60 minutes Nov 18 - Young babies and morality

[Matthew]

Maria wrote:

I found this psychological study interesting because several Orthodox Christian Priests said that young babies are capable of evil, and this is why babies should be baptized and communed as early as possible. Furthermore, this study shows that children as young as three months want people who differ from them to be punished, which is the root of bullying, retaliation, and anti-social behaviors

I disagree. Babies are not capable of evil. This is an influence from movies and t.v. shows. Babies should be baptized in order to be united with Jesus Christ. This study is full of it and it's crazy. These psychologists are complete idiots. Why do you believe them? Don't believe them.

I am inclined to agree with Joanna on this one, at least on the point of babies being capable of evil. The Papists baptise because they believe in inherited guilt, whereas the Orthodox believe that we inherit a nature that is fallen but that the will to sin against what we know is right does not jade a baby, hence while infants need to be baptised to unite them to Christ and begin the remedy for the fallen nature, they are actually innocent, in a similar fashion the Holy Theotokos needed to be saved, but she was not guilty of any actual wilful sin. Perhaps those Orthodox priests were slightly influenced by the Western notions of original sin. In any case, The study is flawed inasmuch as they are assuming a lot about how to read the responses of infants (eye contact or eye movement as an indication of approval or disapproval) and with the older children their approval or disapproval also being attributed to bias and ill-will towards others who are differnent from them. They are taking, perhaps, a dark view on things because this is the view they themselves would take in the same place. But these are young innocent children. The Holy Scripture says, "To the perverse all things are perverse. To the pure all things are pure." The response of the children, if indeed expressing disapproval, may simply be responding out of a God-given response designed to protect and preserve the health of the child, and to increase the protective bonding that necessarily involves a sense of group membership and group exclusion, that they be distanced from outsiders that may not have their best interests in view. So, I think they are reading into it an unnecessarily dark interpretation.

[Maria]

Maria wrote:

I found this psychological study interesting because several Orthodox Christian Priests said that young babies are capable of evil, and this is why babies should be baptized and communed as early as possible. Furthermore, this study shows that children as young as three months want people who differ from them to be punished, which is the root of bullying, retaliation, and anti-social behaviors

I disagree. Babies are not capable of evil. This is an influence from movies and t.v. shows. Babies should be baptized in order to be united with Jesus Christ. This study is full of it and it's crazy. These psychologists are complete idiots. Why do you believe them? Don't believe them.

I am inclined to agree with Joanna on this one, at least on the point of babies being capable of evil. The Papists baptise because they believe in inherited guilt, whereas the Orthodox believe that we inherit a nature that is fallen but that the will to sin against what we know is right does not jade a baby, hence while infants need to be baptised to unite them to Christ and begin the remedy for the fallen nature, they are actually innocent, in a similar fashion the Holy Theotokos needed to be saved, but she was not guilty of any actual wilful sin. Perhaps those Orthodox priests were slightly influenced by the Western notions of original sin. In any case, The study is flawed inasmuch as they are assuming a lot about how to read the responses of infants (eye contact or eye movement as an indication of approval or disapproval) and with the older children their approval or disapproval also being attributed to bias and ill-will towards others who are differnent from them. They are taking, perhaps, a dark view on things because this is the view they themselves would take in the same place. But these are young innocent children. The Holy Scripture says, "To the perverse all things are perverse. To the pure all things are pure." The response of the children, if indeed expressing disapproval, may simply be responding out of a God-given response designed to protect and preserve the health of the child, and to increase the protective bonding that necessarily involves a sense of group membership and group exclusion, that they be distanced from outsiders that may not have their best interests in view. So, I think they are reading into it an unnecessarily dark interpretation.

Forget the psychological studies! We do not need them. Listen to our priests.

Several Orthodox Priests who have heard the confessions of young children as young as three years old have said that babies as young as or younger than 18 months old can commit sins of jealousy, revenge, anger, and hatred. Some of these three year old youngsters admitted to both their parents and the priest that they had committed serious sins when they were younger than 18 months old. In fact, it was the babies' awareness of their wicked deeds as witnessed by their parents that led the parents to present their children to the priest for confession. After asking questions of these young children, hearing their responses, and witnessing their repentance, the priest did grant these young children absolution.

The teaching that the "magical" age of seven somehow imparts the ability to distinguish right from wrong, that young babies and children are incapable of sin, and that children should not be admitted to confession before the age of seven are serious Roman Catholic errors. Each child is different.

How many children have suffered damnation because they were not able to seek help from the Church in their greatest need? God only knows. This is why it is imperative that parents observe their children, offer them godly advice, and refer them to the priest when these youngsters get out of hand, have committed sins, and need confession before receiving Holy Communion.

Several priests have told me that when a young baby or child is presented by their godparents or parents for Holy Communion, that if that child turns his head refusing Holy Communion, then the priest will not force the Holy Mysteries on that youngster. In fact, after the Divine Liturgy, these priests may seek out the parents and the child to see what the problem is. In some cases, the Priest has discovered that the child had a good reason for refusing Holy Communion, and that she wanted to go to Confession because the young child had admitted that she had done something very wrong.

Did not a few two to four year old babies drown their younger sibling in the toilet or in a bucket of water? Or are these horrible events part of a conspiracy of lies presented by the news media? Since I have personally observed young children committing some very foul deeds when I was babysitting them at the church nursery during a church event, I know that babies are capable of committing serious sins.

[Matthew]

I am sorry, Maria. I misunderstood your previous posts. I though we were speaking of infants and newborns, not toddlers. Of course, we need not ask such superfluous questions about the ability to commit moral evils regarding toddlers (about a year old and up). But then I wonder why these Psychologists perform such experiments at all at that stage--it is self evident that they feel guilt, shame, anger, jealously on occasion. And that is what I believe too. Just ask the Church and the judgement of the Holy Fathers, not these humanist and unbelieving mental scientists who question everything and believe almost nothing is sacred.

[Maria]

I am sorry, Maria. I misunderstood your previous posts. I though we were speaking of infants and newborns, not toddlers. Of course, we need not ask such superfluous questions about the ability to commit moral evils regarding toddlers (about a year old and up). But then I wonder why these Psychologists perform such experiments at all at that stage--it is self evident that they feel guilt, shame, anger, jealously on occasion. And that is what I believe too. Just ask the Church and the judgement of the Holy Fathers, not these humanist and unbelieving mental scientists who question everything and believe almost nothing is sacred.

If you had read about these studies or had viewed the full 60 minute telecast, you would have discovered that psychologists were amazed that children even at three months of age could have evil thoughts.

Did not the world and mankind suffer the consequences of Adam's sin?

Is not one of these consequences of Adam's curse a weakness to succumb to temptation, to commit sin, and to turn our backs on our Creator and Lord Jesus Christ? And do we not struggle with sin (missing the mark and failing to achieve perfection) until the moment we die?

Why then is the young child somehow immune to these temptations? He/she is not immune but needs wise parents and pastors who can provide much needed guidance. Isn't this why children have parents and godparents?

An afterthought:

Psychologists in this study apparently believed as Skinner taught, that children were born innocent in a state called "tabula rasa" (a blank slate). Thus these experimental psychologists were surprised that these babes between 3 and 6 months of age could approve of a puppet play demonstrating revenge against those who disagree with them.

This thought about the innocence of babes (tabula rasa) could have been promoted because of the biblical story about the slaughter of the innocent babes by Herod. These children are considered to be martyrs by the Church. We celebrate their feast day on December 28 (the Holy Innocents). Were all of theses children of two years and under considered martyrs? If so, were their deaths somehow protected by God so that they did not despair and therefore died as innocents?

Babies can show fear. Just ask a nurse why she hides the needle from the sight of the child before administering those required vaccines. This fear is also seen in babies, especially those older than three months when they are baptized. Often these babes think that that Priest is trying to hurt them by drowning them in the water.

[Matthew]

Oh dear! I again misunderstood you, when I thought I misunderstood you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and since I have no claims of being in the know about such things, I must concede that you might be right, no matter how strongly my personal views may be held on this matter. For what it is worth, though, I must firmly disagree with your comments when applied to 3 month old babies. Fear of drowning is not a moral evil. Furthermore, you will not convince me with a 60 Minutes Media Show (that show is not an authority, in fact, sometimes they have been criticised for dishonest reporting) that 3 Month old babies have any ability to watch a puppet show with a story depicting the concept of revenge and understand it and participate in the pleasure (ie approval) of revenge. Again, such an experiment whose express purpose is to detect deliberate revenge in a 3 month old infant is not only absurd, but it's demonic. I would NEVER trust any report coming from such a demented experiment. As you rightly noted before, we Orthodox have no need for such experiments to know the truth. That 3 month infants need salvation and the Holy Mysteries, and that there is moral evil already working in a child's nature, we know this to be true, but the level of conscious responsibility, awareness, and wilfulness that this study purports to prove is reprehensible and not to be believed. I would agree with what you have said to be possible with children who are a year old--but in the continuum of development no one can say for certain when a given child is aware and therefore the nature of their sin and conscience and need for confession changes. I never supported the 7 year theory.

[Maria]

Internet communications are difficult with many misunderstandings.
Please try to give people a chance to explain without jumping to false conclusions.
It is so easy to judge and to fall into prelest without even knowing it.
I think we all do this inadvertently at times.

Some children apparently are protected by their guardian angels and remain good.
Not all children are so blessed, and I do not pretend to know why this is so.
While it is true that we cannot see into the soul of an infant,
we cannot presume that they are totally innocent or totally depraved.
Since infants can imitate both our bad and good behaviors,
we must be very careful around them so as not to scandalize or harm them by our sinfulness.

Anyway, there are two types of fear, as I understand it:

• Morbid fear is sinful. According to St. Paul, this fear shows a lack of faith, hope, and love, and can lead to despondency, death, and damnation. However, St. Paul also states that perfect love casts out this morbid fear.

• Reverential fear or awe in the Lord's Presence is the beginning of wisdom.

A child who screams at his baptism is not showing reverential fear, but wants consolation because he is scared and fearful. I have seen young children at their baptisms who are so upset that they refuse the Holy Eucharist at the hands of the Priest because they now fear the priest who submerged them three times underwater. A priest told me that one child refused Holy Communion for about a month after his baptism, and every time that baby saw the priest, he would turn red, shed copious tears, and scream in terror. It was only after a considerable effort by that Priest, that this child was finally consoled and was able to accept communion. Note that this priest was very gentle and did not abuse that child at his baptism.

[Matthew]

I respect your opinion and interpretation of these kinds of examples. However, I simply do not interpret an infant's shock at being dunked into a bucket of water (from its point of view that is all it can know about what is happening to it) and his aversion to the person who frightened it, as being proof of that child displaying a morbid, sinful form of fear. Its response is entirely natural and shows only an instinctual response God gave it to preserve its life and avoid potential and perceived threats to its safety or well-being. This shocked response of the child you noted is way before an infant knows anything about anything, let alone about God, salvation, trust in the Lord and his promises, and the host of things that we know and are all the more accountable for if we insist on having a morbid fear of something contrary the knowledge of God that we have learned over time by proper upbringing and training in righteousness. I understand that you do not agree with me, and that there is a difference of opinion here, which I cannot prove one way or the other, but I simply share my own view. If I am incorrect I trust the Lord will reveal it to me. God bless you, Maria. You have said other things here that I mentioned already that are very wise and good observations, but I am just leery about applying it or extending those things as far back in human development as the first three months of life.