Ads


Toward the Diamond Path

Recently I came across two items which superficially would seem to have nothing at all to do with each other. The first was an advertisement: a religious sister was promoting a women’s retreat about “finding oneself” and “coming to a place of ‘centered’ peace.”

Highlighted within the ad was a sort of inverted pyramid using decreasing-sized fonts to illustrate exactly how Sister intended to lead these women back to themselves, and center their peace:


Y-O-U
OTHERS
GOD


The second article discussed an alarming trend of teenagers debasing themselves physically, materially and spiritually on their prom nights, thanks to parents who provide the ways and means for every sort of excess imaginable—from exorbitantly priced gowns to beach houses rented (but largely un-chaperoned) by the parents so that the party can continue through the weekend.

Reading these two very different items, I marveled at how upside down the world has turned in the last forty years, and I wondered if the inverted pyramid from item one may have a great deal to do with the tawdry details outlined in item two.

Flashback, forty-some years: as my friends and I prepare to make our first confessions God is very much on all our minds, as are the notions of sin and shame and forgiveness.

Contrary to modern thinking, we six year-olds are not little dopes incapable of comprehending moral concepts. Knowing that we will soon be kneeling in a confessional and facing up to all of our smallish venial sins (“told a fib, fought wit’ my bruddah, used the good spoons for diggin’ up moss”) we decide that for the whole exercise to be really worth while, we will need an honest-to-God mortal sin on our souls.

We settle on theft, anticipating additional penance for follow-up lies, and proceed to steal a large bottle of grape juice from Mrs. Garfinkle’s fridge.

We’ve stolen juice, and even as we drink it down under a shady tree we are preparing our lies. We know exactly what we’re doing, and how wrong our actions are. In fact, the knowledge that we are both stealing and planning to lie gives the whole endeavor an added patina of glamour and sophistication. We are edgy little mavericks, brazen in our purple-lipped defiance.

Enter Zeyde Garfinkle, grandfather of our non-Catholic consort, Joey. He approaches our tribal base behind the tallest pine trees and pretends not to notice our quick maneuvering as we hide the empty bottle behind us.

“It’s chilly in the shade! What are you children doing, here behind the trees?” he asks.

“Nuthin,” we answer, convinced that we are sly.

“Nothing,” he corrects, stressing the hard g. Peering through his glasses he tsks in concern. “But you children must be cold, your lips are purple!”

Gasp! We criminals exchange wide-eyed looks, noting for the first time the shared, incriminating, violet mustaches. Tongue-tied, we can offer no plausible excuse. It requires a lie we have not planned!

I won’t describe the subsequent projectile vomiting of purple grape juice brought on by pricked consciences, overfull bellies and the workings of fully engaged sympathetic nervous systems. Suffice it to say, between that and Joey Garfinkle’s bawling admission of our collective guilt, we children learned a lesson about the consequences of sin. Our cavalier attitudes about confession disappeared too. If Grandpa Garfinkle’s gentle probings could produce such a messy, stinging rebuke to our consciences, how would we survive Fr. Valentine?

I submit the Caper of the Grape as evidence that forty years ago children were being raised with an unambiguous sense of right and wrong, and a distrust of rationalization and relativity. It was not an unusual thing for the sacred and the secular to intersect in our lives on a daily basis, and that such intersections, rather than burdening children (and adults) with excessive guilt and shame, brought us balance and insight—insight which seems to be lacking in the lives of those pitiable, spiritually impoverished prom-parents, and balance that simply cannot be achieved by an inverted pyramid.

In 40 years our society has traveled from knowing with absolute certainty that even the smallest actions could impact our spirits for good or ill, to believing with equal certainty that everything is subjective and that small stuff ought not be sweated.

But really, there is no such thing as “small stuff.” We learn right judgment in small ways, so we needn’t learn it in larger, more brutal ways.

Reading about parents who facilitated the prom excesses, I wondered if their decisions were born not of recklessness but of plain old helplessness. Parenting to the conventional wisdom, perhaps they had allowed too much “small stuff” to go un-sweated, missed too many opportunities to instill values of personal dignity and human consideration, for fear damaging self-esteem. If that were the case, how would they suddenly know how to teach boundaries?

When parents balance praise with an honest recognition of smaller errors, they help their children understand limits more readily. After all, one mild reprimand was enough to forever erase thievery from my career plans. The trick lies in knowing how to correct the young in ways that are forthright, but also spiritually and mentally healthful.

Grandpa Garfinkle was a master in healthy teaching. When we children next encountered him, he noted our discomfort and did not try to excuse us. The juice had been meant for others, and we had been thoughtless and selfish. But the old man knew how to reinforce a lesson with kindness.

“Now, listen all of you, because your priest is going to tell you this too: there is one very best way to live your life. First, you love and serve God, and you keep the commandments. Then, you look around at everyone else and see where you can love and serve them. Then, if you have any energy left over, you can think about yourself. This,” he said, raising his finger to emphasize the point, “is the way you walk on a road made with diamonds, by forgetting yourself, and what you want. It is the diamond path.”

Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

7.5.2011 | 7:28am
David Nickol says:
Every once in awhile I will see a parent—in a store, on the subway, or in some other public place—give a young child a simple order, and the child will say, "No!" My parents were not particularly strict, but I don't remember ever saying no to either of them, and I don't remember my brother or either of my two sisters doing so either. We didn't have video games when I was young, but as long as I was living at home, if my parents had forbidden me to buy them, I wouldn't have. (This would have largely been a matter of obedience, but also it would have been a matter of how money was handled by my parents.) I am mentally singing "Kids" from Bye Bye Birdie at the moment—"Why can't they be like we were , perfect in every way?"—but I do think there is a great deal of truth to what Elizabeth Scalia is saying.
7.5.2011 | 11:20am
mcasey says:
While there is much truth in what Ms. Scalia observes here (we could sure use more Grandpa Garfinkles!) I wonder if this essay isn't a bit like my Granpa's story about walking barefoot 7 miles to school through snowdrifts, uphill both ways. There has certainly been a drift to more demanding kids and more haggard parents as moms went to work and regulations on advertising to children were lifted, I think parents 40 years ago went through most of the same struggles we do. I was raised then and I remember kids being plenty bratty, snapping rudely at their parents etc. Kids always do that stuff. Parents back then tried their best- some handled it well, some not so well, some just drank and gave up- but I didn't know any kids who learned their moral lesson the first time and didn't push their limits.
That is something quite different from today's parents spending 10,000 bucks on prom night. Parents going nuts for prom is just a sad expression of the materialism of our society, where we measure worth by wealth. These parents are just overgrown children (probably raised 40 years ago, during pre-lapsarian times) who probably enjoy the prom drama ("proma") as much as their spoiled kids.
7.5.2011 | 12:04pm
Heidi Saxton says:
We had a similar "come to Jesus" moment at our house (I was eight, and Protestant, at the time). We weren't allowed to go trick-or-treating, so one of my sisters swiped the candy pumpkin of a neighbor girl who lived to get us in trouble.

True to form, the Pignato kid squealed . . . and the consequence was swift and memorable: the "swipee" had to consume every last candy in that pumpkin under mom's eagle eye, which naturally led to a monster bellyache. "Swipee" then had to do chores to replace candy and return it to its rightful owner's mother, admitting guilt.

While the actual punishment was only visited on one of us, the lesson stayed with us all: Trick or treating really WAS the devil's handiwork. :-) (Oh, yeah, and the "no stealing" thing, too.... )
7.5.2011 | 12:33pm
Randy says:
I HAVE "found myself," and I'm a lazy selfish jerk. That's why I need to escape myself, repent of my sins, and receive all the God-given gifts of grace I can handle.
7.5.2011 | 12:49pm
Tom N says:
Thank you for the helpful and insightful article. As a parent of three (one of whom - age 5 - is particularly strong willed and brazenly breaks out "no" or "go away" every once and a while), I appreciate the wisdom. Your well-placed guidance is a welcomed contrast to the hateful rant that CNN's LZ Granderson published this morning entitled "Permissive parents: Curb your brats."

If you don't mind, I'd love to point Granderson's readers to your piece.

Tom N
7.5.2011 | 1:20pm
Honestly, I didn't think Granderson's piece was hateful. I thought he made some sound points. I have friends who are schoolteachers and she validates it: the parents are out of control, themselves and have no idea how to discipline wisely, or at all. Like Granderson, I was raised with a mother capable of "the look." Perhaps we should make all pregnant women learn it! :-)
7.5.2011 | 2:29pm
TomN, yes, I just love it when media elites---having told us for years that woman's fulfillment lay in working outside the home-- now want somebody to do something about all those bratty kids!

(And some of the comments on that article are disturbing; for instance, the ones claiming that autism is "made up", and just an excuse for parents to let their kids act badly.)
7.5.2011 | 2:48pm
Tom N says:
He did make sound points. And I agree that "the parents are out of control, themselves and have no idea how to discipline wisely, or at all." But I vastly prefer your piece because whereas his is cold and condescending (an ugly version of hate) in its message, yours is hopeful and uplifting in its guidance.

Here are some examples of what seem hateful to me in Granderson's article:

"I do not love your child." No kidding, but thanks for the clarification.

"The rest of the country does not love your child either." That's overly broad. But even so, shouldn't my wife and I be the target of your bad feelings. After all, we're the ones to blame.

"...we want to kill you for letting your brat ruin our dinner." I hope LZ isn't a big proponent of the death penalty.

"Or the other adult-oriented establishments you've unilaterally decided will serve as an extension of your toddler's playpen because you lack the fortitude to properly discipline them, in public and at home." Venomous and presumptuous.

"And whenever a kid throws a temper tantrum in the middle of the shopping mall it's just as bad as his soiling his pants to spite his parents, and it stinks just as much." Clever, but mean spirited.

"You wanted them, deal with them." That's the perfect way to end a cold, selfish, hateful article.

On the other hand, here's a fine way to conclude a wise and well-meaning one on a similar topic: "'This,' he said, raising his finger to emphasize the point, 'is the way you walk on a road made with diamonds, by forgetting yourself, and what you want. It is the diamond path.'"
7.5.2011 | 3:02pm
S.L. Hersey says:
Blessings upon Scalia, and equal blessings upon Mr. Granderson! I don't doubt that the latter has inspired a lot of wailing and resentment, but Granderson isn't the enemy of the children he describes--their parents are. Not surprising that they don't like seeing that pointed out.
7.5.2011 | 3:57pm
Margaret says:
There is much truth in what both Elizabeth Scalia and LZ Granderson write. Some children are neglected through not being taught how to behave. Discipline is very hard work. I think most children and teens today are ethically more mature than the children and teens of a generation ago, but there are nevertheless a minority of children who are, for whatever reason, out of control. Neither Scalia nor Granderson overtly suggests a "tough love approach," for which I am grateful. Harsh discipline and criticism makes kids angry and vengeful. My mothers' brothers were brought up on a diet of rigid Irish Catholicism, taught that they were intrinsically bad, and frequently beaten. They were perfect little gentlemen whenever a punitive adult was present; when they were not being supervised, however, they were monsters. The stories my mother tells of them, especially one involving cornering and torturing another boy in the neighborhood, are horrifying. My own children are bewildered by these stories. They cannot understand why anyone would want to hurt another person because this treatment has been foreign to their experience. Sadly, my uncle grew up with criticism, put-downs, and hostility. I love Dorothy Nolte's poem, Children Learn What They Live (If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn, etc.) We adults need to be constantly but gently teaching our children and setting the right example for them.
7.5.2011 | 4:18pm
Tom N says:
S.L. - I don't understand equating Scalia's sentiments to Granderson's. Their respective conclusions are telling. Granderson ends his piece: "You wanted them, deal with them." Scalia concludes: “'This,' he said, raising his finger to emphasize the point, 'is the way you walk on a road made with diamonds, by forgetting yourself, and what you want. It is the diamond path.'” Scalia's message promotes Christ-like selflessness. Granderson's message is the opposite. "[W]e want to kill you for letting your brat ruin our dinner." Come on!? I'm thankful for Scalia's call to good parenting. Granderson's version is tainted with cold condescension.
7.5.2011 | 5:37pm
Many years ago, when I was in graduate school, I spent a week or so in the New York Public Library, running the microfilm reels of all the New York newspapers in the 1940's. There were an amazing number of them. But, when you look at them, one of the things which starts to crop up are two new words to describe a horrible new problem troubling all right thinking people: Juvenile Delinquency.

The rosy world of moral assurance of the 1960's which you describe, was a world of moral absolutes, of cowboys in white and black hats, which existed largely in the minds of those people who had living and mature experience of World War II and Korea. They were better off financially than any Americans before them and were living through an era dominated by dictators of unspeakable human evil and by overwhelming fear leading to a sense of common purpose.

"Grub first, then ethics." [Berholt Brecht] They had the grub, and they had the genuine insulation from moral ambiguity that comes from having the grub, as well as from the collective sense of having evil enemies of great power in the world beyond. It was one of the few periods in our history where a majority were not in thrall to home grown poverty, crime, violence, and corruption.

But is was artificial insulation and not the essential human condition. That condition simply is one of moral ambiguity. Why? You will find moral certainty among those with religious principles, but you will also find that not everybody's religious principles are compatible with one another. There is as little moral relativism in Saudi Arabia as in the Holy See, but little tolerance or respect between the religions involved.

Outside the world of specific and absolute religious beliefs, those with eyes have noticed something: there is no place left for any of us to go where we do not have to deal with everybody else. Our planet is truly a lifeboat, a well-stocked lifeboat but not an endlessly stocked lifeboat, and too much agitation of the boat is likely to drown us all.

Like it or not, tolerance of others is just about the only way now to keep the boat afloat. And tolerance of others means tolerance of many things you may think morally wrong. Your inverted pyramid is actually a square balanced on it's point:

me
OTHERS
God

Unfortunately, "believing with equal certainty that everything is subjective" does not describe the real condition of our lives. If it were that simple, one could, as you suggest, merely exchange the wrong certainty for the right one. But, as stated, it is both logically and actually contradictory. The real condition is "having no certainty because there are so many different certainties to choose from". And, in these days, being too certain, too aggressively, is the surest way to making our world intolerable for everyone, even ourselves.
7.5.2011 | 5:38pm
S.L. Hersey says:
Tom N.: I understand there are a number of surface differences, and a few REAL differences to boot. However, the sort of parents Granderson is describing appear to be following the opposite of Scalia's vision. "Cold condescension" is less destructive than selfish neglect and abdication of parental duties--in fact, to the extent Granderson thinks the problems worth "dealing with," he's effectively MORE loving to the children in his scenarios, whatever his motives. In other words, the sort of selflessness that Scalia enjoins is a cure to the parental malfeasance that Granderson anatomizes.
7.5.2011 | 6:00pm
Elvis says:
Granderson's lack of love, compassion or understanding is what disturbed me. His lack of generativity left me concluding that his article is devoid of light. Who says "I don't love your child ...". I have not met a child I did not have some love for. Indeed, I think it a grave sin to hold such a perspective.

As the parent of a gifted child with impulse control issues, I've run into numerous times when my child is screaming "No!" and even times when he's started wacking me or when I've had to restrain him. I'm sure those with health children look at me and think I'm a narcissitic marshmallow parent.

When things are going well, people complement me on how manture my son is, are amazed at how adult his manners are and and especially what an exceptional vocabulary he has.

Alas, when his blood sugar is low, he is dehydrated or just plain tired, the kid I call rage-boy emerges. I then get the "you should discipline him more" condescension from those who have no experience with exceptional children.

Yes, we live in an age of bad parenting, but folks must remember that some kids behave badly for other reasons. Do not be quick to judge.
7.5.2011 | 8:30pm
bee says:
Beautiful article, thank you.
@Elvis: I, too, have raised an exceptional child with such gifts and challenges. As we prayed and established routines, disciplined and above all loved this child, we also experienced the condescension of which you speak. It is painful, and yet those incidents provided many opportunities to remind our son how much we loved him, no strings attached. Correct the behavior and shower them with love.

Let us all be slower to judgment, swifter to pray for one another, especially the ones who are visibly struggling, and enduring in patience with young parents and their children. Ours might be the one encouraging word a frustrated young mother or father will encounter in the course of the day. Let our words and actions be those of Jesus.

Lord have mercy on us all.
7.5.2011 | 8:54pm
I just wanted to say I loved your story. It brought back memories of my childhood and some of my transgressions.
7.6.2011 | 1:50am
Alan Yan says:
I may have no many words as other posters do in your blog. All I know is that I love your story.
7.6.2011 | 9:05am
Margaret says:
Bee writes, "Let us all be slower to judgment, swifter to pray for one another, especially the ones who are visibly struggling, and enduring in patience with young parents and their children. Ours might be the one encouraging word a frustrated young mother or father will encounter in the course of the day. Let our words and actions be those of Jesus."

Thank you, Bee. What beautiful words! My husband and I have on occasions been challenged by our Asperger's child -- nearly always in very public places like airports and supermarkets, where our child became overwhelmed by the level of stimulation. We had to work so hard with this little one and to endure so much disapproval from others (and we sympathized with those others, believe me!). Our "difficult child" has grown up to be the sweetest, easiest teen imaginable, I'm happy to say. I never expected others to be particularly tolerant of our child. I understood their perspective and tried so hard to avoid letting out child bother other people. However, I deeply sympathize with any parent who is working with a special needs child. I don't think one can appreciate the hard work and exhaustion until one has experienced the situation first-hand.
7.6.2011 | 11:58am
tmr-brat says:
Thanks for Elizabeth Scalia's thoughtful article. Two problems facing today's children, and their parents, is that we have outsourced child-rearing to day care centres and schools, which treat children with a cool, professional distance, rather than a loving discipline that reflects true affection and commitment; and that the influence of grandparents, uncles and aunts has been lessened by the realities of age and geographical separation.
8.5.2011 | 5:41pm
Mauser Judy says:
"Or the other adult-oriented establishments you've unilaterally decided will serve as an extension of your toddler's playpen because you lack the fortitude to properly discipline them, in public and at home." Venomous and presumptuous. Granderson's lack of love, compassion or understanding is what disturbed me. His lack of generativity left me concluding that his article is devoid of light. Who says "I don't love your child ...". I have not met a child I did not have some love for. Indeed, I think it a grave sin to hold such a perspective.
8.13.2011 | 9:38am
Bee writes, "Let us all be slower to judgment, swifter to pray for one another, especially the ones who are visibly struggling, and enduring in patience with young parents and their children. Ours might be the one encouraging word a frustrated young mother or father will encounter in the course of the day. Let our words and actions be those of Jesus." @Elvis: I, too, have raised an exceptional child with such gifts and challenges. As we prayed and established routines, disciplined and above all loved this child, we also experienced the condescension of which you speak. It is painful, and yet those incidents provided many opportunities to remind our son how much we loved him, no strings attached. Correct the behavior and shower them with love.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact