USS Clueless Expounds on the Pedagogy of Moral Education.It's fascinating to watch a guardian of reason jump to conclusions. Hmm.
A couple of days ago I posted an anecdote about using the question "why not" as a conscience-clarifier. That's all. Clueless evidently misunderstood, thinking that I was proposing a comprehensive schema for moral education based on "Why Not?" He pounced in a moment of glee, knowing that he had the irrational Christer by the - well, ovaries, I guess.
When you are a teacher in a religious setting, and you proclaim to a kid, "You shouldn't have sex before marriage," (or some equivalent moral teaching) then the kid is entirely within his rights to ask you to justify that. You're the moral authority, you're the one making the statement, you're there to teach them what is right and wrong. And if you can't explain it, there's something deeply wrong.
Religion without justification is dogma, and dogmas decay and die because they cannot adapt. If the believers in a religion not only know its teachings but understand them, then that religion will remain vital. But for that to happen, then its moral leaders must not only be able to answer the question, "Why?" they must encourage it being asked. When their followers encounter a new moral problem, they'll be able to return to first principles and derive a new moral judgment.
Because I neglected to run through my classroom syllabus, my textbook choices or offer synopses of my lecture/discussion notes, Clueless has assumed somehow that none of the activities he described took place.
Yeah. That's it. That's what Ms. Welborn did in Morality Class. Walked into class on Day 1, said, "Non-marital sex is wrong" and then stood there, speechless and befuddled, as her inquisitive students asked "why?" and then turning gratefully to the likes of Clueless when all their teacher could muster was a "rhetorical trick.."
Let me assure all who are concerned about the education of those who were under my care that such was not the case. Further, such is not the case with any good Catholic educator or catechetical writer of whom I'm aware. Our faith is rooted in plenty of good reasons, and our tradition is full of people who never stopped asking, "Why?"
The story I told in this post was of one little technique to assist in clarifying one's conscience and motivations. It's a handy tool, as I call it, and one of the handiest. There are plenty more, such as trying to see the present moment in retrospect. But they are not the centerpiece of Christian moral reasoning. The center of our moral decision-making as Christians should be our relationship with Christ and all that entails. God's grace is what strengthens us to do the right thing. Reasoned moral precepts play their role as well. But you know, there are times, not only for adolescents, but for all of us, that the pressures of the moment make it difficult to access all of that. We know, but we don't know, or we choose to forget. It's those moments that perhaps a sharp little question like I propose would clarify things and help us clear the way back to our principles. That's all.
The "why not" question, as I said, isn't offered as a foundation for moral decision-making, but as a tool to use in the moment of decision-making when you're having a hard time deciding if it's worth it to let your actions catch up with what you know is right.
Let me also offer an apology to all Christians out there who have come under the scorn of Clueless because of his reading of my post, and his subsequent assumption that Christian morality is based on sand and that Christian teachers are incapable of communicating the grounds for what they're saying.