Years ago, a heard an apologist give a piece of very sage advice. If you want to bring a certain class of people to knowledge of Christ, make friends with several and don’t try to convert them. Just listen to them. Hear their concerns. That’s one of the reasons I try to stay in conversation with all kinds of people, one of whom happens to be a follower of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).
Now, the SSPX and its splinter groups are schismatics who refuse to recognize the authority of the Second Vatican Council and the Pope. Their priests and bishops are validly ordained, consequently all seven of their sacraments are valid. Sadly, none of them are licit.
Whenever I say this, people inevitably respond with, “And what, exactly, is the difference between being valid and being licit?” Instead of going into a long theological discussion, it is best to use an example.
When a man and a woman get married, they generally tend to have sex. Sexual relations between spouses is both valid and licit – it is valid because it is ordered towards the indivisible gifts of procreation and unity, it is licit because the relationship is consecrated and elevated by God to the status of a sacrament. Thus, God’s law and man’s law coincide – that is what it means to be licit.
Now, if these same two people had sex without benefit of marriage, they would be involved in a valid expression of sexuality – the union could still produce a child, at least on a theoretical level – but their union would not be licit. God may bless them with a child despite the fact that they refuse to allow His authority in their lives, but their actions are not in conformance with the level of obedience God desires from each of us. They have valid but illicit sex.
What of invalid and illicit sex? The best example of that is homosexual sex. It is invalid because it is simply not ordered to procreation or unity. It is illicit because that sexual act between those two people can never be elevated to a level of obedience to God. Fornicators, and to a lesser degree adulterers, can make their actions both valid and licit by obeying the laws of God's Church and allowing Him to sanctify their relationship, but homosexual sex can never be either.
You may think it an enormous leap to jump from liturgy and sacraments to sex, but it isn’t. The Mass is the Wedding Feast, where Eucharist, the Flesh of the Bridegroom, enters the flesh of the Bride. As the Holy Father tells us, sex is meant to be a foreshadowing, a dim way of imaging, the enormous love God pours out to us in the liturgy. When properly done, “sex is, in a certain sense, liturgical.” It is precisely our failure to make this connection that causes us so much problem in discussing our Catholic Faith.
The orientation that worship has matters. We can worship God incorrectly or we can worship God correctly or we can worship demons. It is incorrect to say that those who worship God incorrectly are at the same level as those who worship demons – after all, though certain fundamentalist sects call the Catholic Church “The Whore of Babylon”, still, I have a fellowship with them that I simply don’t share with followers of Wicca. My Wiccan friend is very nice, loves her pagan form of worship and certainly doesn’t believe she is doing anything satanic, but she is also certainly not my separated brother in the same sense that the Baptist woman down the street is.
Now, as noted above, sex is a dim reflection of liturgy. The difference between valid and licit, taht is, the difference between the illicit, invalid liturgical worship of Wicca, the valid liturgy of the SSPX and the valid, licit liturgy Catholics attend every Sunday is intimately woven into the problem of sexuality.
The Catechism tells us that in God there is neither male nor female (CCC #239). So why do we always use the masculine pronoun in reference to Him? In part, because God penetrates us, He impregnates us with His word, as the Holy Father says in Catechesis in Our Time. He acts first, we respond. That is how it must always be when we deal with God – since God is creator, Since God holds us in existence from moment to moment, He must also always be First Actor. We don’t penetrate Him, He penetrates us. He is Bridegroom, we are Bride.
This is why St. Paul says sins of the flesh are the worst kind of sin, for these offend against the Temple of the Holy Spirit, which is the body. Sins of the flesh are the worst precisely because sins of the flesh are intimately linked with sins of the liturgy.
In the Catholic Mass, the Bridegroom meets the Bride, He enters us, and the mystery of divine loving union with God is consummated. In the SSPX Mass, the Bride takes advantage of the Bridegroom, using Him in a way that does not respect Who He is and what He wills, but the marriage itself still exists, even if the relationships are distorted. In Wicca, it is different.
Wicca is goddess-worship. In Wicca, the bride meets the bride. It is not valid worship, it is not licit worship. It is intrinsically disordered worship. It is worship irretrievably skewed. Of all the liturgical errors one can make, nothing matches the error of attempting Wicca worship. It is an error of a different class.
It has been pointed out by numerous people that, just as the act of eating has natural consequences, so does the act of sex. Eat too much and you gain weight. Have sex, and you eventually get pregnant. People who want to eat but don’t want to gain weight sometimes try to rectify the problem by becoming bulimic – they constantly force themselves to throw up. Abortion has been called the sexual form of bulimia. If we follow this kind of analogy, we can see that homosexuality is the sexual form of Wicca. Thus, we should not be surprised to find that a culture that promotes New Age beliefs, including Wicca, suddenly also finds itself awash in problems involving homosexuality.
Many people think the Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects a basic homophobia, because the Catechism calls homosexuality “intrinsically disordered.” Homosexuality is the only mode of life that is described that way by the Magisterium. Now that we understand the difference between valid and licit, and the link between sex and liturgy, it is, perhaps, more clear why the Magisterium provides this description.
Just as there are different levels of venial sin, whose deeper levels eventually induce the sinner to plunge into mortal sin, so there are different levels of mortal sin. Some are easier to recover from than others. In that sense, some mortal sins are, indeed, worse than others. As has been pointed out elsewhere, mortal sin against the Ninth Commandment – coveting a neighbor’s goods – is not nearly so bad as mortal sin against the Tenth Commandment – coveting a neighbor’s spouse. Wicca worship is much worse than SSPX worship. Homosexual behaviour is much worse than fornication and adultery.
It’s a simple problem to solve, really. We just need to explain the connection between sex and liturgy and the difference between valid and licit.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Dreaming is Believing
George Weigel appears to be at odds with the USCCB. In a recent interview with Newsmax.com, Weigel said, “[T]he bishops [must] as a group to make clear that Senator Kerry is systematically misrepresenting the nature of Catholic teaching on the life issues… when Kerry says the Church's pro-life teaching is a sectarian position which cannot be imposed on a pluralistic society, he is willfully misrepresenting the nature of the Church's position – by suggesting that this is something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent."
Unfortunately for Mr. Weigel, Kerry is not mis-representing the USCCB position. He has described the USCCB position to a “T”. Watch closely and you’ll see how it’s done.
Back in December 2003, Cathy Cleaver Ruse, the official pro-life spokeswoman of the USCCB told the New York Times in part, “when it comes to contraception as a policy issue - access, availability - the Catholic bishops do not get involved in that debate."
Now there’s an amazing statement. Catholic bishops don't get involved on a debate concerning mortal sin. One wonders why any of them bothered getting consecrated bishop. But wait – it gets better.
I held onto that quote because the thing was so remarkably odd. Now, the entire quote she made to the Times was pretty strange, but this was easily the strangest part of it. So, I recently asked her a straightforward question. If the USCCB was lobbying to abolish abortion, why wasn’t it lobbying to abolish contraception? Both are mortal sins, both take human lives. I couldn’t see how the bishops distinguished between the two.
She quickly set me straight. The bishops don’t distinguish between the two.
“No, there is no ‘lobbying to ban abortions for everyone’ as that too has been precluded by the Supreme Court, for the time being,” she wrote in reply, “rather, there are efforts directed toward achievable goals…” She then went on to list a few of the USCCB goals: “the partial-birth abortion ban, [work] against mandating inclusion of contraception in health benefits packages; against making its acceptance a condition for providing other kinds of developmental assistance; protecting parents' rights in the case of minors, [etc.]”
It takes one’s breath away. Instead of preaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception, instead of insisting on the total abolition of contraception and abortion, US bishops are merely attempting to maintain the status quo circa, say, 1975. Pope John Paul II has repeatedly asked them what they are doing to change the culture. Well, now we know the answer: nothing. They aren’t trying to change the culture, they are trying to freeze-frame the culture in one of its most delectable states – the year Maude had her abortion on a national sitcom. We all know people who yearn for the 1950’s. Some benighted souls even yearn for the 1960's. But who knew there was anyone that yearned for the seventies? The bishops have been told in very stern terms by the Unites States Supreme Court that they are to stop trying to abolish contraception and abortion, so… they scrape, bow and obey.
What might George Weigel say about Mrs. Ruse’s answer? Well, we can look at what he says about Kerry’s position "This is simply false," Weigel told NewsMax.com. "The Church's pro-life teaching is something that can be engaged seriously by anyone. You don't have to believe that there are seven sacraments to deal with this, you don't have to believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome to engage this position. You don't even have to believe in God to engage this [pro-Life] position because it's a position rooted in basic embryology and in basic logic, and anybody can engage that."
But that’s part of the problem, you see. The bishops are ignorant as the babes about embryology and basic logic. Take a look at the insanity they show in regards to the morning-after pill.
According to the USCCB, the morning after pill is A Bad Thing. It causes chemical abortions, don’cha know. Well, yes, bishops, we do know that. And anyone who has bothered to read the Physician’s Desk Reference, the standard handbook on drugs in the United States, also knows that the morning after pill (MAP) is just a regular contraceptive at an unusually high dose. MAP works exactly the same way every other hormonal contraceptive works because it is simply another contraceptive – it tries to suppress ovulation, but even if ovulation is not suppressed, it always destroys the uterine lining so the embryo can’t implant, that is, it causes an abortion. All hormonal contraceptives do.
But MAP is high-dose. Low-dose contraceptives are not good at preventing ovulation. Because MAP is high dose, it is more likely to prevent ovulation than normal contraceptives are. Why does this matter?
Because it means normal contraceptives are actually much more likely to cause a chemical abortion than MAP is. After all, sperm can’t fertilize an egg that isn’t there. MAP prevents the egg from being there much more reliably than normal contraceptives do. Now, MAP also plays merry hell with the woman’s health and her reproductive system to an extent far beyond any normal contraceptive, but chemical abortion is much less likely to happen with MAP than it is with any other hormonal contraceptive you care to name.
So, why do the bishops oppose MAP but remain silent on other hormonal contraceptives? That’s a darned good question. I pointed all of this out and asked Mrs. Ruse to explain why the bishops fought MAP but none of the other contraceptives. Her answer? Simplicity itself. Cathy Cleaver Ruse simply stopped replying. To be honest, I couldn’t blame her. I would have done exactly the same thing in her position.
So, this is the situation. The USCCB is not working to ban abortion. It is not working to ban contraception. The Supreme Court has forbidden it to do either, and the USCCB takes its marching orders from the US Supreme Court on these two issues. Instead, the USCCB is simply trying to limit damage. That’s all. It is trying to keep the culture from getting any worse than it was in 1975. It opposes MAP primarily because MAP wasn’t part of the 1970’s status quo. If it had been, the USCCB presumably wouldn’t be working to ban it either.
George Weigel has a dream. "The most important thing for the bishops of the United States to do is to make very clear that Kerry is misrepresenting the nature of the Church's pro-life position..."
It is very important to have dreams.
The reality is this: if you want the situation to change, you need to do something about it. First, pray. Being a bishop means being crucified. Christ hung on the Cross for three hours – these men spend years on it, and sometimes the pain drives them to make mistakes of judgment that we who are out of the spotlight wouldn’t have made. Pray for them and for yourself. Pray hard.
Then, start making appointments with your bishop, start writing him, start calling him. Be respectful. But make it clear to him that you want to hear the whole Gospel, in the pulpit and in the newspaper. You have a right to hear it. He has a duty to preach it. Catholics don’t take their marching orders from nine men in black robes. We follow one man, with holes in His hands and His feet and a bloody crown on His head. We aren’t democrats or republicans, we are monarchists. The King is calling us out. It’s time to march.
Unfortunately for Mr. Weigel, Kerry is not mis-representing the USCCB position. He has described the USCCB position to a “T”. Watch closely and you’ll see how it’s done.
Back in December 2003, Cathy Cleaver Ruse, the official pro-life spokeswoman of the USCCB told the New York Times in part, “when it comes to contraception as a policy issue - access, availability - the Catholic bishops do not get involved in that debate."
Now there’s an amazing statement. Catholic bishops don't get involved on a debate concerning mortal sin. One wonders why any of them bothered getting consecrated bishop. But wait – it gets better.
I held onto that quote because the thing was so remarkably odd. Now, the entire quote she made to the Times was pretty strange, but this was easily the strangest part of it. So, I recently asked her a straightforward question. If the USCCB was lobbying to abolish abortion, why wasn’t it lobbying to abolish contraception? Both are mortal sins, both take human lives. I couldn’t see how the bishops distinguished between the two.
She quickly set me straight. The bishops don’t distinguish between the two.
“No, there is no ‘lobbying to ban abortions for everyone’ as that too has been precluded by the Supreme Court, for the time being,” she wrote in reply, “rather, there are efforts directed toward achievable goals…” She then went on to list a few of the USCCB goals: “the partial-birth abortion ban, [work] against mandating inclusion of contraception in health benefits packages; against making its acceptance a condition for providing other kinds of developmental assistance; protecting parents' rights in the case of minors, [etc.]”
It takes one’s breath away. Instead of preaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception, instead of insisting on the total abolition of contraception and abortion, US bishops are merely attempting to maintain the status quo circa, say, 1975. Pope John Paul II has repeatedly asked them what they are doing to change the culture. Well, now we know the answer: nothing. They aren’t trying to change the culture, they are trying to freeze-frame the culture in one of its most delectable states – the year Maude had her abortion on a national sitcom. We all know people who yearn for the 1950’s. Some benighted souls even yearn for the 1960's. But who knew there was anyone that yearned for the seventies? The bishops have been told in very stern terms by the Unites States Supreme Court that they are to stop trying to abolish contraception and abortion, so… they scrape, bow and obey.
What might George Weigel say about Mrs. Ruse’s answer? Well, we can look at what he says about Kerry’s position "This is simply false," Weigel told NewsMax.com. "The Church's pro-life teaching is something that can be engaged seriously by anyone. You don't have to believe that there are seven sacraments to deal with this, you don't have to believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome to engage this position. You don't even have to believe in God to engage this [pro-Life] position because it's a position rooted in basic embryology and in basic logic, and anybody can engage that."
But that’s part of the problem, you see. The bishops are ignorant as the babes about embryology and basic logic. Take a look at the insanity they show in regards to the morning-after pill.
According to the USCCB, the morning after pill is A Bad Thing. It causes chemical abortions, don’cha know. Well, yes, bishops, we do know that. And anyone who has bothered to read the Physician’s Desk Reference, the standard handbook on drugs in the United States, also knows that the morning after pill (MAP) is just a regular contraceptive at an unusually high dose. MAP works exactly the same way every other hormonal contraceptive works because it is simply another contraceptive – it tries to suppress ovulation, but even if ovulation is not suppressed, it always destroys the uterine lining so the embryo can’t implant, that is, it causes an abortion. All hormonal contraceptives do.
But MAP is high-dose. Low-dose contraceptives are not good at preventing ovulation. Because MAP is high dose, it is more likely to prevent ovulation than normal contraceptives are. Why does this matter?
Because it means normal contraceptives are actually much more likely to cause a chemical abortion than MAP is. After all, sperm can’t fertilize an egg that isn’t there. MAP prevents the egg from being there much more reliably than normal contraceptives do. Now, MAP also plays merry hell with the woman’s health and her reproductive system to an extent far beyond any normal contraceptive, but chemical abortion is much less likely to happen with MAP than it is with any other hormonal contraceptive you care to name.
So, why do the bishops oppose MAP but remain silent on other hormonal contraceptives? That’s a darned good question. I pointed all of this out and asked Mrs. Ruse to explain why the bishops fought MAP but none of the other contraceptives. Her answer? Simplicity itself. Cathy Cleaver Ruse simply stopped replying. To be honest, I couldn’t blame her. I would have done exactly the same thing in her position.
So, this is the situation. The USCCB is not working to ban abortion. It is not working to ban contraception. The Supreme Court has forbidden it to do either, and the USCCB takes its marching orders from the US Supreme Court on these two issues. Instead, the USCCB is simply trying to limit damage. That’s all. It is trying to keep the culture from getting any worse than it was in 1975. It opposes MAP primarily because MAP wasn’t part of the 1970’s status quo. If it had been, the USCCB presumably wouldn’t be working to ban it either.
George Weigel has a dream. "The most important thing for the bishops of the United States to do is to make very clear that Kerry is misrepresenting the nature of the Church's pro-life position..."
It is very important to have dreams.
The reality is this: if you want the situation to change, you need to do something about it. First, pray. Being a bishop means being crucified. Christ hung on the Cross for three hours – these men spend years on it, and sometimes the pain drives them to make mistakes of judgment that we who are out of the spotlight wouldn’t have made. Pray for them and for yourself. Pray hard.
Then, start making appointments with your bishop, start writing him, start calling him. Be respectful. But make it clear to him that you want to hear the whole Gospel, in the pulpit and in the newspaper. You have a right to hear it. He has a duty to preach it. Catholics don’t take their marching orders from nine men in black robes. We follow one man, with holes in His hands and His feet and a bloody crown on His head. We aren’t democrats or republicans, we are monarchists. The King is calling us out. It’s time to march.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Calling Catholic Moms
Despite our best attempts at natural child birth, my wife has had three C-sections – one for each of our children. As she was wheeled into the operating room last June for the birth of our most recent child, we prayed the Rosary together. Just as we reached the beginning of the third Joyful mystery, the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, I saw our little boy lifted out and raised on high by the doctor, his umbilical cord still pulsing with each heartbeat. Blood is the source of life, says the book of Leviticus, so life’s blood, specifically umbilical cord blood, is the perfect topic for Easter week.
God is amazingly good at keeping His promises. When He says blood is the source of life (Leviticus 17:11), He means it quite literally. Not only is it the source of life for each of us through the oxygen it carries, it is the source of life in another most amazing way. Let me explain.
For years now, scientists have had the most excellent and laudable goal of trying to use stem cells as a means of healing those who are suffering grievous illness. Diabetes, cancer, stroke: the list of diseases which could be healed if only we know how best to manipulate stem cells is endless.
Unfortunately, many people have twisted this laudable goal in order to advance their own political agenda. Instead of looking for the best source of stem cells to advance healing, they have sought to shoe-horn a specific source of stems cell into the forefront as a way to justify the killing of very small children. The pro-abortion agenda has oiled and squirmed its way into stem cell research; many otherwise reputable scientists now allow their pro-abortion agenda to influence the direction of their work. Thus, instead of seeking the best source of stem cells, these men and women use the worst possible sources of stem cells – human embryos – and pretend to themselves and the world that success will eventually crown their efforts.
This is a fight every Catholic mother should join. You see, the stem cells from cord blood can do everything stem cells obtained from human embryos cannot. Lifesite News quotes Dr. John Gearhart, of John Hopkins University, “[Embryonic stem cells are] surprisingly genetically unstable [and] may complicate efforts to turn cells into cures." Bioethicist Glenn McGee agrees: "the potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after stem cell transplant might turn out to be the Pandora's box of stem cell research.”
These men aren’t speaking theoretically. Nearly every such experiment has sparked uncontrollable cancerous growths in one or more of the test subjects. Not once has a set of stem cells obtained through the destruction of a human embryo ever cured anyone. Even optimistic researchers don’t expect this to change anytime soon.
With the blood from umbilical cords, life is much different. You see, cord blood is a rich source of embryonic stem cells. And, unlike the stem cells obtained by killing short people, transfused cord blood has already eliminated disease from the lives of thousands of children and adults. Cord blood works. Right now.
As Gretchen Clavey, who is a Catholic contemplative, a wife, and a mother of eight (five here, three in heaven) in Champaign, Illinois points out, “this is precisely the kind of topic my vocation and state in life gives me a platform to speak about. Women like me should be of the most vocal on this issue because we have the ability to convey to other moms or anybody else that will listen about the need to donate cord blood. What other group of people out there think a whole lot about umbilical cords anyway?”
“Consider the profound beauty of the way in which God has made this option for treating disease available, that is, through the gift of a mother open to life. She is open to the life of her own child and now can even help save other people's lives by simply requesting that the cord blood be donated. There are many layers of profound Catholic theology that can be used to uncover how beautiful this is! It's very Marian, very Catholic!
"Many unsuspecting Catholics are being led down the primrose path of agreeing with abortionists - without even realizing that cord blood is the obvious solution to the problem. Hidden like diamonds in the rough, however, is a beautiful gift from God to his people, one that will get ignored if someone doesn't get on the horn and raise awareness! Let's not miss this opportunity to take back one of those topics the abortion proponents have taken control of in the public square.”
Now, many private organizations inadvertently limit the usefulness of cord blood in order to make a dollar. These groups tell you that you should donate your child’s cord blood to their private registery, reserving your child’s blood just for him, and cordoning it off from anyone else’s use. Sadly, this is precisely the wrong way to approach the problem. Stem cells from cord blood are most critically useful in the treatment of genetic disease. If your child has a genetic disease, then that disease, by definition, is already present in his cord blood. This means your child often can’t use his own cord blood to be healed. He needs cord blood from some other child, a child free from the genetic disease in question.
Cord blood is most useful when it is in a public registry, available for anyone’s use. At the moment, there are only about twenty public cord blood banks in the country. Begin investigating this resource. Check with your local hospital and find out if they participate in a cord blood registry. Notify the papers about this resource and start a campaign to get your hospital on board. Registries generally require a few months lead time in order to properly track donated cord blood, so if you are pregnant or likely to become pregnant soon and would like to donate, you need to start investigating now.
Would the American Red Cross be likely to start storing cord blood? To this point, they haven’t shown an interest, but if enough people ask, they might change their mind. It’s worth investigating.
Donation of cord blood is completely moral, completely useful, and doesn’t harm your child a bit. Your son or daughter can save another child’s life from the moment his own life in the larger world begins. What a great birthday present to give him! What a great accomplishment for her!
So, get on your soapbox now and keep your eye on the news in the future. When, years later, it comes time for the tooth fairy to visit, you might want to save those teeth. Reuters reports that Mr. Howard Morris of Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia says the pulp in the teeth children shed naturally is more accessible and richer in stem cells than adult tissue. Dr. Stan Gronthos agrees, "They usually go to the tooth fairy and that's the end of it, but we can use them. One stem cell can be grown in culture into a colony of thousands of cells, then into millions of cells. They can regenerate into connective tissue such as bone, cartilage, fat and muscle."
Isn’t God good?
For more information on public cord blood banks, see
www.marrow.org
http://www.parentsguidecordblood.com/public.html
God is amazingly good at keeping His promises. When He says blood is the source of life (Leviticus 17:11), He means it quite literally. Not only is it the source of life for each of us through the oxygen it carries, it is the source of life in another most amazing way. Let me explain.
For years now, scientists have had the most excellent and laudable goal of trying to use stem cells as a means of healing those who are suffering grievous illness. Diabetes, cancer, stroke: the list of diseases which could be healed if only we know how best to manipulate stem cells is endless.
Unfortunately, many people have twisted this laudable goal in order to advance their own political agenda. Instead of looking for the best source of stem cells to advance healing, they have sought to shoe-horn a specific source of stems cell into the forefront as a way to justify the killing of very small children. The pro-abortion agenda has oiled and squirmed its way into stem cell research; many otherwise reputable scientists now allow their pro-abortion agenda to influence the direction of their work. Thus, instead of seeking the best source of stem cells, these men and women use the worst possible sources of stem cells – human embryos – and pretend to themselves and the world that success will eventually crown their efforts.
This is a fight every Catholic mother should join. You see, the stem cells from cord blood can do everything stem cells obtained from human embryos cannot. Lifesite News quotes Dr. John Gearhart, of John Hopkins University, “[Embryonic stem cells are] surprisingly genetically unstable [and] may complicate efforts to turn cells into cures." Bioethicist Glenn McGee agrees: "the potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after stem cell transplant might turn out to be the Pandora's box of stem cell research.”
These men aren’t speaking theoretically. Nearly every such experiment has sparked uncontrollable cancerous growths in one or more of the test subjects. Not once has a set of stem cells obtained through the destruction of a human embryo ever cured anyone. Even optimistic researchers don’t expect this to change anytime soon.
With the blood from umbilical cords, life is much different. You see, cord blood is a rich source of embryonic stem cells. And, unlike the stem cells obtained by killing short people, transfused cord blood has already eliminated disease from the lives of thousands of children and adults. Cord blood works. Right now.
As Gretchen Clavey, who is a Catholic contemplative, a wife, and a mother of eight (five here, three in heaven) in Champaign, Illinois points out, “this is precisely the kind of topic my vocation and state in life gives me a platform to speak about. Women like me should be of the most vocal on this issue because we have the ability to convey to other moms or anybody else that will listen about the need to donate cord blood. What other group of people out there think a whole lot about umbilical cords anyway?”
“Consider the profound beauty of the way in which God has made this option for treating disease available, that is, through the gift of a mother open to life. She is open to the life of her own child and now can even help save other people's lives by simply requesting that the cord blood be donated. There are many layers of profound Catholic theology that can be used to uncover how beautiful this is! It's very Marian, very Catholic!
"Many unsuspecting Catholics are being led down the primrose path of agreeing with abortionists - without even realizing that cord blood is the obvious solution to the problem. Hidden like diamonds in the rough, however, is a beautiful gift from God to his people, one that will get ignored if someone doesn't get on the horn and raise awareness! Let's not miss this opportunity to take back one of those topics the abortion proponents have taken control of in the public square.”
Now, many private organizations inadvertently limit the usefulness of cord blood in order to make a dollar. These groups tell you that you should donate your child’s cord blood to their private registery, reserving your child’s blood just for him, and cordoning it off from anyone else’s use. Sadly, this is precisely the wrong way to approach the problem. Stem cells from cord blood are most critically useful in the treatment of genetic disease. If your child has a genetic disease, then that disease, by definition, is already present in his cord blood. This means your child often can’t use his own cord blood to be healed. He needs cord blood from some other child, a child free from the genetic disease in question.
Cord blood is most useful when it is in a public registry, available for anyone’s use. At the moment, there are only about twenty public cord blood banks in the country. Begin investigating this resource. Check with your local hospital and find out if they participate in a cord blood registry. Notify the papers about this resource and start a campaign to get your hospital on board. Registries generally require a few months lead time in order to properly track donated cord blood, so if you are pregnant or likely to become pregnant soon and would like to donate, you need to start investigating now.
Would the American Red Cross be likely to start storing cord blood? To this point, they haven’t shown an interest, but if enough people ask, they might change their mind. It’s worth investigating.
Donation of cord blood is completely moral, completely useful, and doesn’t harm your child a bit. Your son or daughter can save another child’s life from the moment his own life in the larger world begins. What a great birthday present to give him! What a great accomplishment for her!
So, get on your soapbox now and keep your eye on the news in the future. When, years later, it comes time for the tooth fairy to visit, you might want to save those teeth. Reuters reports that Mr. Howard Morris of Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia says the pulp in the teeth children shed naturally is more accessible and richer in stem cells than adult tissue. Dr. Stan Gronthos agrees, "They usually go to the tooth fairy and that's the end of it, but we can use them. One stem cell can be grown in culture into a colony of thousands of cells, then into millions of cells. They can regenerate into connective tissue such as bone, cartilage, fat and muscle."
Isn’t God good?
For more information on public cord blood banks, see
www.marrow.org
http://www.parentsguidecordblood.com/public.html
Monday, April 05, 2004
Our Bodies, Ourselves
Our Bodies, Ourselves
At the Last Supper, which we commemorate on Holy Thursday, Jesus Christ held His own resurrected body in His hands. It’s an amazing thing. With the words, “This is my body… This is my blood…” His made Himself present in the breaking of the bread, though none of the apostles would realize it until many days later. If you have ever wondered why our bodies resurrect, this is the place to start your meditations.
Now, we know only three kinds of persons exist: the three uncreated Persons of the Godhead, and the two kinds of created persons – angels and men. In order to understand why we get our bodies back, we first have to understand what it means to be us. What are we? What is a human person? More important, why are we human persons?
The question is kind of interesting because the answers are not as obvious as they appear. One of the first people to deal with the question was a man named Nestorius. He said, “Look, the Church teaches that Jesus is fully human. He has a fully human body and a fully human soul. Therefore, He must have be a fully human person. But, He is the Son of God, so He must be a Divine Person as well.” It seemed pretty logical – according to Nestorius, Jesus was two persons at once. The human person and the divine Son of God, both united in one body, sort of like a split personality, only in a good way.
When Bishop Nestorius proposed this to the Church and began teaching it to his flock, other bishops objected. An ecumenical council of the Church was called to decide the issue. By the end of the council, Nestorius found he was wrong, a heretic. The council agreed that the apostolic teaching was this: there is only one Person in Jesus Christ – while He is fully and completely man, he is not a human person. He is the Divine Person, the Son of God.
Well, that’s quite a poser, isn’t it? How can you be fully man, but not even the teeniest bit a human person? It seems impossible, unless you remember one thing: the Three Persons of the one God are distinguished only by their relations and we human persons are made in His image.
God is pure spirit. He does not have a body. The Three Persons of the Godhead are pure spirit. The angels are made in God’s image in three ways. First, they are pure spirit, like God. Also, they are enormously powerful intellects, so knowledgeable about the results of their own actions that they can see the furthest consequences of everything they choose. Their decisions are irrevocable. In that, they are like God too. Third, each angel is a distinct person.
But we humans, we are not pure spirits. How are we like God? Well, we image Him by the fact that we are persons. We also image Him by the fact that we can generate, we can beget families. God the Father begets the Son, the Father and the Son generate the Spirit. God is a family of persons whose life is love. In fact, the three persons of the Trinity are so closely intertwined in love that each Person can be distinguished from the other two only by their relations to one another. Father begets Son, Father and Son together generate Spirit. If it were not for these relations, there would be no Divine Persons. That’s how important relationship is to being a Divine Person. If relationship is that important for God, it is likely to be pretty important for us as well.
So, what does is it about angels and men that makes us persons? Well, think about what is unique about us. Only angels and men are called to intimate communion with the Three Divine Persons of the Godhead. Only angels and men are called to be part of God’s family. Nothing else is. Birds, ducks, dogs, giraffes – all of these may appear in the new heaven and new earth that comes after the Day of Last Judgement, but none are called to personal intimacy with God. We are persons because we are called to be in communion with the Divine Persons.
Communion means total gift of self. Each Person of the Trinity gives of Himself so fully, that each Person of the Trinity totally interpenetrates the other two Persons. What does that mean? It means that no matter which Person of the Trinity you are thinking of, the other Two Persons are totally contained within Him. Each Divine Person makes Total Gift of Himself to the other Two, each gives Himself totally away to the other Two, holding nothing back.
The angels who rebelled chose to hold something of themselves back. This withholding was enough to prevent them from entering into communion with God. They are called to communion – they are persons – but their personhood can never be the fullness it is meant to be simply and only because they are not in full communion with the First Persons, the Trinity.
God made us a unique composite of body and soul. “Man is a person in the unity of his body and spirit. The body can never be reduced to mere matter. It is a spiritualized body, just as man’s spirit is so closely united to the body that he can be described as an embodied spirit.” So says Pope John Paul II, so say we all.
We are called into total communion with God. Total communion. That means we have to give Him everything we are if we want to be fully human persons. Death is the separation of spirit and body, and death was never what God intended for us. Since we are body and spirit, since body and spirit were meant to be joined forever, we must give Him everything we are. Our bodies are necessary to our personhood because they are part of what we give to God. We get our bodies back at the Day of Last Judgement precisely so we can give ourselves totally away to God, just as Mary gave herself totally to God when Gabriel asked her the question, just as Jesus gave Himself totally to us on the Cross.
And this is why Jesus is not a human person even though He is human in every other respect. His relationship to God is infinitely superior to our own. He is God, after all. He is already totally contained within the other two Persons of the Trinity – something that we will never accomplish. We will be in communion with God in heaven, but never that level of intimate communion that the Son has. He possesses the one Divine Nature, we only share in it. He owns it, through the grace of the sacraments, we only dabble our fingers in it. He is the Divine Person of the Son, we are human persons.
At the Last Supper, the one God who is simultaneously present at every moment of time and space made Himself specially present in His resurrected body when He uttered the words, "This is My Body... This is My Blood." He chose to take a body at the Incarnation and He chooses to keep His human body and human nature even now, because He wants us to understand what a precious gift our body is. Our bodies are part of who we are, and if we did not have them, we would not be everything God intends us to be. He took flesh so we could triumph over the Fall. He held His own resurrected Body in His hands at the Last Supper so we could hold His resurrected bodies in our arms in heaven. With our bodies, we worship Him.
This Triduum, think on these things.
At the Last Supper, which we commemorate on Holy Thursday, Jesus Christ held His own resurrected body in His hands. It’s an amazing thing. With the words, “This is my body… This is my blood…” His made Himself present in the breaking of the bread, though none of the apostles would realize it until many days later. If you have ever wondered why our bodies resurrect, this is the place to start your meditations.
Now, we know only three kinds of persons exist: the three uncreated Persons of the Godhead, and the two kinds of created persons – angels and men. In order to understand why we get our bodies back, we first have to understand what it means to be us. What are we? What is a human person? More important, why are we human persons?
The question is kind of interesting because the answers are not as obvious as they appear. One of the first people to deal with the question was a man named Nestorius. He said, “Look, the Church teaches that Jesus is fully human. He has a fully human body and a fully human soul. Therefore, He must have be a fully human person. But, He is the Son of God, so He must be a Divine Person as well.” It seemed pretty logical – according to Nestorius, Jesus was two persons at once. The human person and the divine Son of God, both united in one body, sort of like a split personality, only in a good way.
When Bishop Nestorius proposed this to the Church and began teaching it to his flock, other bishops objected. An ecumenical council of the Church was called to decide the issue. By the end of the council, Nestorius found he was wrong, a heretic. The council agreed that the apostolic teaching was this: there is only one Person in Jesus Christ – while He is fully and completely man, he is not a human person. He is the Divine Person, the Son of God.
Well, that’s quite a poser, isn’t it? How can you be fully man, but not even the teeniest bit a human person? It seems impossible, unless you remember one thing: the Three Persons of the one God are distinguished only by their relations and we human persons are made in His image.
God is pure spirit. He does not have a body. The Three Persons of the Godhead are pure spirit. The angels are made in God’s image in three ways. First, they are pure spirit, like God. Also, they are enormously powerful intellects, so knowledgeable about the results of their own actions that they can see the furthest consequences of everything they choose. Their decisions are irrevocable. In that, they are like God too. Third, each angel is a distinct person.
But we humans, we are not pure spirits. How are we like God? Well, we image Him by the fact that we are persons. We also image Him by the fact that we can generate, we can beget families. God the Father begets the Son, the Father and the Son generate the Spirit. God is a family of persons whose life is love. In fact, the three persons of the Trinity are so closely intertwined in love that each Person can be distinguished from the other two only by their relations to one another. Father begets Son, Father and Son together generate Spirit. If it were not for these relations, there would be no Divine Persons. That’s how important relationship is to being a Divine Person. If relationship is that important for God, it is likely to be pretty important for us as well.
So, what does is it about angels and men that makes us persons? Well, think about what is unique about us. Only angels and men are called to intimate communion with the Three Divine Persons of the Godhead. Only angels and men are called to be part of God’s family. Nothing else is. Birds, ducks, dogs, giraffes – all of these may appear in the new heaven and new earth that comes after the Day of Last Judgement, but none are called to personal intimacy with God. We are persons because we are called to be in communion with the Divine Persons.
Communion means total gift of self. Each Person of the Trinity gives of Himself so fully, that each Person of the Trinity totally interpenetrates the other two Persons. What does that mean? It means that no matter which Person of the Trinity you are thinking of, the other Two Persons are totally contained within Him. Each Divine Person makes Total Gift of Himself to the other Two, each gives Himself totally away to the other Two, holding nothing back.
The angels who rebelled chose to hold something of themselves back. This withholding was enough to prevent them from entering into communion with God. They are called to communion – they are persons – but their personhood can never be the fullness it is meant to be simply and only because they are not in full communion with the First Persons, the Trinity.
God made us a unique composite of body and soul. “Man is a person in the unity of his body and spirit. The body can never be reduced to mere matter. It is a spiritualized body, just as man’s spirit is so closely united to the body that he can be described as an embodied spirit.” So says Pope John Paul II, so say we all.
We are called into total communion with God. Total communion. That means we have to give Him everything we are if we want to be fully human persons. Death is the separation of spirit and body, and death was never what God intended for us. Since we are body and spirit, since body and spirit were meant to be joined forever, we must give Him everything we are. Our bodies are necessary to our personhood because they are part of what we give to God. We get our bodies back at the Day of Last Judgement precisely so we can give ourselves totally away to God, just as Mary gave herself totally to God when Gabriel asked her the question, just as Jesus gave Himself totally to us on the Cross.
And this is why Jesus is not a human person even though He is human in every other respect. His relationship to God is infinitely superior to our own. He is God, after all. He is already totally contained within the other two Persons of the Trinity – something that we will never accomplish. We will be in communion with God in heaven, but never that level of intimate communion that the Son has. He possesses the one Divine Nature, we only share in it. He owns it, through the grace of the sacraments, we only dabble our fingers in it. He is the Divine Person of the Son, we are human persons.
At the Last Supper, the one God who is simultaneously present at every moment of time and space made Himself specially present in His resurrected body when He uttered the words, "This is My Body... This is My Blood." He chose to take a body at the Incarnation and He chooses to keep His human body and human nature even now, because He wants us to understand what a precious gift our body is. Our bodies are part of who we are, and if we did not have them, we would not be everything God intends us to be. He took flesh so we could triumph over the Fall. He held His own resurrected Body in His hands at the Last Supper so we could hold His resurrected bodies in our arms in heaven. With our bodies, we worship Him.
This Triduum, think on these things.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Vulture Culture
What do gay marriage, abortion and reality TV shows have in common? In famously Protestant America, each of these culturally reflect and enshrine the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments, the commandments Judge Moore and company fight about. This may seem a remarkable statement, but it is true.
Take gay marriage, for instance. One-third of teens who choose to be actively gay will be dead from disease by the age of thirty. Disease will kill half of them before their fiftieth birthday. The lifestyle of active homosexuals is deadly. Though they have access to the most advanced medical technology in history, gays today have a life expectancy virtually identical to someone living in the late 1800’s – when we had no antibiotics and few survivable surgical procedures.
Because of this, many civic planners, influenced by Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class, are cultivating a gay subculture in their cities. Neither city officials nor Mr. Florida mention the real reason: active homosexuals pursue personal pleasure above all else, which means they spend lots of money on themselves. They have, after all, no one else to spend it on and no particular reason to save it. Their lifestyle pumps millions into the local economy, their lingering deaths from disease pump in millions more from the insurance companies. For those few gays who chose to adopt or IVF a child before they die, the orphans become wards of the state, and bring in still more federal dollars. For city officials, it’s a sweet setup – the city isn’t exactly written into the will, but by encouraging debauchery the city coffers profit enormously. Homosexuals are a revenue source, a set of substantial bank accounts to tap.
Throughout the country, the death tax is notoriously high. Both city and state profit from encouraging a high population of wealthy people who die rapidly.
So, our city planners now echo the abortionists, the only doctors who don’t accept charge cards or checks. “It’s their right to live as they wish,” say proponents as they ring up the sales, “and who are we to interfere with a right? Cash only, please, and step to the left as you die so as not to upset the others in line.”
Abortionists don’t tell women what the March 2004 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports: women who abort are three times more likely to be dead within a year of their abortion than they would be if they gave birth. Likewise, city officials don’t mention what everyone knows: the city’s homosexual neighborhood always has real estate agents hustling empty housing units. Everyone just wears black armbands when a particularly wealthy homosexual kicks the bucket. Loving funeral notices are written, and the number of funeral homes increase. Everybody wins but the corpse.
In a society uncontaminated by Christ, people are tools, and we reward those who recognize this. Is it any wonder that the first reality television show, Survivor, was won by a homosexual? This is not to say that heterosexuals cannot coldly and callously use people as instruments – we do it every time we sin – but using people like objects is part of the fabric of homosexual society to a unique degree. According to a 2003 issue of the journal AIDS (vol. 17), “monogamous” homosexuals typically have between six and ten anonymous sexual affairs a year outside of their “monogamous” relationship. No heterosexual would think to define monogamy that way. The homosexual life is about use – who uses whom, and what do I get out of it? Likewise, reality television shows are all about how I can use other people in order to get what I want. Thus, it is fitting and right that the homosexual Richard Hatch win the first reality gameshow, Survivor.
In an interview after having been voted off a later All-Star Survivor game, Richard Hatch was asked who the smartest member left in the game was. His reply, “I've been voted off, so... who cares?”
In a vulture culture, we talk about me or we don’t talk.
And this is ultimately why gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out “Matrimony [is] directed towards the service of others; if [it] contributes as well to personal salvation, it is through service to others that [it does] so” (#1534). Marriage is a sacrament of service because it makes me the primary servant to my spouse. Through marriage, I voluntarily bind myself to the service of my spouse before all others.
The Catholic understanding of marriage is radically at odds with American culture. The vulture culture asks, “Is my spouse doing a good job of serving me? Is my spouse helping me achieve my goals?” Orthodox Catholics ask, “Am I doing my job of loving service? Am I giving myself entirely to my spouse so that she has all she needs to become more perfect?”
How many heterosexuals get divorced because they know they aren’t serving their spouse well enough? In that sense, the homosexuals are right: homosexual marriage cannot threaten heterosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage in the Catholic sense is a concept that really doesn’t exist in America. It never has.
The great irony in the gay marriage/Ten Commandments fight lies precisely in the fact that non-Catholic Christians have no idea their position is self-contradictory. They haven’t thought it through.
Catholics separate the sins of coveting your neighbor’s wife and coveting your neighbor’s house. Coveting a person, that is, treating a person like an object, is a sin against the ninth commandment and entirely different from coveting someone else’s goods, the sin against the tenth commandment.
Contrast this to non-Catholic Christian theology where a person is treated as an object – the two different kinds of coveting are not distinguished. They both offend a single commandment, the tenth.
Likewise, when considering God, non-Catholic Christians concentrate on the means more than the end. They concentrate on separating the mis-use of words (taking God’s name in vain violates their second commandment) from the mis-use of things (using idols violates their third commandment). Catholics know all of these are offenses against the infinite majesty of God’s Persons, and condemn all such offenses in a single commandment, the second.
Protestant theology doesn’t really understand the difference between an object and a person. Catholic theology does. And that is why homosexual marriage is simply the next logical step on the road that redefines social justice.
Homosexual marriage will not only change our understanding of monogamy, as we have already seen, it will also change our understanding of social justice, but not in the way you might think.
Consider: lesbians are three times more likely to be alcoholic than non-lesbians (nearly half reported frequent drunkenness), and most pointed to money problems, not social acceptance, as the cause. Gays make up 80% of the both the AIDS and the syphilis cases in the US, their rate of syphilis is ten times that of the heterosexual population, and hepatitis-B transmits nearly nine times more efficiently than AIDS among homosexuals. 55% of homosexual men with ano-rectal complaints have gonorrhea, one-third have herpes simplex, 15% have chlamydia. Gays contract gonorrhea of the throat at a rate four times higher than heterosexuals. 91% of homosexual men have intestinal protozoa: the majority of shigella and amoeba infections among non-travelled immunocompetent patients are homosexuals. Indeed, one New York study found that every single such patient with giardiasis was homosexual. E. histolytica infection is a staggering twenty-seven times more prevalant in homosexuals. Not surprisingly, the most powerful predictor for both giardiasis and E. histolytica infection is homosexual behaviour. The list could go on, but you get the point.
Unsurprisingly, “monogamous” gays are as diseased as promiscuous gays: The American Journal of Public Health published a 1990 study that found, "Being in a monogamous gay relationship was associated with higher risk sex throughout the entire study." The AIDS article referred to above agreed: “monogamous” homosexuals were more likely to be infected, not less so.
So, this is the love homosexuals have for one another: my partner must give me pleasure until s/he dies from it. The principle is already enshrined in heterosexual law via legal contraception and legal abortion. Homosexuals want the same rights heterosexuals have to use their partner like Kleenex. Who can deny them?
Historically, society has regulated harmful activities, such as alcohol use, tobacco use and drug use. Prostitution, contraception, abortion and homosexual activity also used to be heavily regulated. After all, these activities tend to kill you and the rest of us have to pay your medical bills and take care of your widows and orphans. But the pursuit of sexual pleasure appears to hold a special place in the hearts of Americans. Apparently, we want to keep people from using alcohol, tobacco and drugs, but we want to encourage people to use people. Homosexuality, contraception, abortion, gay marriage, embryo screening, reality television shows: these are all social justice issues.
Social justice now means I have a right to use you. Use you until you die.
Can this be attitude be beaten? Yes. John Paul II has given us the answer. Learn to speak the Theology of the Body . It is the only coherent way to explain to our separated brethren and our pagan friends that people are not objects. Properly used, it speaks the language of every person’s heart, expressing what we each know. I am a person, I am important, and I am not to be used like an object for someone else’s pleasure or gain.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
The Facts of Life
Want to hear something strange? Not once, never in the history of mankind, has a fertilized egg ever implanted in a woman’s womb. Surprised? It’s true. Misunderstanding this single fact destroys the ability to think clearly about a host of issues, yet even medical doctors regularly mis-speak when they discuss it. There’s a reason for this.
When a woman’s ovary releases an egg, the clock starts ticking. That single cell has only one of two possible fates: disintegration or fertilization. On average, the ovum disintegrates in about twelve hours; it certainly doesn’t last much more than twenty-four. The Fallopian tubes, the egg’s highway to the womb, are about six to eight inches long. The egg will disintegrate before it travels more than a third of the distance. Unless, of course, it meets a spermatozoon.
Since sperm have flagella, they move quite a lot faster than eggs. If they can make it to the egg before it disintegrates, the egg will be fertilized. Keep in mind what this means. As soon as the egg is fertilized, it meshes the new DNA into its own and starts using the new information immediately. That is, the fertilized egg almost immediately begins to divide.
Now, according to every embryology text in the world, as soon as a fertilized egg begins to divide, it is no longer a fertilized egg, she is an embryo. She will remain an embryo until about the end of the eighth week, when she is old enough and mature enough to be called a fetus. Yet even with that first cell division, the cells within the embryo are organizing themselves. As the embryonic child travels down the Fallopian tube, she is constantly growing, dividing, creating and organizing more and more cells within herself, getting everything ready to prepare for implantation in the womb.
Unlike fertilization, which is the work of a moment or two, it takes days for implantation to occur. The embryo typically makes it into the womb about four days after fertilization; the growth necessary to complete implantation won’t finish until roughly day ten. Like God in Genesis, it takes the embryo six days to create the right conditions and get everything in the womb arranged as it needs to be.
The moral of the story? No egg, fertilized or not, ever makes it to the womb. Not ever. Only embryos enter the womb because only an embryo can implant in the womb. A fertilized egg can’t implant. Even the pagans at the local IVF clinic recognize this. After the lab technicians conceive a child, they wait until the embryo is ready before they attempt implantation.
And herein lies the irony. The same people who deny the existence of the child in the womb or in the petri dish likewise can’t seem to keep their medical terminology straight. Back in the early 1980’s, researchers who had both the curiosity and the moral scruples of a hyperactive three-year old wanted to tear little boys and girls into little pieces in order to see how they worked. But they knew that tearing apart embryos might get them into trouble with ethics committees. So, they simply invented a brand new term: pre-embryo.
“Pre-embryo” was the smokescreen term for an embryo prior to the fourteenth day of growth. By changing the name to “pre-embryo”, the researchers neatly got around the ethics panels who didn’t want anyone messing with “embryos.” They could IVF and tear up little kids all day long, and no one would yell. The American media, which supports slicing and dicing little boys and girls no matter what the reason, went along with it. So did many OB/GYNs who performed abortion on the side. They avoided violating their Hippocratic oath largely through never having taken the real thing.
Embryologists, the people whose life’s work is the study of very small children, were uniformly livid at the invention of the term. From their point of view, a bunch of nut-cases masquerading as medical professionals were perverting a solid century’s use of scientific terminology, the very terminology whose accurate definition was necessary for embryologists to do and discuss their own work. This was not acceptable. As a result of their protests, the term “pre-embryo” gradually fell out of favor, but the embryologists were never forgiven for their rashness in objecting to the politically correct takeover. From 1973 through to the present day, embryologists have never been consulted by any American court as it considers issues of human embryology, such as contraception and abortion, nor have embryologists been invited to sit on any of the major ethical boards that have discussed embryonic stem cell research, IVF embryology or abortion technology like the morning after pill. Their views are not welcome.
And what are the views of honest embryologists? Well, honest embryologists note how the people who used to promote talk about “pre-embryos” are the same medical idiots who now consistently mis-use the phrase “fertilized egg.” Honest embryologists point out that embryonic stem cell research has never healed a single disease, while morally acceptable adult stem cell research has already healed dozens of diseases.
A good embryologist points out that every attempt to treat diseases in real people using stem cells from embryos has met with failure, often catastrophic failure. Embryonic stem cells injected into the brains of Parkinson’s patients, for instance, make the symptoms radically worse. Autopsies of test subjects, both animals and people, who had embryonic cell injections reveal that these embryonic cells often begin to grow into fetal body parts inside the skull. This is fairly typical.
Honest embryologists point out that anyone can get perfectly good embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood: hundreds of children are delivered in maternity wards each day in America. All we have to do to get hundreds of unique, clean, usable embryonic cell lines is ask for the umbilical cords after each delivery. That’s it. Oddly, researchers argue that they should be able to dissect children left over from IVF treatment because “the embryos will just be thrown away”, yet they have never extended the principle to umbilical cords, even though the stem cells from umbilical cords are actual useful in treating disease, whereas the stem cells obtained from dissecting IVF embryos are not.
Honest embryologists point to the fact that both cord blood and adult stem cells are actually being used to treat dozens of different diseases, from cancer to diabetes, right now, and have been for several years. They ask why certain scientists pretend embryonic stem cells are useful when both moral theory and repeated hard experience shows these cells are trash when it comes to treatment. They ask why these same people pretend adult and cord blood stem cells are barely useable when, in fact, adult and cord blood stem cells have provided the only cures that stem cell therapy can claim. Not one person on either side of the debate argues that this will change anytime soon.
But worst of all, anyone who listens to an honest embryologist might discover that embryonic stem cell researchers tears apart very small boys and girls for one damned reason: it’s one hell of a lot of fun to rip apart small children.
That, in a nutshell, is why the media never interviews embryologists. We can’t let medical professionals use that kind of language in front of children.
When a woman’s ovary releases an egg, the clock starts ticking. That single cell has only one of two possible fates: disintegration or fertilization. On average, the ovum disintegrates in about twelve hours; it certainly doesn’t last much more than twenty-four. The Fallopian tubes, the egg’s highway to the womb, are about six to eight inches long. The egg will disintegrate before it travels more than a third of the distance. Unless, of course, it meets a spermatozoon.
Since sperm have flagella, they move quite a lot faster than eggs. If they can make it to the egg before it disintegrates, the egg will be fertilized. Keep in mind what this means. As soon as the egg is fertilized, it meshes the new DNA into its own and starts using the new information immediately. That is, the fertilized egg almost immediately begins to divide.
Now, according to every embryology text in the world, as soon as a fertilized egg begins to divide, it is no longer a fertilized egg, she is an embryo. She will remain an embryo until about the end of the eighth week, when she is old enough and mature enough to be called a fetus. Yet even with that first cell division, the cells within the embryo are organizing themselves. As the embryonic child travels down the Fallopian tube, she is constantly growing, dividing, creating and organizing more and more cells within herself, getting everything ready to prepare for implantation in the womb.
Unlike fertilization, which is the work of a moment or two, it takes days for implantation to occur. The embryo typically makes it into the womb about four days after fertilization; the growth necessary to complete implantation won’t finish until roughly day ten. Like God in Genesis, it takes the embryo six days to create the right conditions and get everything in the womb arranged as it needs to be.
The moral of the story? No egg, fertilized or not, ever makes it to the womb. Not ever. Only embryos enter the womb because only an embryo can implant in the womb. A fertilized egg can’t implant. Even the pagans at the local IVF clinic recognize this. After the lab technicians conceive a child, they wait until the embryo is ready before they attempt implantation.
And herein lies the irony. The same people who deny the existence of the child in the womb or in the petri dish likewise can’t seem to keep their medical terminology straight. Back in the early 1980’s, researchers who had both the curiosity and the moral scruples of a hyperactive three-year old wanted to tear little boys and girls into little pieces in order to see how they worked. But they knew that tearing apart embryos might get them into trouble with ethics committees. So, they simply invented a brand new term: pre-embryo.
“Pre-embryo” was the smokescreen term for an embryo prior to the fourteenth day of growth. By changing the name to “pre-embryo”, the researchers neatly got around the ethics panels who didn’t want anyone messing with “embryos.” They could IVF and tear up little kids all day long, and no one would yell. The American media, which supports slicing and dicing little boys and girls no matter what the reason, went along with it. So did many OB/GYNs who performed abortion on the side. They avoided violating their Hippocratic oath largely through never having taken the real thing.
Embryologists, the people whose life’s work is the study of very small children, were uniformly livid at the invention of the term. From their point of view, a bunch of nut-cases masquerading as medical professionals were perverting a solid century’s use of scientific terminology, the very terminology whose accurate definition was necessary for embryologists to do and discuss their own work. This was not acceptable. As a result of their protests, the term “pre-embryo” gradually fell out of favor, but the embryologists were never forgiven for their rashness in objecting to the politically correct takeover. From 1973 through to the present day, embryologists have never been consulted by any American court as it considers issues of human embryology, such as contraception and abortion, nor have embryologists been invited to sit on any of the major ethical boards that have discussed embryonic stem cell research, IVF embryology or abortion technology like the morning after pill. Their views are not welcome.
And what are the views of honest embryologists? Well, honest embryologists note how the people who used to promote talk about “pre-embryos” are the same medical idiots who now consistently mis-use the phrase “fertilized egg.” Honest embryologists point out that embryonic stem cell research has never healed a single disease, while morally acceptable adult stem cell research has already healed dozens of diseases.
A good embryologist points out that every attempt to treat diseases in real people using stem cells from embryos has met with failure, often catastrophic failure. Embryonic stem cells injected into the brains of Parkinson’s patients, for instance, make the symptoms radically worse. Autopsies of test subjects, both animals and people, who had embryonic cell injections reveal that these embryonic cells often begin to grow into fetal body parts inside the skull. This is fairly typical.
Honest embryologists point out that anyone can get perfectly good embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood: hundreds of children are delivered in maternity wards each day in America. All we have to do to get hundreds of unique, clean, usable embryonic cell lines is ask for the umbilical cords after each delivery. That’s it. Oddly, researchers argue that they should be able to dissect children left over from IVF treatment because “the embryos will just be thrown away”, yet they have never extended the principle to umbilical cords, even though the stem cells from umbilical cords are actual useful in treating disease, whereas the stem cells obtained from dissecting IVF embryos are not.
Honest embryologists point to the fact that both cord blood and adult stem cells are actually being used to treat dozens of different diseases, from cancer to diabetes, right now, and have been for several years. They ask why certain scientists pretend embryonic stem cells are useful when both moral theory and repeated hard experience shows these cells are trash when it comes to treatment. They ask why these same people pretend adult and cord blood stem cells are barely useable when, in fact, adult and cord blood stem cells have provided the only cures that stem cell therapy can claim. Not one person on either side of the debate argues that this will change anytime soon.
But worst of all, anyone who listens to an honest embryologist might discover that embryonic stem cell researchers tears apart very small boys and girls for one damned reason: it’s one hell of a lot of fun to rip apart small children.
That, in a nutshell, is why the media never interviews embryologists. We can’t let medical professionals use that kind of language in front of children.
The Facts of Life
Want to hear something strange? Not once, never in the history of mankind, has a fertilized egg ever implanted in a woman’s womb. Surprised? It’s true. Misunderstanding this single fact destroys the ability to think clearly about a host of issues, yet even medical doctors regularly mis-speak when they discuss it. There’s a reason for this.
When a woman’s ovary releases an egg, the clock starts ticking. That single cell has only one of two possible fates: disintegration or fertilization. On average, the ovum disintegrates in about twelve hours; it certainly doesn’t last much more than twenty-four. The Fallopian tubes, the egg’s highway to the womb, are about six to eight inches long. The egg will disintegrate before it travels more than a third of the distance. Unless, of course, it meets a spermatozoon.
Since sperm have flagella, they move quite a lot faster than eggs. If they can make it to the egg before it disintegrates, the egg will be fertilized. Keep in mind what this means. As soon as the egg is fertilized, it meshes the new DNA into its own and starts using the new information immediately. That is, the fertilized egg almost immediately begins to divide.
Now, according to every embryology text in the world, as soon as a fertilized egg begins to divide, it is no longer a fertilized egg, she is an embryo. She will remain an embryo until about the end of the eighth week, when she is old enough and mature enough to be called a fetus. Yet even with that first cell division, the cells within the embryo are organizing themselves. As the embryonic child travels down the Fallopian tube, she is constantly growing, dividing, creating and organizing more and more cells within herself, getting everything ready to prepare for implantation in the womb.
Unlike fertilization, which is the work of a moment or two, it takes days for implantation to occur. The embryo typically makes it into the womb about four days after fertilization; the growth necessary to complete implantation won’t finish until roughly day ten. Like God in Genesis, it takes the embryo six days to create the right conditions and get everything in the womb arranged as it needs to be.
The moral of the story? No egg, fertilized or not, ever makes it to the womb. Not ever. Only embryos enter the womb because only an embryo can implant in the womb. A fertilized egg can’t implant. Even the pagans at the local IVF clinic recognize this. After the lab technicians conceive a child, they wait until the embryo is ready before they attempt implantation.
And herein lies the irony. The same people who deny the existence of the child in the womb or in the petri dish likewise can’t seem to keep their medical terminology straight. Back in the early 1980’s, researchers who had both the curiosity and the moral scruples of a hyperactive three-year old wanted to tear little boys and girls into little pieces in order to see how they worked. But they knew that tearing apart embryos might get them into trouble with ethics committees. So, they simply invented a brand new term: pre-embryo.
“Pre-embryo” was the smokescreen term for an embryo prior to the fourteenth day of growth. By changing the name to “pre-embryo”, the researchers neatly got around the ethics panels who didn’t want anyone messing with “embryos.” They could IVF and tear up little kids all day long, and no one would yell. The American media, which supports slicing and dicing little boys and girls no matter what the reason, went along with it. So did many OB/GYNs who performed abortion on the side. They avoided violating their Hippocratic oath largely through never having taken the real thing.
Embryologists, the people whose life’s work is the study of very small children, were uniformly livid at the invention of the term. From their point of view, a bunch of nut-cases masquerading as medical professionals were perverting a solid century’s use of scientific terminology, the very terminology whose accurate definition was necessary for embryologists to do and discuss their own work. This was not acceptable. As a result of their protests, the term “pre-embryo” gradually fell out of favor, but the embryologists were never forgiven for their rashness in objecting to the politically correct takeover. From 1973 through to the present day, embryologists have never been consulted by any American court as it considers issues of human embryology, such as contraception and abortion, nor have embryologists been invited to sit on any of the major ethical boards that have discussed embryonic stem cell research, IVF embryology or abortion technology like the morning after pill. Their views are not welcome. (link in this http://www.all.org/abac/ab020326.htm)
And what are the views of honest embryologists? Well, honest embryologists note how the people who used to promote talk about “pre-embryos” are the same medical idiots who now consistently mis-use the phrase “fertilized egg.” Honest embryologists point out that embryonic stem cell research has never healed a single disease, while morally acceptable adult stem cell research has already healed dozens of diseases.
A good embryologist points out that every attempt to treat diseases in real people using stem cells from embryos has met with failure, often catastrophic failure. Embryonic stem cells injected into the brains of Parkinson’s patients, for instance, make the symptoms radically worse. Autopsies of test subjects, both animals and people, who had embryonic cell injections reveal that these embryonic cells often begin to grow into fetal body parts inside the skull. This is fairly typical.
Honest embryologists point out that anyone can get perfectly good embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood: hundreds of children are delivered in maternity wards each day in America. All we have to do to get hundreds of unique, clean, usable embryonic cell lines is ask for the umbilical cords after each delivery. That’s it. Oddly, researchers argue that they should be able to dissect children left over from IVF treatment because “the embryos will just be thrown away”, yet they have never extended the principle to umbilical cords, even though the stem cells from umbilical cords are actual useful in treating disease, whereas the stem cells obtained from dissecting IVF embryos are not.
Honest embryologists point to the fact that both cord blood and adult stem cells are actually being used to treat dozens of different diseases, from cancer to diabetes, right now, and have been for several years. They ask why certain scientists pretend embryonic stem cells are useful when both moral theory and repeated hard experience shows these cells are trash when it comes to treatment. They ask why these same people pretend adult and cord blood stem cells are barely useable when, in fact, adult and cord blood stem cells have provided the only cures that stem cell therapy can claim. Not one person on either side of the debate argues that this will change anytime soon.
But worst of all, anyone who listens to an honest embryologist might discover that embryonic stem cell researchers tears apart very small boys and girls for one damned reason: it’s one hell of a lot of fun to rip apart small children.
That, in a nutshell, is why the media never interviews embryologists. We can’t let medical professionals use that kind of language in front of children.
When a woman’s ovary releases an egg, the clock starts ticking. That single cell has only one of two possible fates: disintegration or fertilization. On average, the ovum disintegrates in about twelve hours; it certainly doesn’t last much more than twenty-four. The Fallopian tubes, the egg’s highway to the womb, are about six to eight inches long. The egg will disintegrate before it travels more than a third of the distance. Unless, of course, it meets a spermatozoon.
Since sperm have flagella, they move quite a lot faster than eggs. If they can make it to the egg before it disintegrates, the egg will be fertilized. Keep in mind what this means. As soon as the egg is fertilized, it meshes the new DNA into its own and starts using the new information immediately. That is, the fertilized egg almost immediately begins to divide.
Now, according to every embryology text in the world, as soon as a fertilized egg begins to divide, it is no longer a fertilized egg, she is an embryo. She will remain an embryo until about the end of the eighth week, when she is old enough and mature enough to be called a fetus. Yet even with that first cell division, the cells within the embryo are organizing themselves. As the embryonic child travels down the Fallopian tube, she is constantly growing, dividing, creating and organizing more and more cells within herself, getting everything ready to prepare for implantation in the womb.
Unlike fertilization, which is the work of a moment or two, it takes days for implantation to occur. The embryo typically makes it into the womb about four days after fertilization; the growth necessary to complete implantation won’t finish until roughly day ten. Like God in Genesis, it takes the embryo six days to create the right conditions and get everything in the womb arranged as it needs to be.
The moral of the story? No egg, fertilized or not, ever makes it to the womb. Not ever. Only embryos enter the womb because only an embryo can implant in the womb. A fertilized egg can’t implant. Even the pagans at the local IVF clinic recognize this. After the lab technicians conceive a child, they wait until the embryo is ready before they attempt implantation.
And herein lies the irony. The same people who deny the existence of the child in the womb or in the petri dish likewise can’t seem to keep their medical terminology straight. Back in the early 1980’s, researchers who had both the curiosity and the moral scruples of a hyperactive three-year old wanted to tear little boys and girls into little pieces in order to see how they worked. But they knew that tearing apart embryos might get them into trouble with ethics committees. So, they simply invented a brand new term: pre-embryo.
“Pre-embryo” was the smokescreen term for an embryo prior to the fourteenth day of growth. By changing the name to “pre-embryo”, the researchers neatly got around the ethics panels who didn’t want anyone messing with “embryos.” They could IVF and tear up little kids all day long, and no one would yell. The American media, which supports slicing and dicing little boys and girls no matter what the reason, went along with it. So did many OB/GYNs who performed abortion on the side. They avoided violating their Hippocratic oath largely through never having taken the real thing.
Embryologists, the people whose life’s work is the study of very small children, were uniformly livid at the invention of the term. From their point of view, a bunch of nut-cases masquerading as medical professionals were perverting a solid century’s use of scientific terminology, the very terminology whose accurate definition was necessary for embryologists to do and discuss their own work. This was not acceptable. As a result of their protests, the term “pre-embryo” gradually fell out of favor, but the embryologists were never forgiven for their rashness in objecting to the politically correct takeover. From 1973 through to the present day, embryologists have never been consulted by any American court as it considers issues of human embryology, such as contraception and abortion, nor have embryologists been invited to sit on any of the major ethical boards that have discussed embryonic stem cell research, IVF embryology or abortion technology like the morning after pill. Their views are not welcome. (link in this http://www.all.org/abac/ab020326.htm)
And what are the views of honest embryologists? Well, honest embryologists note how the people who used to promote talk about “pre-embryos” are the same medical idiots who now consistently mis-use the phrase “fertilized egg.” Honest embryologists point out that embryonic stem cell research has never healed a single disease, while morally acceptable adult stem cell research has already healed dozens of diseases.
A good embryologist points out that every attempt to treat diseases in real people using stem cells from embryos has met with failure, often catastrophic failure. Embryonic stem cells injected into the brains of Parkinson’s patients, for instance, make the symptoms radically worse. Autopsies of test subjects, both animals and people, who had embryonic cell injections reveal that these embryonic cells often begin to grow into fetal body parts inside the skull. This is fairly typical.
Honest embryologists point out that anyone can get perfectly good embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood: hundreds of children are delivered in maternity wards each day in America. All we have to do to get hundreds of unique, clean, usable embryonic cell lines is ask for the umbilical cords after each delivery. That’s it. Oddly, researchers argue that they should be able to dissect children left over from IVF treatment because “the embryos will just be thrown away”, yet they have never extended the principle to umbilical cords, even though the stem cells from umbilical cords are actual useful in treating disease, whereas the stem cells obtained from dissecting IVF embryos are not.
Honest embryologists point to the fact that both cord blood and adult stem cells are actually being used to treat dozens of different diseases, from cancer to diabetes, right now, and have been for several years. They ask why certain scientists pretend embryonic stem cells are useful when both moral theory and repeated hard experience shows these cells are trash when it comes to treatment. They ask why these same people pretend adult and cord blood stem cells are barely useable when, in fact, adult and cord blood stem cells have provided the only cures that stem cell therapy can claim. Not one person on either side of the debate argues that this will change anytime soon.
But worst of all, anyone who listens to an honest embryologist might discover that embryonic stem cell researchers tears apart very small boys and girls for one damned reason: it’s one hell of a lot of fun to rip apart small children.
That, in a nutshell, is why the media never interviews embryologists. We can’t let medical professionals use that kind of language in front of children.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Pain: Da Vinci’s Code versus The Passion
“What kind of God would want that kind of pain inflicted on someone?” This is one of the central questions posed in Dan Brown’s bestselling novel, The Da Vinci Code. It is also the question posed by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Mr. Brown’s answer is simple: God, whoever he or she might be, does not want the scourging and Cross that Jesus embraces. Thus, Jesus cannot be God.
The idea is logical in a certain sense. It demonstrates an understanding that pain is evil. But it also demonstrates a failure to understand why pain is evil, or how pain is evil. Mel Gibson understands the answers to these questions, his secular critics, critics who embraced The Da Vinci Code, do not. And that, as the poet says, makes all the difference.
While pain is a natural evil, it is morally neutral. A natural evil is something that was not originally part of God’s design for the world. God created everything good. Pain, at least to the extent it is present today, is not part of God’s original design for the world.
Now, there is a difference between natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil is a result that man created for himself, it is not what God intends for man. Hurricanes, tornadoes, blindness, plague, physical or mental deformity: these are all natural evils. But wait: if man causes natural evils, and hurricanes are natural evils, am I saying men cause hurricanes? That’s absurd! How can that be? Well, we have to understand how the world works.
First, we have to understand that grace is power. It is the power that keeps the universe running harmoniously. God set mankind up as stewards who care for the world. God sends grace into the world. We are supposed to direct this grace, this power so as to help all creation bring greater glory to God.
Man has two choices. He can accept the grace God sends new every morning, or he can reject it. If mankind rejects grace, then the world does not have the power needed to work harmoniously. We are all acquainted with machinery that breaks when it is run with insufficient power. The world is exactly that kind of machine. When we choose to reject the power of grace, the world inevitably fractures. Natural evils such as those listed above are some of the fractures.
As stated above, there is a difference between moral good/evil and natural good/evil. Morality refers to the consequences that are visited on persons. A morally good act fills a person with grace. A morally evil act strips grace away from that person. Each person can only affect his own state of grace. I cannot strip grace from you, nor can you strip grace from me. Conversely, I cannot add grace to you, nor can you add grace to me.
A natural good or natural evil refers to a created thing that is not a person. If a created thing is working the way God intended it to work, it is a natural good. If it is not working the way God intended it to work, it is a natural evil. Natural goods and natural evils also have no direct effects on persons. A natural good will not add grace to a person, nor will a natural evil remove grace from a person.
However, when created things work the way they are supposed to, we generally find it easier to act in a morally good way. When created things do not work the way they are supposed to, that is, when we encounter a natural evil like plague or drought or physical deformity, we tend to find it more difficult to act in a morally good way.
Now, earlier we noted that no human person can add to or injure another person’s state of grace. However, we can each add to or strip away the grace in a situation. This is a poor example, but it will have to do: suppose I see you sitting in front of a malfunctioning computer. I fix the computer. I have “graced” that situation, because I have turned a natural evil (your broken computer) into a natural good through the skills that grace has bestowed on me. As a result, your ability to retain the grace you have is much improved.
On the other hand, if you were sitting in front of a working computer and I harmed it or harmed you (perhaps blinding you with acid), I have used the skills given me by grace in order to strip away grace from the natural objects around you. Now you are forced to deal with natural evils, a situation that shouldn’t be the way it is. As a result, you are much less likely to be able to hold onto your own grace. For my part, I have misused the grace within me, and I am now emptied of it. Grace is power precisely because it is the presence of God, and God will not abide in one who does evil.
How we respond to the natural goods and evils we meet every day influences how we decide to cooperate with the grace that dwells within us. The idea is this: no matter what comes our way, we will choose to cooperate with the power of grace within us, we will not choose to empty ourselves of it in despair.
When we take something good and grace-filled – the human act of sex, for instance – and intentionally empty it of grace, we simultaneously empty ourselves of grace. But God sends grace new every morning. When we use the grace He sends to fill and thereby heal a situation that lacks grace, the very act can open us up so that God can fill us with even more grace if He chooses.
God is the source of grace. We experience pain because the world is short on grace. If the world is the road to heaven, pain is one of the potholes, a possible impediment to reaching our destination if we hit it with the wrong attitude and/or use it wrong. However, if at the moment we encounter pain, we remain open to the God Who is the source of grace, we become a pipeline. If we cooperate with the grace He places within us, He can use us as instruments to fill the potholes in the road. The world’s pain is lessened. Not only do we find ourselves on the road to heaven, but we have also helped make the road smoother for others to follow. Thus, like an athlete training for a marathon, a Christian can say “pain is good” only in reference to the pain he himself endures as part of the work he does with God as God goes about healing the world.
Dan Brown doesn’t understand any of this. All he sees is the pain of the Cross. He doesn’t understand that one man chose to stand still in the middle of our desert of pain. One man stood tall in the thrashing, fractured world, stood still and absorbed into Himself all the pain the world could deal out, all so that the grace, the power, necessary to heal the world could pour in through Him like water through a pipe, like water to a dry desert, to heal a dying world.
This column is a slightly adapted chapter from Fact and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, available through Bridegroom Press.
The idea is logical in a certain sense. It demonstrates an understanding that pain is evil. But it also demonstrates a failure to understand why pain is evil, or how pain is evil. Mel Gibson understands the answers to these questions, his secular critics, critics who embraced The Da Vinci Code, do not. And that, as the poet says, makes all the difference.
While pain is a natural evil, it is morally neutral. A natural evil is something that was not originally part of God’s design for the world. God created everything good. Pain, at least to the extent it is present today, is not part of God’s original design for the world.
Now, there is a difference between natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil is a result that man created for himself, it is not what God intends for man. Hurricanes, tornadoes, blindness, plague, physical or mental deformity: these are all natural evils. But wait: if man causes natural evils, and hurricanes are natural evils, am I saying men cause hurricanes? That’s absurd! How can that be? Well, we have to understand how the world works.
First, we have to understand that grace is power. It is the power that keeps the universe running harmoniously. God set mankind up as stewards who care for the world. God sends grace into the world. We are supposed to direct this grace, this power so as to help all creation bring greater glory to God.
Man has two choices. He can accept the grace God sends new every morning, or he can reject it. If mankind rejects grace, then the world does not have the power needed to work harmoniously. We are all acquainted with machinery that breaks when it is run with insufficient power. The world is exactly that kind of machine. When we choose to reject the power of grace, the world inevitably fractures. Natural evils such as those listed above are some of the fractures.
As stated above, there is a difference between moral good/evil and natural good/evil. Morality refers to the consequences that are visited on persons. A morally good act fills a person with grace. A morally evil act strips grace away from that person. Each person can only affect his own state of grace. I cannot strip grace from you, nor can you strip grace from me. Conversely, I cannot add grace to you, nor can you add grace to me.
A natural good or natural evil refers to a created thing that is not a person. If a created thing is working the way God intended it to work, it is a natural good. If it is not working the way God intended it to work, it is a natural evil. Natural goods and natural evils also have no direct effects on persons. A natural good will not add grace to a person, nor will a natural evil remove grace from a person.
However, when created things work the way they are supposed to, we generally find it easier to act in a morally good way. When created things do not work the way they are supposed to, that is, when we encounter a natural evil like plague or drought or physical deformity, we tend to find it more difficult to act in a morally good way.
Now, earlier we noted that no human person can add to or injure another person’s state of grace. However, we can each add to or strip away the grace in a situation. This is a poor example, but it will have to do: suppose I see you sitting in front of a malfunctioning computer. I fix the computer. I have “graced” that situation, because I have turned a natural evil (your broken computer) into a natural good through the skills that grace has bestowed on me. As a result, your ability to retain the grace you have is much improved.
On the other hand, if you were sitting in front of a working computer and I harmed it or harmed you (perhaps blinding you with acid), I have used the skills given me by grace in order to strip away grace from the natural objects around you. Now you are forced to deal with natural evils, a situation that shouldn’t be the way it is. As a result, you are much less likely to be able to hold onto your own grace. For my part, I have misused the grace within me, and I am now emptied of it. Grace is power precisely because it is the presence of God, and God will not abide in one who does evil.
How we respond to the natural goods and evils we meet every day influences how we decide to cooperate with the grace that dwells within us. The idea is this: no matter what comes our way, we will choose to cooperate with the power of grace within us, we will not choose to empty ourselves of it in despair.
When we take something good and grace-filled – the human act of sex, for instance – and intentionally empty it of grace, we simultaneously empty ourselves of grace. But God sends grace new every morning. When we use the grace He sends to fill and thereby heal a situation that lacks grace, the very act can open us up so that God can fill us with even more grace if He chooses.
God is the source of grace. We experience pain because the world is short on grace. If the world is the road to heaven, pain is one of the potholes, a possible impediment to reaching our destination if we hit it with the wrong attitude and/or use it wrong. However, if at the moment we encounter pain, we remain open to the God Who is the source of grace, we become a pipeline. If we cooperate with the grace He places within us, He can use us as instruments to fill the potholes in the road. The world’s pain is lessened. Not only do we find ourselves on the road to heaven, but we have also helped make the road smoother for others to follow. Thus, like an athlete training for a marathon, a Christian can say “pain is good” only in reference to the pain he himself endures as part of the work he does with God as God goes about healing the world.
Dan Brown doesn’t understand any of this. All he sees is the pain of the Cross. He doesn’t understand that one man chose to stand still in the middle of our desert of pain. One man stood tall in the thrashing, fractured world, stood still and absorbed into Himself all the pain the world could deal out, all so that the grace, the power, necessary to heal the world could pour in through Him like water through a pipe, like water to a dry desert, to heal a dying world.
This column is a slightly adapted chapter from Fact and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, available through Bridegroom Press.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
The Anti-Semites
We have all heard the charges. Mel Gibson’s movie is anti-Semitic, as are the Gospels he drew from. Never mind that Gibson specifically showed several Jewish leaders protest Jesus’ unfair trial. Ignore the fact that Mr. Gibson wove together Jesus’ discourse “I lay my life down. No one takes it from me” with clips of the Jewish elders precisely to demonstrate that no one could have harmed Jesus if He had not permitted it. Ignore too, that Mr. Gibson made a point of dressing Joseph of Arimethea as a Jewish leader when he placed him at the foot of the Cross as Jesus body was taken down. Close your eyes to the piercing gaze Mary gave each one of us as we gazed upon what we had done to her Son.
Let us throw all of this to the winds. We will not dwell on the fact that this movie was about the Jew who saved the universe, instead, we will grant every assertion of anti-Semitism without a fight.
There. Don’t you feel better? Now that we know what anti-Semitism is, we must all stand up and condemn anti-Semitism wherever we find it. When we consider anti-Semitism according to these most excellent new rules, horror strikes. A most notorious book, a work of nearly pure anti-Semitism, has not yet been properly exposed for what it is.
This infamous book asserts that Jews are adulterers, thieves, murderers, harlots. Open the book up to any page: here is a story in which virtually an entire Jewish family tries to kill their own blood relative, there, an eyewitness tells us how Jews killed and ate their own children. It goes on in nauseating detail. The pages are filled with anti-Semitic stories of this kind.
But the authors of this book hold Jewish leaders out for special attack. They assert that the leaders of the Jews stole from the poor and the orphan, ground the widow under their heel, took bribes, lied, raped, enslaved: men were callously sold for the price of a pair of sandals. It lists the most horrific crimes, the most perfidious blood sport, and places them all at the feet of the Jews.
Now that we all know what true anti-Semitism is, we should turn with one voice and repudiate this book and its authors. But the situation is actually worse than I painted. You see, this is not just a single book, it is a whole series of books, a virtual travelling library of anti-Semitism. It is read regularly in synagogue every Sabbath. It is the best-selling book in the United States.
An old man named Moses wrote the first five volumes of it. This barbaric Moses person shows that the founder of the Jewish Faith was an adulterer, willing to send his consort and his illegitimate son to certain death just to keep his wife happy. A family with a son named Joseph sold him into slavery after their attempted murder failed. Moses personally saved Joseph’s descendants from slavery and death only to see them mock everything he had worked for when he came down the mountain. Moses is the first, but not the worst. Dare we even read the so-called “prophets”?
Nearly every one of the rabidly anti-Semitic “prophets” in this collection accused the Jews of the things listed above and worse besides. Book after sickening book in the “Bible” lists the crimes of the Israelites. Thank heavens the Mel Gibson controversy opened our eyes! Now we can clearly see that anti-Semitism has a long history. Given the kind of disgusting man Mr. Gibson is, he would probably blush to be compared with the authors of this book. Still, he undeniably has their vision of the world. His movie is the kind of nonsense you can expect from Adonai’s men.
If anyone were to write a book today that contained a tenth of the nasty statements made in the Law and the Prophets, what Christians call the Old Testament, the ACLU lawyers would go into shock while B’nai B’rith would have an epileptic fit. One can only guess what Andy Rooney would say, “I won’t waste nine dollars to get a few laughs out of a lousy book like the Torah,” he might opine, “That kind of violence and bloodshed is just mindless.” B’nai B’rith would immediately agree.
Historically, there has been one major difference between the Jews and all the rest of the nations of mankind. The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Germans, the French, the Americans, the Russians, we work hard to forget the perfidious cruelties, the blood-drenched evils our people have perpetrated on others and on ourselves. We like to believe we are all wonderful people. Inconvenient historical facts are ignored.
The Jews, on the other hand, turn the historical list of their own evils into Sacred Scripture. Why? Because the Jews are wiser than modern secular man. They know Scripture isn’t just about the evils – it is also about the heroic virtue displayed by the people of Israel, the incredible courage, the noble self-sacrifice, the enormous gift and burden of making all of humanity aware of the one God and His love for broken humanity.
Unlike other peoples, the Jews don’t just keep the history they like and throw the rest out. They are honest enough to keep both before their eyes constantly, so that they might do what Adonai commanded: we have before us the path of life and the path of death. He asked them, He asks us through them, to choose life, so that we and our children might live. To do any less is to betray the Faith.
So, let’s stop playing games and state the facts. A small group of evil men, Jews and goyim, killed a noble man, the Jew who saved the world. A small group of heroic men, all Jews, carried the news of this Jewish hero to the goyim. This is the constant story of the Torah: Jewish Joseph was nearly slaughtered but Jewish Joseph brought Adonai to Egypt. The nation of Israel was enslaved, but the Israelites brought Adonai to the desert people and the Promised Land. David committed adultery and murder, but King David brought Adonai to the nations.
The Gospels simply compress the millennia-long story of the Law and the Prophets into three short years, three years in which one man lives all the trials and the prophecies of Israel in His own body. He dies at the hands of his family, just as Joseph nearly did, but He brings Adonai to the world, for He is Adonai.
The New Testament and the Old Testament are both anti-Semitic by today’s standards precisely because they both celebrate the single mystery that only Jews have known and only Jews could bring unto us goyim: Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One, and He is to be loved with all our heart, all our soul, all our might. These words we are commanded to place upon our heart, and teach diligently to our children. We are to talk of them when we sit in our house and when we walk by the way, when we lie down, and when we rise up. The Jewish Saviour of the world bound it through His own hands and made it a crowned frontlet to his eyes, and so the Cross has become the doorpost of our house and of our gates.
This is The Passion of the Christ. It captures the whole of Jewish and Christian Scripture at a stroke. The whole world conspired together to kill Him, both goy and Jew, but when it came time to save that same world, only the Jews could manage it. Where sin abounds, grace abounds more. Where pagan goyim and apostate Jews conspire, faithful Jews overcome. As the strains of fascism swept pre-war Europe, Pius XI famously told a group of German Catholics that all Christians are spiritually Semites. He was right, of course, but he left unmentioned the choice that still remains: will we be Joseph? Or will we be his brothers?
Choose.
Let us throw all of this to the winds. We will not dwell on the fact that this movie was about the Jew who saved the universe, instead, we will grant every assertion of anti-Semitism without a fight.
There. Don’t you feel better? Now that we know what anti-Semitism is, we must all stand up and condemn anti-Semitism wherever we find it. When we consider anti-Semitism according to these most excellent new rules, horror strikes. A most notorious book, a work of nearly pure anti-Semitism, has not yet been properly exposed for what it is.
This infamous book asserts that Jews are adulterers, thieves, murderers, harlots. Open the book up to any page: here is a story in which virtually an entire Jewish family tries to kill their own blood relative, there, an eyewitness tells us how Jews killed and ate their own children. It goes on in nauseating detail. The pages are filled with anti-Semitic stories of this kind.
But the authors of this book hold Jewish leaders out for special attack. They assert that the leaders of the Jews stole from the poor and the orphan, ground the widow under their heel, took bribes, lied, raped, enslaved: men were callously sold for the price of a pair of sandals. It lists the most horrific crimes, the most perfidious blood sport, and places them all at the feet of the Jews.
Now that we all know what true anti-Semitism is, we should turn with one voice and repudiate this book and its authors. But the situation is actually worse than I painted. You see, this is not just a single book, it is a whole series of books, a virtual travelling library of anti-Semitism. It is read regularly in synagogue every Sabbath. It is the best-selling book in the United States.
An old man named Moses wrote the first five volumes of it. This barbaric Moses person shows that the founder of the Jewish Faith was an adulterer, willing to send his consort and his illegitimate son to certain death just to keep his wife happy. A family with a son named Joseph sold him into slavery after their attempted murder failed. Moses personally saved Joseph’s descendants from slavery and death only to see them mock everything he had worked for when he came down the mountain. Moses is the first, but not the worst. Dare we even read the so-called “prophets”?
Nearly every one of the rabidly anti-Semitic “prophets” in this collection accused the Jews of the things listed above and worse besides. Book after sickening book in the “Bible” lists the crimes of the Israelites. Thank heavens the Mel Gibson controversy opened our eyes! Now we can clearly see that anti-Semitism has a long history. Given the kind of disgusting man Mr. Gibson is, he would probably blush to be compared with the authors of this book. Still, he undeniably has their vision of the world. His movie is the kind of nonsense you can expect from Adonai’s men.
If anyone were to write a book today that contained a tenth of the nasty statements made in the Law and the Prophets, what Christians call the Old Testament, the ACLU lawyers would go into shock while B’nai B’rith would have an epileptic fit. One can only guess what Andy Rooney would say, “I won’t waste nine dollars to get a few laughs out of a lousy book like the Torah,” he might opine, “That kind of violence and bloodshed is just mindless.” B’nai B’rith would immediately agree.
Historically, there has been one major difference between the Jews and all the rest of the nations of mankind. The Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Germans, the French, the Americans, the Russians, we work hard to forget the perfidious cruelties, the blood-drenched evils our people have perpetrated on others and on ourselves. We like to believe we are all wonderful people. Inconvenient historical facts are ignored.
The Jews, on the other hand, turn the historical list of their own evils into Sacred Scripture. Why? Because the Jews are wiser than modern secular man. They know Scripture isn’t just about the evils – it is also about the heroic virtue displayed by the people of Israel, the incredible courage, the noble self-sacrifice, the enormous gift and burden of making all of humanity aware of the one God and His love for broken humanity.
Unlike other peoples, the Jews don’t just keep the history they like and throw the rest out. They are honest enough to keep both before their eyes constantly, so that they might do what Adonai commanded: we have before us the path of life and the path of death. He asked them, He asks us through them, to choose life, so that we and our children might live. To do any less is to betray the Faith.
So, let’s stop playing games and state the facts. A small group of evil men, Jews and goyim, killed a noble man, the Jew who saved the world. A small group of heroic men, all Jews, carried the news of this Jewish hero to the goyim. This is the constant story of the Torah: Jewish Joseph was nearly slaughtered but Jewish Joseph brought Adonai to Egypt. The nation of Israel was enslaved, but the Israelites brought Adonai to the desert people and the Promised Land. David committed adultery and murder, but King David brought Adonai to the nations.
The Gospels simply compress the millennia-long story of the Law and the Prophets into three short years, three years in which one man lives all the trials and the prophecies of Israel in His own body. He dies at the hands of his family, just as Joseph nearly did, but He brings Adonai to the world, for He is Adonai.
The New Testament and the Old Testament are both anti-Semitic by today’s standards precisely because they both celebrate the single mystery that only Jews have known and only Jews could bring unto us goyim: Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One, and He is to be loved with all our heart, all our soul, all our might. These words we are commanded to place upon our heart, and teach diligently to our children. We are to talk of them when we sit in our house and when we walk by the way, when we lie down, and when we rise up. The Jewish Saviour of the world bound it through His own hands and made it a crowned frontlet to his eyes, and so the Cross has become the doorpost of our house and of our gates.
This is The Passion of the Christ. It captures the whole of Jewish and Christian Scripture at a stroke. The whole world conspired together to kill Him, both goy and Jew, but when it came time to save that same world, only the Jews could manage it. Where sin abounds, grace abounds more. Where pagan goyim and apostate Jews conspire, faithful Jews overcome. As the strains of fascism swept pre-war Europe, Pius XI famously told a group of German Catholics that all Christians are spiritually Semites. He was right, of course, but he left unmentioned the choice that still remains: will we be Joseph? Or will we be his brothers?
Choose.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Solving the Education Problem: Part II
As many of you have noted, parish schools are virtually the only thing in many parishes that will bring adults out of their homes. For this reason, the parish school can be absolutely vital to adult formation.
You may think this an odd position for me to take, given what I’ve written so far. It isn’t. Successful adult formation is built on sales. As a friend of mine likes to say, “No need, no deal.” Gas can be twenty cents a gallon, but I won’t stop if I have a full tank. On the other hand, it may be twenty dollars a gallon, but I’ll fill up if it’s the only station in town.
Adults are driven by interest and by need. We are often not interested in learning the Faith but we will come when we have to. How does your parish get adults into formation sessions right now? That’s easy – nearly all parishes require six months of marriage formation. Nearly all parishes require one or more session of adult instruction in order to get a child baptized in the parish. The adults all come even though most of them hate it. Why? Because they want to get marred in the Church or they want that baptismal certificate and celebration. They’ll put up with the sessions. The price is worth the trade.
So, we use that principle and expand the concept. We all know the Sunday homily is not sufficient for adult formation. The popes have said this for roughly a century. It makes sense. Can you name any subject that you can master simply by listening to a 10-minute talk once a week? Neither can I. We need to demonstrate that the Catholic Church actually has useful things to say to adults.
Get the parents first
But first, we need bait to get them in. We have it: the parochial school. Most schools already require the parents to invest a certain amount of “volunteer” hours. Simply require some of those hours to be spent in weekly or bi-monthly adult formation session as a condition for their children’s attendance in the parochial school. Sure, some of the parents aren’t Catholic – so? They don’t have to convert. They just need to listen. This is informed parenting – the parish insists on making sure every parent knows what the school teaches. Run short session series: an hour or so a week for four weeks, with free baby-sitting (the eighth-graders can pitch in here), perhaps with a light dinner thrown in. Then they can take a break for four weeks. Keep in mind that some parents work split shift, so schedule accordingly.
Motivate the parents of younger children. Parents are supposed to be doing sacramental preparation, so the classes in kindergarten and first grade teach them how. When this first parent class hits second grade, close down the First Confession/First Eucharist component in the parochial school and the CCD. It’s the parents’ job from now on. For third grade and later, continue the sessions – now the parents have to prepare their children for confirmation, after all. If your parish is one of several in a big city, get other parishes on board, get the bishop behind the plan. Otherwise, parents as lazy as I am will flee to other schools in a wild attempt to avoid the coming responsibilities.
Now, sweeten the pot. Getting them in the door is a start, but we have to keep them coming back without rebellion. So, parents or parochial school teachers who attend a certain number of weekly formation sessions get a cut in tuition, a bonus, or cash payments/prizes. Maybe a local travel agency will donate a cruise, the local appliance store a refrigerator. Ask parents and teachers what they would like for prizes, and get those prizes. Make the sessions look and feel like an adult event. It should resemble what professional people see when they walk into a conference in their field of expertise - classy.
“But not all parents will do this!” the pastor exclaims. “I am responsible for seeing that those kids are prepared for the sacraments!” Not really, Father. The parents are responsible for that. They are the primary educators. Pastors need to get to the parents – without the parents, the kids will generally abandon the sacraments. Remember, priests assist the parents, not the other way around. Assistants often have to live with bosses who are impossible, as we all know. Does a priest take over another pastor’s parish when he dislikes what the pastor next door is doing? Parents are the priests of the domestic Church, the family is their parish. In the family, every priest is a visiting priest. When it comes to the children, treat the parents the same way you would treat a brother pastor. They are, you know. And they’ll respond well to that level of respect.
American Parish Idol
Pastors, you have an enormous resource staring you in the face. Homeschoolers are the best teachers and mentors you could ask for. They know the Faith, they know how to transmit it, and they know what it is like to be scared doing it, so they know how to deal with parental fears. Have them run your adult education classes, especially the sacramental prep sessions. Pay them.
In fact, pay professional speakers to come in on a regular basis. Most charge somewhere between $500 and $1000 for a talk, plus travel expenses. Put them up in the rectory and book travel well in advance to minimize costs. Forty weeks of that will cost forty to sixty thousand dollars, or the price of four parochial school teachers, and you get top-notch presentations. But only 20 adults show up! So? How many kids do you need to fill a grade school class? Why is this different?
Now, I could plug the speakers at places like Bridegroom Press, Catholic Exchange, Catholic Answers, St. Joseph’s Communications and the like, but there’s no need. A parish can generally roll its own speakers’ bureau. Set up a committee and have an audition night. Anyone who wants to speak on a topic can audition for a spot on the roster. Make it clear that you are paying several hundred dollars for a person to give a one-hour talk plus Q&A on any subject that touches on Catholic Faith, and people will come out of the woodwork.
Have the committee decide who makes the cut after a ten-minute sample presentation. Then have the full talk previewed and vetted for orthodoxy. For the first year, take anyone remotely good, have the audience vote, and invite popular speakers back for four-week or six-week series. It’s the parish version of American Idol. You might even use one of the many fund-raising cruise firms to put together a cruise for the parish, with popular parish speakers as the highlighters – they get a reduced price or free berth in exchange for talking on the cruise. That way, the cruise pays for the adult education and the educators have a prize to compete for all in the same boat, so to speak.
Once adults start seeing that the Catholic Church actually has useful things to say, form parish small groups around specific topics: men’s group, women’s group, health group, etc. Family groups should figure prominently. Families are supposed to band together to support one another. Start a group reading Familiaris Consortio or John Paul II’s Letter to Families. There are good study guides out for both, and I’ve never met a parent who studied either one and wasn’t delighted by them.
What to use for material?
Start a Catholicism 101 class and give out certificates of completion at the end. Do a series on Catholic-Protestant differences. A presentation on medieval and Renaissance artwork brings enormous numbers of people out – you can download pictures off the web and run an overhead to show them. Run the RCIA series slightly adapted for Catholic adults. Catholics who have been sponsors in orthodox RCIA programs love it: they’re finally getting the Faith at an adult level.
I will try to make available on my website the talk outlines I used when I was teaching RCIA. The first six weeks of that instruction is essentially found in my book Sex and the Sacred City, and it is written to be used for group study. As I get the opportunity, I will make available the class notes from the graduate theology courses I took. These notes will be free downloads. I’ll also set up a web discussion board at www.bridegroompress.com for blog readers to throw ideas around. Watch for it before the end of the month.
Other good resources to build a class around: Frank Sheed’s A Map of Life or Scott Hahn’s A Father Who Keeps His Promises. For Bible study, Jeff Cavin’s Great Adventure timeline is a good start. Both Emmaus Road and Ignatius Press puts out good Scripture studies, and the Navarre Bible study series is excellent. The Little Rock and Collegeville series are short on doctrine, but some people like them for the emotional support they provide.
Ask the adults in the parish what they want; maybe a series on stem cells or medical research or gay marriage or the problem of pain. A talk on annulments and divorce is almost always popular. Debunk The Da Vinci Code, discuss The Passion of the Christ, take your topics from the news media headlines and let the pagans do your advertising for you. Give Catholic adults a list to choose from, poll them, collect the forms along with the collection envelopes. Listen to them, answer their needs, and they will respond.
Advertise, talk to your friends and start your own group in your home or at the parish center. This is both the right and duty of lay Catholics, described in the documents of Vatican II, and we need to start living it. But most of all, pray. Gather a small group regularly in front of the Eucharist and ask God for assistance. He will send it.
You may think this an odd position for me to take, given what I’ve written so far. It isn’t. Successful adult formation is built on sales. As a friend of mine likes to say, “No need, no deal.” Gas can be twenty cents a gallon, but I won’t stop if I have a full tank. On the other hand, it may be twenty dollars a gallon, but I’ll fill up if it’s the only station in town.
Adults are driven by interest and by need. We are often not interested in learning the Faith but we will come when we have to. How does your parish get adults into formation sessions right now? That’s easy – nearly all parishes require six months of marriage formation. Nearly all parishes require one or more session of adult instruction in order to get a child baptized in the parish. The adults all come even though most of them hate it. Why? Because they want to get marred in the Church or they want that baptismal certificate and celebration. They’ll put up with the sessions. The price is worth the trade.
So, we use that principle and expand the concept. We all know the Sunday homily is not sufficient for adult formation. The popes have said this for roughly a century. It makes sense. Can you name any subject that you can master simply by listening to a 10-minute talk once a week? Neither can I. We need to demonstrate that the Catholic Church actually has useful things to say to adults.
Get the parents first
But first, we need bait to get them in. We have it: the parochial school. Most schools already require the parents to invest a certain amount of “volunteer” hours. Simply require some of those hours to be spent in weekly or bi-monthly adult formation session as a condition for their children’s attendance in the parochial school. Sure, some of the parents aren’t Catholic – so? They don’t have to convert. They just need to listen. This is informed parenting – the parish insists on making sure every parent knows what the school teaches. Run short session series: an hour or so a week for four weeks, with free baby-sitting (the eighth-graders can pitch in here), perhaps with a light dinner thrown in. Then they can take a break for four weeks. Keep in mind that some parents work split shift, so schedule accordingly.
Motivate the parents of younger children. Parents are supposed to be doing sacramental preparation, so the classes in kindergarten and first grade teach them how. When this first parent class hits second grade, close down the First Confession/First Eucharist component in the parochial school and the CCD. It’s the parents’ job from now on. For third grade and later, continue the sessions – now the parents have to prepare their children for confirmation, after all. If your parish is one of several in a big city, get other parishes on board, get the bishop behind the plan. Otherwise, parents as lazy as I am will flee to other schools in a wild attempt to avoid the coming responsibilities.
Now, sweeten the pot. Getting them in the door is a start, but we have to keep them coming back without rebellion. So, parents or parochial school teachers who attend a certain number of weekly formation sessions get a cut in tuition, a bonus, or cash payments/prizes. Maybe a local travel agency will donate a cruise, the local appliance store a refrigerator. Ask parents and teachers what they would like for prizes, and get those prizes. Make the sessions look and feel like an adult event. It should resemble what professional people see when they walk into a conference in their field of expertise - classy.
“But not all parents will do this!” the pastor exclaims. “I am responsible for seeing that those kids are prepared for the sacraments!” Not really, Father. The parents are responsible for that. They are the primary educators. Pastors need to get to the parents – without the parents, the kids will generally abandon the sacraments. Remember, priests assist the parents, not the other way around. Assistants often have to live with bosses who are impossible, as we all know. Does a priest take over another pastor’s parish when he dislikes what the pastor next door is doing? Parents are the priests of the domestic Church, the family is their parish. In the family, every priest is a visiting priest. When it comes to the children, treat the parents the same way you would treat a brother pastor. They are, you know. And they’ll respond well to that level of respect.
American Parish Idol
Pastors, you have an enormous resource staring you in the face. Homeschoolers are the best teachers and mentors you could ask for. They know the Faith, they know how to transmit it, and they know what it is like to be scared doing it, so they know how to deal with parental fears. Have them run your adult education classes, especially the sacramental prep sessions. Pay them.
In fact, pay professional speakers to come in on a regular basis. Most charge somewhere between $500 and $1000 for a talk, plus travel expenses. Put them up in the rectory and book travel well in advance to minimize costs. Forty weeks of that will cost forty to sixty thousand dollars, or the price of four parochial school teachers, and you get top-notch presentations. But only 20 adults show up! So? How many kids do you need to fill a grade school class? Why is this different?
Now, I could plug the speakers at places like Bridegroom Press, Catholic Exchange, Catholic Answers, St. Joseph’s Communications and the like, but there’s no need. A parish can generally roll its own speakers’ bureau. Set up a committee and have an audition night. Anyone who wants to speak on a topic can audition for a spot on the roster. Make it clear that you are paying several hundred dollars for a person to give a one-hour talk plus Q&A on any subject that touches on Catholic Faith, and people will come out of the woodwork.
Have the committee decide who makes the cut after a ten-minute sample presentation. Then have the full talk previewed and vetted for orthodoxy. For the first year, take anyone remotely good, have the audience vote, and invite popular speakers back for four-week or six-week series. It’s the parish version of American Idol. You might even use one of the many fund-raising cruise firms to put together a cruise for the parish, with popular parish speakers as the highlighters – they get a reduced price or free berth in exchange for talking on the cruise. That way, the cruise pays for the adult education and the educators have a prize to compete for all in the same boat, so to speak.
Once adults start seeing that the Catholic Church actually has useful things to say, form parish small groups around specific topics: men’s group, women’s group, health group, etc. Family groups should figure prominently. Families are supposed to band together to support one another. Start a group reading Familiaris Consortio or John Paul II’s Letter to Families. There are good study guides out for both, and I’ve never met a parent who studied either one and wasn’t delighted by them.
What to use for material?
Start a Catholicism 101 class and give out certificates of completion at the end. Do a series on Catholic-Protestant differences. A presentation on medieval and Renaissance artwork brings enormous numbers of people out – you can download pictures off the web and run an overhead to show them. Run the RCIA series slightly adapted for Catholic adults. Catholics who have been sponsors in orthodox RCIA programs love it: they’re finally getting the Faith at an adult level.
I will try to make available on my website the talk outlines I used when I was teaching RCIA. The first six weeks of that instruction is essentially found in my book Sex and the Sacred City, and it is written to be used for group study. As I get the opportunity, I will make available the class notes from the graduate theology courses I took. These notes will be free downloads. I’ll also set up a web discussion board at www.bridegroompress.com for blog readers to throw ideas around. Watch for it before the end of the month.
Other good resources to build a class around: Frank Sheed’s A Map of Life or Scott Hahn’s A Father Who Keeps His Promises. For Bible study, Jeff Cavin’s Great Adventure timeline is a good start. Both Emmaus Road and Ignatius Press puts out good Scripture studies, and the Navarre Bible study series is excellent. The Little Rock and Collegeville series are short on doctrine, but some people like them for the emotional support they provide.
Ask the adults in the parish what they want; maybe a series on stem cells or medical research or gay marriage or the problem of pain. A talk on annulments and divorce is almost always popular. Debunk The Da Vinci Code, discuss The Passion of the Christ, take your topics from the news media headlines and let the pagans do your advertising for you. Give Catholic adults a list to choose from, poll them, collect the forms along with the collection envelopes. Listen to them, answer their needs, and they will respond.
Advertise, talk to your friends and start your own group in your home or at the parish center. This is both the right and duty of lay Catholics, described in the documents of Vatican II, and we need to start living it. But most of all, pray. Gather a small group regularly in front of the Eucharist and ask God for assistance. He will send it.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Solving the Education Problem: Part I
For the last three weeks, we’ve looked at the problem of Catholic education. What must we, as parents, do in order to keep the Faith alive in our children?
At Home
First, don’t despair. God ordained us in the sacrament of marriage to deal with exactly this problem. We have the grace, we just have to figure out how to use it. Remember, the Magisterium doesn’t require us to do much actual formal instruction: we have to prepare our children for the sacraments and teach them common prayers. That’s it. You and I are under no obligation to homeschool in all subjects, or even to formally school our child beyond the areas just mentioned. If you want to do more formal schooling, that’s fine, but don’t let anyone bully you into thinking you have to. You don’t.
For at-home sacramental preparation, keep in mind that your child only needs three things to be properly prepared. (1) the child must know enough about the ritual to move through it successfully, (2) he must know how the sacrament changes him, and (3) he must desire that change.
That’s it. Really. The rest is just window-dressing to make the curriculum look imposing. So, for reconciliation, your child needs to know an act of confession and the prayers that will likely be assigned for penance: Hail Mary, Our Father, Glory Be. For the sacrament of Confirmation (which is an obligation, not a choice), know that it perfects the gifts of baptism and it empowers you to tell others all about Jesus. For Eucharist, know that the species is Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, present entirely in the host and present entirely in the cup, and be able to make a sign of reverence prior to receiving. Read John 6 with your child to show them why Eucharist is important. Make sure they know their Sunday obligation to attend Mass.
For all three, the child needs to be aware of the liturgy surrounding the sacrament, that is, he should know when absolution takes place, what words are used at confirmation, when consecration takes place and the two major parts of the Mass. Your seven-year old can master this and receive all three sacraments the same year, if you want. By the way, the decision on when to present your child for confirmation is yours, not the bishops’. He may set the time by which the child must be prepared (“must be ready by high school,” for instance), but you can present the child earlier (in second or third grade, for instance), if the child is prepared and you feel it is best for him. As long as the child is of the age of reason and prepared, confirmation cannot be denied solely on the basis of age.
Still concerned about sacramental preparation? Contact Catholic homeschooling parents in your area and tap them for advice. They’ve done it before, they’ve been just as scared as you, they’ll know how to help. The Pope encourages families to band together to accomplish things. It’s good advice.
For parents of grade/high school children
Your local parochial school or high school may be a very fine private school, even if it is not good at transmitting the Faith. There is nothing wrong with sending your children to a private school. Just remember that it is only a private school, despite the pleasant “C-word” in the title. As long as you (1) know this, (2) have an adult grasp of the Faith, and (3) are careful to correct the inevitable mistakes that good but misinformed people will make as they attempt to teach the Faith, you’re fine. Learn the Faith on an adult level, live it in front of your kids, and discuss the instructional problems frankly both with them and with their teachers. Honest teachers know they aren’t qualified – they’re doing the best they can, just like everyone else. They will appreciate support from home.
As the parent, you have both the right and the duty to decide what is best for your children in regards to schooling – no one else has the right to interfere, not even your pastor or bishop. You are the primary educator of your children, not them. Point this out to them if they start implying that you are a sinner for not sending your kids to “Catholic” school. If you think the local parish school is teaching too much heresy or is oozing with too much hypocrisy to be a safe environment for your child’s soul, pull them. On the other hand, if the public schools in your area pose an even greater threat to your child’s safety, by all means, keep them in the parish school. This is your decision, no one else’s.
If you choose to pull your children from the school, write the principal, copy the pastor and/or bishop. Do exactly the same thing the parents of college students are doing (see below). Describe in your letter exactly why you are pulling your children and exactly how much money the school will lose. Write a separate letter to the pastor and/or bishop asking them to show their solidarity with Catholic families by joining you in recommending to all Catholic families that these unfaithful schools be avoided.
If the pastor or bishop accuses you of harming community life, point out our Holy Father’s words, “As the family goes, so goes the nation, as the family goes, so goes the Church!” You build community by safeguarding your family. Pastors and bishops build community by supporting Catholic parents. They should appreciate your work, and encourage others to put family before parish school. To the extent that pastors do not encourage and support parents in this, they are the ones attacking the community, not you. Depending on how your state law is written, a pattern of heterodox teaching in the school might be grounds for malpractice and/or fraud lawsuits. This would not look good in the local papers (diocesan papers tend not to print this kind of thing, since the editors like their jobs). Although pastors don’t like to discuss it, they know this is a real possibility. Point out that you know it, too.
If you choose to keep your child in Catholic school, keep a close ear to the spiritual practices and the teachings. Get involved the minute heterodoxy is alleged. First, meet with the teacher. Children have a habit of mis-characterizing what teachers say, especially if the teachers are not well-liked. If that doesn’t resolve it, meet with the pastor and teacher together. If that doesn’t resolve it, bring it to the bishop’s attention. If this is likewise fruitless, you still have several options. You can appeal to the apostolic nuncio for the United States, you can sue the school for malpractice and fraud, or you can let the secular newspapers in on the conversation, or any combination thereof.
For parents of college students:
Here is a list of schools that require the mandatum . If you had considered a college or university, but had to reject it due to the lack of mandatum, then write the president of that university and copy the bishop of the diocese in which it resides. Point out to the president that you would have encouraged your children to go there, but faculty unwillingness to proclaim the Catholic Faith changed your mind. Take the university’s yearly tuition, multiply it by four and add 3% - that’s the minimum amount of money they lost from a faithful Catholic because of their unwillingness to be faithful. Point that out in the letter. All faithful Catholics are going elsewhere, along with their money.
This is a boycott. As people who advocate social justice, Catholic university presidents will certainly appreciate it why it is necessary. To be honest, more many bishops will be quietly cheering you on from the sidelines, even though their public face may be neutral. Encourage the president to join you in this boycott and tell all the Catholic parents they know to stay away from their school, just as you will inform all the Catholic parents you know to do the same. Write a separate letter to the bishop, urging him to warn Catholic families to avoid this university. According to the Magisterium, all segments of the Church are desirous of displaying solidarity with the Catholic family so you know they’ll be interested in assisting you spread the message.
Then write a letter to the president of the college you will be attending, thanking him for his school’s fidelity. Copy the bishop of his diocese and the bishops and presidents of the colleges you won’t be attending. We want to show them that we don’t just denigrate the negative, we actively embrace the positive, as good Catholics should.
And when you are considering places of higher education, don’t forget to check out secular schools with great Newman centers! Newman centers, like Catholic universities, are of varying quality, but some of them are absolutely stellar. One case in point is the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It is the largest, most active Newman Center in the country with one of the best college retreat programs in the nation. Its current director, Msgr. Stuart Swetlund, is renowned for his orthodoxy and vibrant ability to transmit the Faith. The Sisters of the Contemplative Life who assist there are marvelous at spiritual direction. Don’t be put off by their lack of habits. It is the only order of order of profoundly orthodox consecrated women I am aware of that was founded without a habit. There are other marvelous Newman Centers across the United States. Investigate them. Look for kneelers in the chapel, proper central placement of the tabernacle, and interrogate the pastor of the center about his position on abortion, contraception, women’s ordination, and the like. Look at their library. Investigate.
If the Newman Center isn’t orthodox, write the pastor, copy the bishop and copy the university president, telling them why you had to choose against their school. Point out to the university president that the bishop is always open to input about what kind of pastor best suits a particular environment. If a secular university president gets enough of those letters, he’ll write the bishop himself to ask for a new priest at the Newman Center. That’s the kind of thing that carries weight.
If your child is already in a heterodox university and the administration won’t respond, document instances of heterodox teaching or practice, then follow the methods outlined above. If you don’t get satisfaction, investigate the possibility of suing the school for malpractice and fraud, and make sure the suit is well-publicized. They want to be secular institutions – fine. We should give them the same respect any secular entity gets.
Be bold. Make a nuisance of yourself. Jesus did.
Next week, we’ll discuss how to address the adult formation problem in the parish. We’ll also provide some links to help you get the job done.
At Home
First, don’t despair. God ordained us in the sacrament of marriage to deal with exactly this problem. We have the grace, we just have to figure out how to use it. Remember, the Magisterium doesn’t require us to do much actual formal instruction: we have to prepare our children for the sacraments and teach them common prayers. That’s it. You and I are under no obligation to homeschool in all subjects, or even to formally school our child beyond the areas just mentioned. If you want to do more formal schooling, that’s fine, but don’t let anyone bully you into thinking you have to. You don’t.
For at-home sacramental preparation, keep in mind that your child only needs three things to be properly prepared. (1) the child must know enough about the ritual to move through it successfully, (2) he must know how the sacrament changes him, and (3) he must desire that change.
That’s it. Really. The rest is just window-dressing to make the curriculum look imposing. So, for reconciliation, your child needs to know an act of confession and the prayers that will likely be assigned for penance: Hail Mary, Our Father, Glory Be. For the sacrament of Confirmation (which is an obligation, not a choice), know that it perfects the gifts of baptism and it empowers you to tell others all about Jesus. For Eucharist, know that the species is Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, present entirely in the host and present entirely in the cup, and be able to make a sign of reverence prior to receiving. Read John 6 with your child to show them why Eucharist is important. Make sure they know their Sunday obligation to attend Mass.
For all three, the child needs to be aware of the liturgy surrounding the sacrament, that is, he should know when absolution takes place, what words are used at confirmation, when consecration takes place and the two major parts of the Mass. Your seven-year old can master this and receive all three sacraments the same year, if you want. By the way, the decision on when to present your child for confirmation is yours, not the bishops’. He may set the time by which the child must be prepared (“must be ready by high school,” for instance), but you can present the child earlier (in second or third grade, for instance), if the child is prepared and you feel it is best for him. As long as the child is of the age of reason and prepared, confirmation cannot be denied solely on the basis of age.
Still concerned about sacramental preparation? Contact Catholic homeschooling parents in your area and tap them for advice. They’ve done it before, they’ve been just as scared as you, they’ll know how to help. The Pope encourages families to band together to accomplish things. It’s good advice.
For parents of grade/high school children
Your local parochial school or high school may be a very fine private school, even if it is not good at transmitting the Faith. There is nothing wrong with sending your children to a private school. Just remember that it is only a private school, despite the pleasant “C-word” in the title. As long as you (1) know this, (2) have an adult grasp of the Faith, and (3) are careful to correct the inevitable mistakes that good but misinformed people will make as they attempt to teach the Faith, you’re fine. Learn the Faith on an adult level, live it in front of your kids, and discuss the instructional problems frankly both with them and with their teachers. Honest teachers know they aren’t qualified – they’re doing the best they can, just like everyone else. They will appreciate support from home.
As the parent, you have both the right and the duty to decide what is best for your children in regards to schooling – no one else has the right to interfere, not even your pastor or bishop. You are the primary educator of your children, not them. Point this out to them if they start implying that you are a sinner for not sending your kids to “Catholic” school. If you think the local parish school is teaching too much heresy or is oozing with too much hypocrisy to be a safe environment for your child’s soul, pull them. On the other hand, if the public schools in your area pose an even greater threat to your child’s safety, by all means, keep them in the parish school. This is your decision, no one else’s.
If you choose to pull your children from the school, write the principal, copy the pastor and/or bishop. Do exactly the same thing the parents of college students are doing (see below). Describe in your letter exactly why you are pulling your children and exactly how much money the school will lose. Write a separate letter to the pastor and/or bishop asking them to show their solidarity with Catholic families by joining you in recommending to all Catholic families that these unfaithful schools be avoided.
If the pastor or bishop accuses you of harming community life, point out our Holy Father’s words, “As the family goes, so goes the nation, as the family goes, so goes the Church!” You build community by safeguarding your family. Pastors and bishops build community by supporting Catholic parents. They should appreciate your work, and encourage others to put family before parish school. To the extent that pastors do not encourage and support parents in this, they are the ones attacking the community, not you. Depending on how your state law is written, a pattern of heterodox teaching in the school might be grounds for malpractice and/or fraud lawsuits. This would not look good in the local papers (diocesan papers tend not to print this kind of thing, since the editors like their jobs). Although pastors don’t like to discuss it, they know this is a real possibility. Point out that you know it, too.
If you choose to keep your child in Catholic school, keep a close ear to the spiritual practices and the teachings. Get involved the minute heterodoxy is alleged. First, meet with the teacher. Children have a habit of mis-characterizing what teachers say, especially if the teachers are not well-liked. If that doesn’t resolve it, meet with the pastor and teacher together. If that doesn’t resolve it, bring it to the bishop’s attention. If this is likewise fruitless, you still have several options. You can appeal to the apostolic nuncio for the United States, you can sue the school for malpractice and fraud, or you can let the secular newspapers in on the conversation, or any combination thereof.
For parents of college students:
Here is a list of schools that require the mandatum . If you had considered a college or university, but had to reject it due to the lack of mandatum, then write the president of that university and copy the bishop of the diocese in which it resides. Point out to the president that you would have encouraged your children to go there, but faculty unwillingness to proclaim the Catholic Faith changed your mind. Take the university’s yearly tuition, multiply it by four and add 3% - that’s the minimum amount of money they lost from a faithful Catholic because of their unwillingness to be faithful. Point that out in the letter. All faithful Catholics are going elsewhere, along with their money.
This is a boycott. As people who advocate social justice, Catholic university presidents will certainly appreciate it why it is necessary. To be honest, more many bishops will be quietly cheering you on from the sidelines, even though their public face may be neutral. Encourage the president to join you in this boycott and tell all the Catholic parents they know to stay away from their school, just as you will inform all the Catholic parents you know to do the same. Write a separate letter to the bishop, urging him to warn Catholic families to avoid this university. According to the Magisterium, all segments of the Church are desirous of displaying solidarity with the Catholic family so you know they’ll be interested in assisting you spread the message.
Then write a letter to the president of the college you will be attending, thanking him for his school’s fidelity. Copy the bishop of his diocese and the bishops and presidents of the colleges you won’t be attending. We want to show them that we don’t just denigrate the negative, we actively embrace the positive, as good Catholics should.
And when you are considering places of higher education, don’t forget to check out secular schools with great Newman centers! Newman centers, like Catholic universities, are of varying quality, but some of them are absolutely stellar. One case in point is the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It is the largest, most active Newman Center in the country with one of the best college retreat programs in the nation. Its current director, Msgr. Stuart Swetlund, is renowned for his orthodoxy and vibrant ability to transmit the Faith. The Sisters of the Contemplative Life who assist there are marvelous at spiritual direction. Don’t be put off by their lack of habits. It is the only order of order of profoundly orthodox consecrated women I am aware of that was founded without a habit. There are other marvelous Newman Centers across the United States. Investigate them. Look for kneelers in the chapel, proper central placement of the tabernacle, and interrogate the pastor of the center about his position on abortion, contraception, women’s ordination, and the like. Look at their library. Investigate.
If the Newman Center isn’t orthodox, write the pastor, copy the bishop and copy the university president, telling them why you had to choose against their school. Point out to the university president that the bishop is always open to input about what kind of pastor best suits a particular environment. If a secular university president gets enough of those letters, he’ll write the bishop himself to ask for a new priest at the Newman Center. That’s the kind of thing that carries weight.
If your child is already in a heterodox university and the administration won’t respond, document instances of heterodox teaching or practice, then follow the methods outlined above. If you don’t get satisfaction, investigate the possibility of suing the school for malpractice and fraud, and make sure the suit is well-publicized. They want to be secular institutions – fine. We should give them the same respect any secular entity gets.
Be bold. Make a nuisance of yourself. Jesus did.
Next week, we’ll discuss how to address the adult formation problem in the parish. We’ll also provide some links to help you get the job done.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Please Write CBS
March 1, 2003
Assignment Desk
CBS 2 News
6121 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90028
To the Editors:
Andy Rooney’s recent comments concerning the content of the film, The Passion of the Christ are unacceptable. He went beyond commentary on the movie to a bigoted, essentially racist attack on the spiritually Semitic heritage of Catholic Faith. His comments are indistinguishable from those associated with the Know-Nothings, the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups of American history.
What would be done to a CBS commentator who said about a movie concerning Martin Luther King’s assassination, “I don't plan to see it. I don't want to pay nine dollars for just a few laughs”? I would hope that such obvious, nationally promulgated bigotry would result in the guilty individual being summarily removed from his position. I certainly expect CBS to do no less to Mr. Rooney.
The recent coarsening of American television, highlighted in the disgusting anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic bigotry of people like Mr. Rooney and the escapades of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, are precisely what is causing Congressional investigations into operations such as yours.
Mr. Rooney’s remarks were the subject of lively commentary at my place of business today. Speaking as president and owner of my company and for all my employees, I am happy to inform you that CBS will no longer have any viewers from among my company’s ranks until Mr. Rooney leaves employment with you.
Gentlemen, either Mr. Rooney goes or your viewer ratings do. Choose.
Serious as a heart attack,
Steve Kellmeyer
President-CEO Bridegroom Press
Assignment Desk
CBS 2 News
6121 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90028
To the Editors:
Andy Rooney’s recent comments concerning the content of the film, The Passion of the Christ are unacceptable. He went beyond commentary on the movie to a bigoted, essentially racist attack on the spiritually Semitic heritage of Catholic Faith. His comments are indistinguishable from those associated with the Know-Nothings, the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups of American history.
What would be done to a CBS commentator who said about a movie concerning Martin Luther King’s assassination, “I don't plan to see it. I don't want to pay nine dollars for just a few laughs”? I would hope that such obvious, nationally promulgated bigotry would result in the guilty individual being summarily removed from his position. I certainly expect CBS to do no less to Mr. Rooney.
The recent coarsening of American television, highlighted in the disgusting anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic bigotry of people like Mr. Rooney and the escapades of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, are precisely what is causing Congressional investigations into operations such as yours.
Mr. Rooney’s remarks were the subject of lively commentary at my place of business today. Speaking as president and owner of my company and for all my employees, I am happy to inform you that CBS will no longer have any viewers from among my company’s ranks until Mr. Rooney leaves employment with you.
Gentlemen, either Mr. Rooney goes or your viewer ratings do. Choose.
Serious as a heart attack,
Steve Kellmeyer
President-CEO Bridegroom Press
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Missing the Passion's Point
Secular commentators are now decrying the brutality of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ in a fruitless, last-ditch effort to keep people from seeing it tomorrow. They say it isn't appropriate for children. It leaves even adults emotionally drained. The commentators routinely ignore the fact that Mel warned parents to leave children 12 and under at home.
I have two points to make in response to their inane remarks.
1) Every time I see these reports, I think of all the children who have seen exactly that level of violence during the course of their lives. Take in the long run of history, contemplate the dreary years before the crucifixion up to the present day. In 21st century America, our children are mostly sheltered from this level of violence through the fortune of having been born in the right place and time, but historically that film pretty much depicts the way people treated each other for centuries.
2) I don't doubt that churches are organizing grade schoolers to see the movie despite Mel's warning. Christianity is primarily for children, after all. That's the constant practice of Catholic parishes in this country for well over a century.
What the secular commentators are shocked at is the idea that Christianity might be something only an adult can really stomach, and even then, just barely.
Catholicism is for adults. We can teach children a pale imitation, but the full flavor of the cup makes it an adult drink. Historically speaking, martyred children who tasted it to the dregs did so only through the miraculous power of the Spirit.
I have two points to make in response to their inane remarks.
1) Every time I see these reports, I think of all the children who have seen exactly that level of violence during the course of their lives. Take in the long run of history, contemplate the dreary years before the crucifixion up to the present day. In 21st century America, our children are mostly sheltered from this level of violence through the fortune of having been born in the right place and time, but historically that film pretty much depicts the way people treated each other for centuries.
2) I don't doubt that churches are organizing grade schoolers to see the movie despite Mel's warning. Christianity is primarily for children, after all. That's the constant practice of Catholic parishes in this country for well over a century.
What the secular commentators are shocked at is the idea that Christianity might be something only an adult can really stomach, and even then, just barely.
Catholicism is for adults. We can teach children a pale imitation, but the full flavor of the cup makes it an adult drink. Historically speaking, martyred children who tasted it to the dregs did so only through the miraculous power of the Spirit.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Shooting the Messenger
Many people have written me personally and provided comments in this space concerning my articles on Catholic education. Here is an outline of my argument. You can look at it minus the rhetorical flourishes that drew both so many boos and bravos.
There are two parts to the Catholic educational system as it has commonly been used in this country over the last two centuries: the parochial school and the university. Because they are treated in quite different ways, they need to be studied separately. The USCCB informs us that the bulk of parish resources is to be devoted to adult education and formation. That is, they add a third leg to the traditional two-tiered Catholic educational system.
At one point in history, the parish school was totally funded by the collection plate and totally staffed by men and women with formal theological training. In most parishes, neither of these are true anymore. Today, the parish school absorbs between 60-90% of the total parish budget and still comes up short. Tuition, often quite high, has to make up the difference. Furthermore, it is staffed either entirely or largely by men and women without any theological training at all.
While individual school teachers may be uniformly outstanding in delivering individual subject areas, a Catholic school is characterized by the fact that the Catholic Faith permeates every subject taught, from math through science, reading, writing, music, art, etc. Unless every subject presentation is permeated by and integrated into the Catholic Faith, the school is not Catholic.
Catholic schools generally require university training, i.e., a teacher's certificate, in a subject area in order to teach the subject. One would expect the same level of education would be required in order to teach Catholic Faith. Since every subject has to be permeated with Catholic faith in order for the school to be a Catholic school and not just a private school, this means every Catholic school teacher needs two areas of concentration, or a double undergraduate major: one degree in either elementary education or a secondary school subject area, the second degree in Catholic theology.
Even if all of these conditions are met, it is the case that parents have the responsibility of doing the sacramental preparation for their own children themselves. This does not mean the parents need to homeschool their children in all subjects, or even that they need to do religious education for their own children entirely by themselves. Indeed, the very description of a Catholic school indicates that the integration of all subjects into a Catholic worldview is the purpose of the Catholic school. However, in the very narrow area of sacramental preparation, that is, preparation for First Confession, Confirmation, First Communion and remote preparation for Marriage, all of these supposed to be done by the parents. Introducing our children to the life-giving nature and principles of the sacraments is part of what makes each of us a fully Catholic parent.
Obviously, these conditions create problems. Let's make a short list of these problems:
1) If the parochial school takes 51% of the budget, it is impossible to do what the bishops request.
2) Virtually no Catholic school teacher has that second area of formal training. Indeed, many Catholic school teachers are not Catholic, those who are Catholic may not have had any formal training in Catholic Faith since their grade school or high school confirmation. Thus, it is not possible for subjects like math or science to be fully integrated with a presentation of the Faith.
3) It is not unusual to discover that even the individual who teaches religion has had no formal training in the Catholic Faith since confirmation. If an adult who only had a grade school education were asked to teach math, reading or social studies at the Catholic grade school, few parents would be pleased, yet when it comes to the Faith, that is often exactly what we get at the parochial school level and it is not uncommon even at the high school level.
4) Catholic parents have no more formal training in the Faith than most of the teachers at the Catholic school.
Now, when we examine these problems, we see a common theme to three of the points. Points 2, 3 and 4 are all problems in adult formation. If we can solve the adult formation problem, our parochial school problems might largely go away. Indeed, with proper adult formation, even the funding problem would go away, as Catholic adults would be more likely to give generously at the collection if they felt the Church were actually vital to their lives. Adult formation is clearly the problem to be solved.
Parochial schools do not do adult formation.
That leaves the parish and the Catholic university.
Let's look at the parish first.
We already know that there is not enough resources in the parish to do adult formation well. The parochial school eats the majority of the parish budget, and needs tuition besides just to stay afloat. There is no money for adult formation. As long as this financial situation continues to obtain, adult formation cannot really be done at the parish level. No one will come because the quality will not be good enough. There aren't enough resources left to make it good enough to entice adults. That leaves the university.
So, let's look at the university. Here are some facts.
Catholics who attend Catholic university are more likely to lose the Faith than are Catholics who attend secular universities.
A survey of Catholic elementary school books in 1997 showed that most of them were heretical.
A survey of Catholic high school texts in 2003 showed that most of them were heretical.
These heretical texts were written by graduates of Catholic universities.
The bishops investigating these texts admit that catechists are not being properly formed in the Faith at the university level.
Now, the ones who study the Faith aren't properly formed. So, we can only assume that the ones who don't study the Faith in formal university coursework are doing at least as badly.
Professors of theology and philosophy at Catholic universities are supposed to take the mandatum, an oath of obedience to transmit accurately and vibrantly the truths of the Faith to the students in attendance.
Only twelve universities are known to do this. The rest refuse to answer when parents ask. When parents ask the bishop who has taken the oath, most bishops also refuse to answer. The universities claim it is a matter of academic freedom.
So, the universities also appear to be out of action. Apart from twelve American universities, we have no evidence that the other universities are doing a good job in forming adults in the Faith, and quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that they are not.
To sum up:
The parochial school is no longer likely to be Catholic in any real sense because adult formation has failed.
Despite the bishops' cajoling, the parish cannot solve the adult formation problem, because the parochial school eats the majority of the resources, leaving insufficient resources for adult formation.
The universities won't solve the adult formation problem because they see it as an infringement on their academic freedom. The bishops largely refuse to intervene.
Worst of all, this situation is not new. Given the evidence from the 1997 study, and the fact that it takes at least four years to get an undergraduate degree and a position as a textbook writer, we can assume that the Catholic school system has been broken since at least 1993, probably earlier. So, even if the resources were sufficient to put on a good adult formation program, we have at least a generation of adults who think Catholic formation is exclusively for children. In fact, as anyone who has Catholic parents knows, adult formation at the parish level has been dead for decades (plural, not singular). Thus, the very culture of the parish has already destroyed the idea that adults need formation.
All three segments of Catholic education have been severely wounded: parochial school, university and parish.
Those are the facts. Given these facts, how do we dig our way out? I suggest closing the parochial schools in order to free up the resources necessary for the parish to do the job that most desperately needs doing: adult formation. Parochial schools cannot work unless the teachers and parents involved in them are as capable in passing on the Faith as they are in passing on a proper understanding of math or English. If lengthy higher education is required for the latter, how can we honestly require any less for the former? You may disagree with this solution, but if you do, you should at least suggest an equally viable solution of your own.
There are two parts to the Catholic educational system as it has commonly been used in this country over the last two centuries: the parochial school and the university. Because they are treated in quite different ways, they need to be studied separately. The USCCB informs us that the bulk of parish resources is to be devoted to adult education and formation. That is, they add a third leg to the traditional two-tiered Catholic educational system.
At one point in history, the parish school was totally funded by the collection plate and totally staffed by men and women with formal theological training. In most parishes, neither of these are true anymore. Today, the parish school absorbs between 60-90% of the total parish budget and still comes up short. Tuition, often quite high, has to make up the difference. Furthermore, it is staffed either entirely or largely by men and women without any theological training at all.
While individual school teachers may be uniformly outstanding in delivering individual subject areas, a Catholic school is characterized by the fact that the Catholic Faith permeates every subject taught, from math through science, reading, writing, music, art, etc. Unless every subject presentation is permeated by and integrated into the Catholic Faith, the school is not Catholic.
Catholic schools generally require university training, i.e., a teacher's certificate, in a subject area in order to teach the subject. One would expect the same level of education would be required in order to teach Catholic Faith. Since every subject has to be permeated with Catholic faith in order for the school to be a Catholic school and not just a private school, this means every Catholic school teacher needs two areas of concentration, or a double undergraduate major: one degree in either elementary education or a secondary school subject area, the second degree in Catholic theology.
Even if all of these conditions are met, it is the case that parents have the responsibility of doing the sacramental preparation for their own children themselves. This does not mean the parents need to homeschool their children in all subjects, or even that they need to do religious education for their own children entirely by themselves. Indeed, the very description of a Catholic school indicates that the integration of all subjects into a Catholic worldview is the purpose of the Catholic school. However, in the very narrow area of sacramental preparation, that is, preparation for First Confession, Confirmation, First Communion and remote preparation for Marriage, all of these supposed to be done by the parents. Introducing our children to the life-giving nature and principles of the sacraments is part of what makes each of us a fully Catholic parent.
Obviously, these conditions create problems. Let's make a short list of these problems:
1) If the parochial school takes 51% of the budget, it is impossible to do what the bishops request.
2) Virtually no Catholic school teacher has that second area of formal training. Indeed, many Catholic school teachers are not Catholic, those who are Catholic may not have had any formal training in Catholic Faith since their grade school or high school confirmation. Thus, it is not possible for subjects like math or science to be fully integrated with a presentation of the Faith.
3) It is not unusual to discover that even the individual who teaches religion has had no formal training in the Catholic Faith since confirmation. If an adult who only had a grade school education were asked to teach math, reading or social studies at the Catholic grade school, few parents would be pleased, yet when it comes to the Faith, that is often exactly what we get at the parochial school level and it is not uncommon even at the high school level.
4) Catholic parents have no more formal training in the Faith than most of the teachers at the Catholic school.
Now, when we examine these problems, we see a common theme to three of the points. Points 2, 3 and 4 are all problems in adult formation. If we can solve the adult formation problem, our parochial school problems might largely go away. Indeed, with proper adult formation, even the funding problem would go away, as Catholic adults would be more likely to give generously at the collection if they felt the Church were actually vital to their lives. Adult formation is clearly the problem to be solved.
Parochial schools do not do adult formation.
That leaves the parish and the Catholic university.
Let's look at the parish first.
We already know that there is not enough resources in the parish to do adult formation well. The parochial school eats the majority of the parish budget, and needs tuition besides just to stay afloat. There is no money for adult formation. As long as this financial situation continues to obtain, adult formation cannot really be done at the parish level. No one will come because the quality will not be good enough. There aren't enough resources left to make it good enough to entice adults. That leaves the university.
So, let's look at the university. Here are some facts.
Catholics who attend Catholic university are more likely to lose the Faith than are Catholics who attend secular universities.
A survey of Catholic elementary school books in 1997 showed that most of them were heretical.
A survey of Catholic high school texts in 2003 showed that most of them were heretical.
These heretical texts were written by graduates of Catholic universities.
The bishops investigating these texts admit that catechists are not being properly formed in the Faith at the university level.
Now, the ones who study the Faith aren't properly formed. So, we can only assume that the ones who don't study the Faith in formal university coursework are doing at least as badly.
Professors of theology and philosophy at Catholic universities are supposed to take the mandatum, an oath of obedience to transmit accurately and vibrantly the truths of the Faith to the students in attendance.
Only twelve universities are known to do this. The rest refuse to answer when parents ask. When parents ask the bishop who has taken the oath, most bishops also refuse to answer. The universities claim it is a matter of academic freedom.
So, the universities also appear to be out of action. Apart from twelve American universities, we have no evidence that the other universities are doing a good job in forming adults in the Faith, and quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that they are not.
To sum up:
The parochial school is no longer likely to be Catholic in any real sense because adult formation has failed.
Despite the bishops' cajoling, the parish cannot solve the adult formation problem, because the parochial school eats the majority of the resources, leaving insufficient resources for adult formation.
The universities won't solve the adult formation problem because they see it as an infringement on their academic freedom. The bishops largely refuse to intervene.
Worst of all, this situation is not new. Given the evidence from the 1997 study, and the fact that it takes at least four years to get an undergraduate degree and a position as a textbook writer, we can assume that the Catholic school system has been broken since at least 1993, probably earlier. So, even if the resources were sufficient to put on a good adult formation program, we have at least a generation of adults who think Catholic formation is exclusively for children. In fact, as anyone who has Catholic parents knows, adult formation at the parish level has been dead for decades (plural, not singular). Thus, the very culture of the parish has already destroyed the idea that adults need formation.
All three segments of Catholic education have been severely wounded: parochial school, university and parish.
Those are the facts. Given these facts, how do we dig our way out? I suggest closing the parochial schools in order to free up the resources necessary for the parish to do the job that most desperately needs doing: adult formation. Parochial schools cannot work unless the teachers and parents involved in them are as capable in passing on the Faith as they are in passing on a proper understanding of math or English. If lengthy higher education is required for the latter, how can we honestly require any less for the former? You may disagree with this solution, but if you do, you should at least suggest an equally viable solution of your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)