent and the disciplinarian parent. Lenient parents often focus on their child's having fun and enjoying "being a kid.” If a child does something careless like break a glass, lenient parents will not become angry or scream. They know that the child is probably experimenting and meant no harm. Likewise, they may even explain to the child that it was an accident and the child should not be upset or cry. In addition, lenient parents may not be too concerned about time-based activities and schedules. They will allow their children to stay up late and experience new things. The motto "You're only a kid once!" ring true to these free spirits. This type of parent sees themselves as guides for their children, which cannot be said about the second parenting group: the disciplinarians. Disciplinarian parents consider themselves role models for their children. Unlike laissez-faire parents, their main priorities are safety and protection of their children! In essence, children are monitored very carefully and may not be allowed to play outside, interact with animals, or rough-house in general. A child who experiences this upbringing may be encouraged to focus on his studies instead of making friends. In addition, interaction may be limited to only close family members. Children who are raised in highly-disciplined environments are likely to do very well in school.

In the end, no parents are truly 100 percent lenient or 100 percent strict when it comes to raising their child. Most fall somewhere in the middle depending on the child, the environment, and the particular situation. Society knows that both child-rearing styles have advantages and disadvantages, but the more interesting question is this: Which style will these children choose when the time comes for them to become parents?

The passage appears as a model essay in a current composition textbook. It illustrates the problem in our culture. It deals with childrearing with no mention of the issue of teaching morality.

Consider the opening scenario: a child is wailing in the theatre. Apparently, whether the parents silence the child, or let them wail, is here merely a matter of their “parenting style.” No acknowledgement that wailing, or allowing a child to wail, in a crowded theatre is a violation of the rights of others.

Again, the second example, of a child breaking a glass: the essayist represents all such incidents as equal. There is no moral distinction made between genuine carelessness and mere childish clumsiness. The only distinction is “parenting style.” It is okay, then, to blame children for things over which they have no control—the very definition of moral abuse.

In discussing “disciplinarian” parents, there is no acknowledgement that the purpose of discipline is to develop moral behavior. Instead, the only possible aim is “safety and protection.” No doubt that was what Hector and Lysander were striving for.

Given the literal meaning of “discipline,” “The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior” (Oxford), this looks like deliberate suppression of the idea of ethics or morality.

In our textbooks. In our schools. Taught to our children.