The very first line of the CD's very first post struck a
chord.
The really old Italian priest at the Latin Mass
chapel I attend when on the West Coast gave a sermon once about how parents
shouldn't discourage their teenagers from having boyfriends and girlfriends. I
thought it was pretty funny, and it didn't occur to me until about five minutes
ago that maybe he was talking about that whole emotional chastity movement.
When I read that paragraph I immediately
thought of two concrete examples of this sort of idea taken to extremes. A
family that I know quite well did not let their children date at all in their
teen years. They were tacitly encouraged to be attracted to movie stars,
fictional characters, etc. but crushes on other teenagers were implicitly
forbidden. The girls, even into their twenties, were convinced that it was a
mortal sin to like a guy, unless he liked them first.
In another family I know, the 21 year old son is
still not allowed to drive female friends home by himself. There must be
someone else in the car with them as chaperone.
The rationale, such as it is, behind both of these
attitudes seems to me to be well-intentioned, at least on the most basic level.
The parents grew up continually exposed to sex, drugs and rock-n-roll in their
teen years, and so have a very acute awareness of the dangers of such
temptations. They desire to protect their children from these temptations, so
they make rules that perhaps they wish they had kept when they were young. They
draw lines, thinking that as long as their children do not cross those lines
they cannot be drawn into sin.
Unfortunately this approach is not true to human nature.
There are a couple of major flaws in it:
1) First,
it gives the wrong impression. It assumes that boys and girls cannot behave
when they are alone together, and therefore must constantly be under
supervision. Often there is an unstated emphasis on the boy in the situation,
as if the girl needs to be protected from his boyish nature, and he needs to be
protected from himself. This is a terrible assumption. Not only is it unjust,
and it has something of the nature of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is just as
wicked and dishonest as the worldly version of manhood that tells boys that
they need to lay as many girls as possible to be a man, and it has the same
root, and the same effect. The root is the assumption that “That’s just how men
are,” and “Boys will be boys.” The effect is to give men the impression that we
are helpless slaves of our biology, and consequently we should either despair
of ever being pure, or just laugh off our sins as simply “boys being boys.”
2) Second
and more foundationally, we were not put on this earth to avoid sin. We were
put on this earth to know, love and serve God and our neighbor. This means that
we must live. Sinlessness is not a requirement for entrance into Heaven. Love
is. Avoidance of sin is a crabbed, stilted, pitiful imitation of the boundless
energy, the joyous vitality, the fierce, unconcerned freedom of the pursuit of
holiness. Sometimes simply avoiding sin is the best we can do. I admit that. I
would be a hypocrite if I didn’t. However, categorically basing the raising of
teenagers on the principle of merely avoiding sin is dangerous. It gives sin
more power than it ought to have.
3) In
most societies prior to ours, teenagers of 16 or 17 were regarded as adults,
and expected to behave as such. It is our society that keeps pushing the limits
of adolescence further and further and further, by not requiring maturity of
teenagers, then of highschoolers, then of college students, and now we do not
even require maturity of grown men of thirty years old. My entire adult life
has been spent as a leader in the military. Because I could keep my nose clean,
I was put in charge of my peers right from the beginning, and told to keep
their noses clean as well. I have over ten years of experience in leadership,
and the one rule, the only thing I have learned with any certainty, is that
people cannot be pushed into maturity. They can be pushed or coerced into
meeting a standard, as long as that standard is mediocre enough, but no human
being can be forced to mature. They can only be invited, and then allowed the
chance to succeed or fail. In my experience, more often than not young people
rise to the level of trust placed in them, but there are no guarantees.
Sometimes people fail, and a leader must give them that opportunity.
4) As
with anything having to do with people, you cannot fight nature and expect
there to be no consequences. Teenagers are designed to be interested in the
opposite sex. God made them that way. It is not a bad thing. It is a good
thing. It draws people into relationship with each other. Does it also provide
opportunity for temptation? Yes. But to quote Catholic blogger Seraphic
Singles "Eros… is above everything else an impulse to escape the prison of
one's own ego to connect with someone or something else." To
hear a lot of Catholic speakers, writers and leaders on the subject, (and my
younger self was guilty of this at, say, 15 years old) one would think that the
burgeoning of human sexuality in the teen years was a bit of a mistake. A
miscalculation on God’s part, if you will, which puts all of us in a devilish
awkward position, what with having desires that can only be satisfied by
marriage, and yet being too young to marry. Best thing to do is teach the kids
to ignore those desires for relationship, lock them in a closet until your 21st
birthday, and then let them out when they are mentally, emotionally, and
financially ready for marriage.
There are consequences for stifling these budding
romantic attractions. Most of the time it is done by making the kids feel that
there is some sort of stigma attached to those feelings, or even that they are
somehow dirty or bad. Whether the parents intend this or not, that can be the
result.
I think what is needed is to recognize things for
what they are. Here are three facts that I can think of off the top of my head
which ought to be recognized:
1) The
truth is that teenagers are going to have crushes on other teenagers. If they
are not that is probably not healthy. Something is very wrong when young men
and women are not attracted to one another, or have no desire for relationship
with each other.
2) Teenage
crushes are not permanent, nor are they necessarily very profound. This does
not mean that they are not real. It is one thing to remind a teenage girl that
her crush on a boy is not on the same level as the love Grandma and Grandpa
have for each other. All kids need to be reminded of this, and the perspective
is priceless. It is quite something else, however, to laugh at her feelings, or
to make fun of them. Her feelings are real. She is really feeling them. They
are probably immature, and perhaps a bit silly. Perhaps they are a lot silly,
but they are the best she can feel for now. No one makes fun of a toddler for
falling over while learning to walk. Why should we make fun of teenagers for bumbling
clumsily about while learning to love?
3) No
one (except the teenagers themselves) expects teenage romances to be permanent.
The kids are going to get their hearts broken. There is no point in
deliberately courting heartbreak, but neither should parents be overly
concerned with protecting their kids from it. We learn from heartbreak. It
presents us with a choice, whether to grow or to shrink back into ourselves,
and this choice is the meaning of our very lives.
I think all parents fear for their children. They
think about their children falling in love with other children, and they see
all the worst case scenarios: STD’s, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sin, and
disgrace. They try to shield their children from these consequences by
shielding them from the relationships that could be a temptation to them,
without realizing that these relationships are also opportunity. We fear the
possibility of failure, so we have a tendency to pass up opportunity for
victory.
On a larger scale, that is why our culture is the
way it is. We Christians are not going out and living and loving fearlessly. We
are isolating ourselves in communes so that we will not be corrupted, rather
than going out and carrying the gospel into the very teeth of the world.
