“In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Eloquent though he may be, Benjamin Franklin would have done well to add “heresy” to his infamous pair of unavoidable realities.
Philosophical preconceptions once condemned by the Church have an odd way of rearing their ugly heads. Take Manichaeanism for example. Battled by the great St. Augustine of Hippo, the Manichaean school taught the profound separation of soul and body, a dualism that has been condemned by the Church more than once throughout the centuries. With two equally powerful deities, one good and the other evil, the human person of this heresy becomes the battleground for their contest of power, with the body being the domain of evil and the soul being the domain of the good. The Christian faith, of course, has taught the contrary, the inseparable union of body and soul, both good because of their creation by the one God who is pure goodness.
I am a high school teacher of mathematics and computer science, and Manichaeanism is only one of the many heresies I see deeply imbedded in modernity, particularly amongst adolescents. In the seven years I have been teaching, the cases of academic dishonesty have noticeably gone up. What is perhaps more noticeable, however, is the change in students’ reactions when the dishonesty is exposed. There was a time when the remorse was authentic, but now, when present at all, it seems more like mere regret over being caught.
I found myself recently in a conversation about how students view the act of cheating. A colleague of mine remarked, “I honestly do not think that the students see it as wrong.” On the contrary, the students’ actions do not reflect any moral confusion. After all, students will go to great lengths to see to it that they are not caught, and when they are, they will craft the most elaborate of stories to exonerate themselves. I once had a students who plagiarized a computer program off of a university professor’s web site. When confronted about it, he claimed, with a great deal of confidence and conviction, that he would like to meet the professor who stole his code to post on the university web site. While the creativity is remarkable, the same cannot be said for character.
What, then, is at the root of the issue? While teachers generally recognize this as a growing and problematic trend in the education environment, they are often at a loss to explain the trend, and therefore end up remarking, “I honestly do not think that the students see it as wrong.” The truth is that students do understand the difference between right and wrong, and they do understand that cheating is a morally impermissible action. The problem is not in their ethics; the problem is in their anthropology. Students are Manichaeans.
The heart of the matter is that adolescence often do not understand the profound connection between body and soul that the Christian faith has always taught. Quite the opposite, students have a tremendous ability to keep a rift between body and soul. Said differently, these adolescents do not see a connection between their actions and their personal character. While they know and understand that certain actions are morally unacceptable, they do not see these actions as reflective of their person. They sincerely believe that they are good people and that this goodness cannot be tarnished by any action.
What adolescents fail to understand is that the human person is not only the source of his actions, but is also a product of his actions. What we do is reflective of who we are, and who we are will influence what we do. Philosophically, we would say that the human person is constituted by his actions. There is no rift between the actions of our body and mind and the state of our soul. Body and soul are mutually interpenetrating. This is the essence of the Catholic teaching on mortal sins. Because there is an indestructible link between the body and the soul, there are certain actions that can affect the very state of the soul, remove it from the state of God’s grace.
We are how we act. A thief is nothing more than one who steals, and a lair is nothing more than one who lies. Similarly, a cheater is a person who cheats, and it is impossible to cheat without at the same time becoming a cheater. The student, however, does not see himself as a “cheater”; instead, he sees himself as a “good person” who happened to cheat, but the action of cheating is not reflective of his character. How is it that they are able to maintain this disconnect? It is simple: they are Manichaean. How is it that they are Manichaean? That is also simple: modernity is Manichaean, and this is perhaps the greatest heresy of our time. It is a heresy that is not only at the heart of academic dishonesty in the schools, but also constitutive of the greed and avarice in the market place, the sexual permissiveness in the media, and the utter disregard for the sanctity of life in the abortion industry.
Being a heresy, however, I have a feeling that it, like death and taxes, is inevitable. This does not mean we give up an authentic education in the virtues. It does not mean that we neglect to expose the lies for what they are. But it does mean that, while the battle has already been won on the Cross, the enemy of heresy is as certain in this world as death and taxes. Perhaps, though, heresy has more in common with death and taxes than its inevitability. “In this world” certain the trio may be; yet in the next it is certain that all three will be abolished.
Your stories about students are quiet telling. This divide, especially in modern thought is aided by Kant. In his "Critique of Pure Reason" he denies that we ever can have any real knowledge of God, the world, or the self/soul. They all remain essentially unknowable, shrouded in mysterious realm of the noumena (things-in-themselves). At best we, using our will (what Kant calls practical reason) affirm that God, the world, and the self/soul exists, since life would not make much sense otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe problem Kant has created emerges more clearly in his ethics where his whole ethics focuses, even obsesses, on the notion of duty. Kant's duty is a "pure" duty that necessarily excludes any motivations/intentions/ends/telos. These would taint their ethically good action which is judged merely on if the person is acting for the purpose of fulfilling duty pure and simple. There is an inherent tension in Kant's ethics that assumes there will always be a tension between a person's desires and acting ethically. This results in a conception of the ethical person as puritanical, always saying "I want to to the bad, but wait, I must resist, I must act out of duty according to the moral law."
This is a drastic difference from the Classical/Christian notion that our desires, motivations, and emotions/passions can actually become transformed through virtuous action and living a sacramental life of discipleship. In fact, it is this transformation that is the crown of the moral life, where one is most free to live in truth and love.
Kant's teaching, as with Manichaeanism, leads one to two opposite extremes of action. Either: 1) one follows Kant in acting rather puritan like, disciplining our physical body to the extreme (by excluding apriori all human desires and emotions/passions as morally bad with no hope of transformation or right ordering); Or: 2) one reacts in the opposite way saying that since our actions are fundamentally severed from our soul/self (according to a dualistic conception of the human person), they do not really matter, or have a substantial effect on the soul/self in becoming a morally good or morally evil person.
Sadly this Kantian philosophical foundation has been adopted knowingly and unknowingly by many in Catholic Moral Theology today. Robert Barron in "The Priority of Christ" provides a rich and concise analysis of this situation in Chapter 15 titled, "Deontologism and Proportionalism," two effects from a Kantian ethics (although he also makes parallel references to Descartes' cogito vs res extensae and Luther's inner man and outer man). The main example of a defunct contemporary Catholic Moral Theology cited by Fr Barron is a book by Timothy O'Connell, "Principles of a Catholic Morality." It is telling that O'Connell takes issue with the traditional notion of mortal sin because of his Kantian ethics.
Adam, your comments are much more thorough than my original post. You have given us the philosophical background that will be of tremendous help to many of the readers. Thank you for your contribution.
ReplyDelete