www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Young People

To turn now to some more solidly researched sociological data on young people, did anyoen see the article in the Sunday NYT on young people and abortion? It noted the number of pro-life teens and college age persosn with "pro-choice" parents and the remarkable change in views on abortion of young people in a pro-life direction. It referenced the highly regarded UCLA study of social opinions of people in this age group.

Interestingly, UCLA found not a turn towards conservativism per se, but a change in views against abortion, even while young people have more liberal views about homosexuality, contraception, the death penalty, etc.

Axios

Dear Axios,

I didn't see the report. Thanks for making reference to it.

Can you share a link to it?

It sounds interesting.

Steve

I'm certainly not surprised by these findings at all. As a school-teacher of more years than I care to recount, I have very often found that younger folks have a tendency to maintain the "innocence" of childhood in that they are very much idealistic. Thus, while they have a tendency to see a lot of things in black/white terms ("right/wrong"), the greater exposure that today's younger folks have as a result of all-pervasive media (everything from news, to tons of movies in theaters and DVDs, to MTV, etc.) simultaneously leads them of necessity to confront a lot more than the over 40s group ever had to. And when confronted with these 'realities', a judgement must be made. So, the black and white of war, of poverty, of killing other human beings, of destroying the earth, of unscrupulous business deals, usually leads younger folks to condemn that which clearly does harm to others. Thus, abortion, capital punishment, physical abuse, hunger, poverty and homelessness are seen as real and present evils that do harm to other human beings. Other things, that might be characterized as "victimless" sins, like a 'common law' marriage, outside-of-marriage-sexuality, tattoos and body modification, are not seen as quite so bad because there is no apparent 'victim'.

Actually, this is probably a good sign. I would rather meet with a young (or older) Christian who actually THINKS about moral issues and wrestles with them, than someone who does not bother to assess, and just lives according to one or other book of algorithms. When an algorithm fails, the person's faith can be shaken to the foundation; if a person is used to conundrums, when confronted with moral paradoxes, he/she is not thrown for a loop nor becomes disillusioned.

Catechesis! Discussion! Debate! PRAY!!

Blessings!

one thing that really bothers me about young people is thier view that homosexuality is alright. it is absolutely not in any fasion ok. it goes against all of the teachings of the church and the bible and is just plain wrong and immoral. the world has tried to convince the young that it is alright when it is not.

If it takes "the world" to teach people that they shouldn't bash somebody's skull in just because he or she is gay or lesbian, then I'm all for it!

I fail to see how Demetrios' post about the approval of "the world" for homosexuality has anything to do with bashing anyone's skull in. Certainly one who is against homosexuality for the reasons Catholicism and Orthodoxy give should not think that the appropriate response to a homosexual person is to bash his/her skull in, because such an act would also be condemned by those faiths. Does anyone at all who opposes homosexuality on moral/religious grounds, become a homophobe or a hater of homosexual people simply by that fact? If so, that is utterly ridiculous, and I reject that notion outright.

That is certainly true in theory. I wish it was universally true in practice.

I think the point can be made that somehow the Church has not been successfull in convining people to abstain from violence against gay people, whatever theories the Church has held.

Demetrios' evoking the views of "the world", (whatever that is) as the alternative, does not cut it either. The world tolerates all sorts of violence against gay people, though gratefully less than what was once the case. The number of people in the world killed in 2001 for being gay exceeds the number killed for being Catholic.

Demetrios set up this equation, other are only following it.

Axios

"The world" reaches far more people than the Church could ever hope to, and if what it's teaching them is to "let live", then it should be applauded. The Church, which sometimes does spiritual violence even to the gay and lesbian Christians within it--in some cases via families who in the name of Catholic teaching would disown their gay or lesbian children, cannot consistently be seen to have the same effect.

I think there is a failing to differentiate between homosexuality and homosexual acts. The Church disapproves of the latter, but accepts the former.

Homosexual acts are grave sins, no doubt. But something that people often forget is that they are no worse than heterosexual sexual (redundant, I know) acts outside of marriage (and even within, there are certain guidelines).

Logos Teen

This is not true. In the eyes of the Church, homosexual acts ARE worse because they forego even the possibility of conception. Even heterosexuals committing sodomy have the theoretical possibility to conceive a child.

Where do you get your figures?

I did not bash anyone's skull in, I just stated that christianity and homosexuality are not compatible.

I think that we are wandering from the main thrust of the original post. The focal point seems to be how "young people" establish ethics and positions on various problems that confront them. The problem is how do folks establish 'principles' that allow them to judge a situation without having to go to the "Great List of Sins" to see which column is checked (sin or not-sin) based upon someone else's perceptions.

As I noted before, younger folks who are trying to establish their identity will ask all kinds of questions: "why is this wrong" or "why is this NOT wrong". The easy way is to just accept what an authority figure tells them, i.e., their parents, their priest, their teacher, Eminem, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Jerry Springer.

What takes time (and intense effort) is to engage in the give-and-take of discussion and debate, and allow the principles to come to the fore. And allow the younger person to take all kinds of theoretical approaches and find all sorts of solutions to the questions. What both infuriates and terrifies me is when younger folks are told to just shut up and listen, and then parrot back. This is psychological and spiritual murder.

And it leads to all sorts of resentments, resentments that are directed at a later time towards all sorts of innocent victims. Personally, I get (internally) furious when I am attacked by a "former/recovering" Catholic whose resentment of the Church and its adherents is based upon their "shut up and believe" experience or when their so-called education in Christianity was provided by well-intentioned but totally uneducated people.

I love working with younger folks; I LOVE their questioning and challenging and the eternal "why?". And at the same time, by my taking the time and energy to actually listen to these young people, and actually interact and discuss with them, they get the impression that they are actually worthy of attention - and respect. Wow! What a concept!! Respect for teenagers?!?!?!

Thus, I believe that we have to avoid the "this is a sin because God says it's a sin" mentality. Why? Because some of the things that are "identified" as a sin may not dovetail with other things that are identified as being 'not sin'. Eg: abortion is wrong because it takes the life of another human being; capital punishment, because it takes the life of another human being, is also wrong. However, others say: capital punishment takes the life of another person, but it is not a sin because it is the STATE that determines to take the life of another human being. Therefore, if the "state" can exempt itself from the command to not take the life of another, then the state can decide to deny Catholics the right to vote. And it's legit, because the state is exempt from the commandments. (Discuss among yourselves).

By forcing young folks (and others) to tear these issues apart, we are hopefully bringing up a generation of thoughtful Christians who are bible-conversant but not bible-thumpers, who are able to "see" and "understand" the human condition, and who ultimately will realize that Christianity is not a compilation of rules, but rather a fellowship of self-effacing and others-oriented people who would give their lives for others.

Christianity is a true joy for the soul when we realize that the crushing weight of rules, laws, directives, guidelines, has been removed by Christ's command that we just do what others need, because this is how we really love. St. Paul himself remarked: "Oh, the freedom of the children of God". Such a contrast with his former "Torah-bound" perspective on his relationship with God!

So, I say: give the younger folks their place to question, to debate, to pray and to offer service. And I'm glad that they don't restrict themselves to the "Byzanteen" forum; they belong among everybody else. And the rest of us should remember that the younger folks are among us and we must be open and honest with them and with their 'eternal' questioning.

Blessings!

PS: I note Lemko Rusyn's post above: "This is not true. In the eyes of the Church, homosexual acts ARE worse because they forego even the possibility of conception. Even heterosexuals committing sodomy have the theoretical possibility to conceive a child."

Uhm, the last time I checked the definition of sodomy, it involved 'interpersonal behavior' that was not 'standard' intercourse, and was therefore not open to conception. It is precisely for this reason that sodomy is considered its own class of 'sin'.

Lemko,

I am speaking from the RC point of view, in which there are only two kinds of sins: mortal and venial. Both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts are mortal sins. There is no classification as to which is worse beyond this. Thus I considered the two heinous crimes to be equally repulsive.

Logos Teen

Dear TIL,

I wonder about this. Granted that mortal sin is mortal sin is mortal sin, and the effects are the same, are you so sure that there is no further classification? I mean, I would presume that adultery is worse than fornication because the former also sins against marriage. Homosexual acts are probably worse than heterosexual acts outside of the context of marriage because they go against God's design of sexuality. I am not entirely sure of this, but surely it seems logical that, even beyond the mortal/venial distinction, there is a type of hierarchy, even if unofficial, of sins. Sounds odd to say that one sin is better than another (e.g. "Fornication is better than adultery"), but is there a sense in which such is true, even if it doesn't sound right?