A picture of perfect design and order in what seemed like chaotic wandering in the wilderness, God placed each Israelite tribe in a specific position around the Old Testament tabernacle (Num. 2). The camp was divided quadrilaterally, four sets of three tribes at each compass point and one standard for each. The four sets of triads camped facing the tabernacle, within which the Presence of the Lord rested on the ark. Because one’s identity was derived from his tribe and also his position in relation to the tabernacle, such organization lent a peace and anticipation to the Israelites relationship to the living God who dwelt there.

The standard, or banner, was used in much the same way our American flag is today. The standard was a symbol, usually a carving or likeness of an animal, carried on a pole and raised high in the air, to rally a tribe or group of warriors in battle (Num. 2:10; Is. 59:19). A crossbar was attached below the standard on which hung the banner, a flag or streamer, and together, they served to indicate the line of march and rallying point for military, national, or religious purposes. Usually set on a hill for best visibility, the standard was also accompanied by the sounds of a trumpet, a Scriptural symbol of the word of God. It was the priests’ responsibility to sound the alarm of attack and/or the call to arms, to remind Israel that it was only by God’s presence and activity that they could hope to gain victory.

Before beginning a military engagement, the priests also offered sacrificial rites (1Sa 7:8-10; 1Sa 13:9), so that to “prepare” for war was make sacrifices that would sanctify it. Isaiah speaks of God gathering His armies and summoning to battle His “consecrated ones” (Isa 13:3), those warriors set apart through sacrifice before the battle actually commenced, under the Lord Himself: “Then the Lord will be seen over them [as a standard], and His arrow will go forth like lightning. The Lord God will blow the trumpet, and go with whirlwinds from the south. The Lord of hosts will defend them . . . The Lord their God will save them in that day as the flock of His people. For they shall be like the jewels of a crown, lifted like a banner over His land” (Zech. 9:14-16).

Similarly, Moses once lifted up a serpent on a standard to heal the people of a widespread viper infestation that was killing them. God commanded that the death-dealing instrument would be the same used to heal (Num. 21). In one military campaign, Moses became a living standard by lifting up and spreading his hands over his warring army below, personally symbolizing God’s presence as the Lord of Hosts (1 Sam. 1:3), or “armies,” leading His people to victory. After the battle Moses built an altar and named it Jehovah-Nissi, meaning The Lord is My Banner.

These Scriptural precedents make the standard beautiful for the Church, for similarly, Jesus became our living Standard, spreading out his bleeding arms on the angry crossbars of a wondrous cross, hanging from it as a banner and lifted up on a hill of terror for all to see. The Word of God, a trumpet ringing out across the seas of men and history, calls the Church Militant to glorious battle. This same Word is a rampart from enemy fire, a shield and rear guard for those taking up arms, a citadel for the fearful, a bulwark for the weak. With bowed heads and knees planted firmly on the ground, we hearken to His call and model, offering the sacrifices of our very selves for war: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (2 Cor. 4:9-11). The death-dealing cross is the same used to heal.

Fight on, comrade! I am beside you! Our standard is raised on every crucifix in procession and behind a Catholic altar. Though the battle is fierce, keep your eyes on the glorious rallying point, for “His banner over me is love,” says the Song of Solomon (2:4), and it is to this war we are called, the war of Love, a love so vast and prolonged that it transcends time, death, and eternity, till the soul presses deeply, maddeningly, forever toward Him. The Lord Our Banner of love yet waves for the Promised Land of the truly free, calling us to the Beatific Home of the truly brave.

Dogs are not as dumb or as smart as we think, we were told; they understand words, but only a limited number of single word commands. Sharp, single word commands had a dramatic effect on her training. CJ rose to the top of her class.

The trainer knew dogs and thus how to train them. She knew dog-owners and thus how to educate them.

Imagine constructing an entire educational system based on flawed assumption of whom you are educating.

It is remarkable to note that the success of schools is not determined by material resources. The “what” and “stuff” of education is only secondary to sound education. What is primary is our perception of whom we teach.

So…who is man and how can we best educate our children? This is a worthy question which can be answered by each of us to some degree. Educators from parents to professors will find that their educational philosophy is radically affected by their perspective on who man is (anthropology).

The Three Aspects of Man

Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body reminds us that in order to understand who man is, we must remember from whence he came, and what his destiny is. As Catholics, we must not forget that through divine revelation we understand man in ways others do not. We know that man has a fallen nature, and this fallen nature is not the norm. We are NOT all right.

JPII reminds us of the three aspects of man: Original Man, Historical Man and Eschatological Man. Original Man is the term he uses for man before the fall; the man that was supposed to be the norm. He uses Historical Man for man in our current fallen state (which includes redemption). Eschatological man is what man’s destiny in heaven is.

Historical man (apart from redemption) is all that is available for educators who choose to study mankind in a completely materialistic way. With this limited perspective, materialists have devised systems of education that are inherently flawed. What is the effect when fallen man with his darkened mind, weakened will and disordered appetite becomes the norm?

Education theories based on materialistic perspectives are limited due to their limited understanding of man. One result was the flawed system developed by communist Russia in the last century. Since man is only capable of freely living out his fallen nature, (which can be ugly), his very freedom needs to be controlled. The result of controlling man’s freedom was to treat him like an animal. In such a system, there was plenty of training, but little education.

Western culture has devised a different, but equally flawed educational system based on materialistic understandings of man. Our western reaction to the limited perspective on man includes relativizing truth, normalizing our fallen nature and preaching tolerance. This is a deadly combination in education.

Relativizing Truth, Normalizing Deviancy and Demanding Tolerance

Relativism accepts everybody’s perspective on truth to be equally valid. Since there are no objective rules, even the deep questions of life become mere opinions to be expressed and shared with others. The dark side of this attitude, (as Pope Benedict aptly points out) is that it leads to a dictatorship. Once one is convinced that objective truth does not exist, then whenever objective truth rears its ugly head, it is to be squashed — who are YOU to force your truths on me? Since all truth is relegated to opinion, statements of valid objective truth can only be defined as the opinions of persons with inflated egos. Anything but relativism is thus dismissed — a dictatorship. Relativistic thinking is intolerant of any other type of thinking.

Normalization of our fallen nature assumes that our darkened mind, weakened will and disordered appetites are the norm. These fallen characteristics become the basis of our expectations. How can we possibly stop laziness when it is the norm? High ideals become wishful thinking since we are “only human”. Indulging in our lustful passions is perceived as a release. How can we possibly stop teens from experimenting with their sexuality when disordered passions are accepted as normal drives?

Relativistic truth coupled with normalization of deviant behavior is a recipe for disaster unless we convince everyone to practice extreme tolerance. How else can we possibly keep from anarchy when objective truth is dismissed and people are expected to wallow in their fallen natures? This leads to chasing our tails as we tolerate everything except intolerance.

Faith’s Enlightenment of Who Man Is

Pope JPII’s TOB reminds us of the way out. We develop a better educational system, when we understand who man really is — especially when redemption is brought into the picture.

The better we understand who man is, the better opportunity we will have to develop a sound educational system. We realize that understanding man happens not only through study in a historical context, but it is also revealed through the truths of our faith.

One important revealed truth is that truth itself is objective. There are ethical norms for our behavior. The splendor of the truth gives us a standard from which we can measure our subjective perspectives.

Our faith also reveals that fallen man is in fact NOT the norm. There is a high and holy calling that we feel within our very being. As JPII explains, although the fall has happened, there is an echo within each of us of our original design. We feel the struggle between who we are, and what we were created to be. Furthermore, we have access to the grace of redemption. This grace helps us to restore what was lost. Our minds are enlightened, our wills are strengthened and our appetites become more ordered.

When we allow our minds to become enlightened by the truths of the faith, we realize that it is uncharitable to be overly tolerant. Charity demands that we act when others participate in destructive behavior.

The Christian perspective on education thus has inherently higher expectations based on what the true norm for man is and the objective nature of truth. The virtues that lead to true freedom and happiness can be emphasized. Pitfalls in the moral and spiritual life can be recognized and avoided. We understand our fallen-nature — but we also understand the path toward wholeness.

Implications for Education

The implications for education are immense. All educators have an inherent vision of man . Each individual school has unique programs that are based on the collective vision of man that is shared. Even state boards and national councils develop their philosophy from their vision of man .

The more limited this vision of man is, the greater is the probability that the resulting educational philosophy will be flawed. The closer the vision of man gets to the true nature of man, the greater probability that our philosophy will be sound.

Christian Educators in the Public System

The U.S. public educational system consciously tries to keep religious views separated from the public schools, BUT this does not translate into a materialistic mandate. Although public institutions in the U.S. are a-religious, many of the teachers are not. Schools in atheistic countries positively encourage a materialistic ideology. In the U.S. however, materialism is just one competing ideology within the marketplace of ideas.

Christian educators within the public system thus perform an extraordinary service for students, pubic schools and thus society. By actively engaging in professional discussions and decisions, they can help develop sound philosophies based on the more wholesome perspective that our faith gives us.

Thankfully, many strong Christian men and women continue to answer the call to teach within our public system. The importance of these teachers cannot be overstated, especially given the destructive nature of many of the competing ideologies found in education.

There should be a conscience effort within the Church to help Christian teachers better recognize and articulate the inherent philosophical advantages our faith gives us. Educators must also recognize the inherent dangers found in philosophies based on a limited perception of man. They will thus be better equipped to help create sound philosophies within the confines of the public system.

The Effect of a Christian School in Society

The Christian school is everything the public school is and more. With the more complete conception of man, the Christian school can feed not only the student’s mind and body, but also his spirit. Utilizing the principles of the Gospel, the Christian school can avoid the pitfalls that come from more limited perspectives. Expectations that conform to redeemed man with all of its hopes and dreams become the basis from which decisions are made.

Christian schools utilize the tenants of our faith to help form philosophies at the institutional level. This includes the more complete perception of man. This does not preclude utilizing sound educational research. Educational philosophy is developed utilizing sound educational principles considered in light of the Gospel. Each Christian school becomes a unique expression of this by those involved. Our faith provides limits for what is unhealthy and libraries of collective wisdom ready for use.

Institutions can be witnesses of the Kingdom in the world just as individuals are. Just as the Christian educator can be a light in the public school, Christian Schools can become a light in the educational establishment. Just as Christian students can be a light to their team-mates, Christian teams (athletic or academic) can be a light to their communities as they carry the name of Christ. Christian school administrators and teachers can participate in public dialogue with their colleagues at the local, state and national level and thus provide a Christian witness to educational policies.

The Catholic School

The Catholic school, with access to the fullness of the Christian faith, is given the greatest opportunity as a Christian school, and thus carries the greatest responsibility. Students are given access to the sacraments which provide the primary means of grace for redemption. Catholic schools therefore have the added advantage of helping students to not only become enlightened through knowledge, but to become sanctified through grace.

Forming educational philosophies and policies through the lens of faith, the Catholic school will naturally teach families the more adequate anthropology that leads to the abundant life found in Jesus Christ.

Faith Enlightening Education: Implications of Teaching from an Adequate Anthropology

This begins a series of articles that will be one attempt to take the wisdom of the Church, and apply it to the various forms and institutions of education. Christ reveals man to himself. From this solid foundation let us build a more genuine educational system.

References:

Benedict XVI (April 2008), Meeting with Catholic Educators .

Congregation for Catholic Education (1988), The Religious Dimension of Education in A Catholic School .

Congregation for Catholic Education (1997), The Catholic School on the Threshold of the Third Millennium .

Vatican Council II, Declaration on Christian Education: Gravissimum Educationis .

West, C. (2003). Theology of the Body Explained . Boston: Pauline Books and Media

Bishop William Murphy’s letter to members of the US House of Representatives endorsing comprehensive health care for every inhabitant of the United States (including illegal immigrants) raises an important question about the involvement of the United States bishops in politics. Granted, the letter comes from Bishop Murphy as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development Committee of the USCCB. It is not, apparently, a mandate of the body of bishops as a whole. Nonetheless, the letter once again raises the critical question: Where is the line between moral principles, which the bishops must enunciate clearly and forcefully, and public policy, which the bishops have neither the charism nor the competence to formulate?

This question has long haunted the Church in America, especially in the heady post-Vatican II years when many bishops apparently believed that Catholic doctrine itself was in the midst of a major reformulation, resulting in episcopal political statements that were sometimes not so very well grounded in Catholic moral principles. But the main issue is not whether the bishops have a firm grasp of Catholic moral principles, but whether they have a superior grasp of how effectively this or that public policy embodies those principles. According to Church teaching, they don’t. In both theory and practice it is up to the laity, formed by Catholic principles, to determine the best prudential response to various public issues.

The episcopal office does not confer any particular special insight into either the feasibility or the effectiveness of proposed public policies; nor is there any historical warrant for suggesting that, in practice, bishops as a body are better at this sort of thing than laymen. In fact, both by training and experience, one would expect politically active lay persons to have a better grasp of the art of the possible in implementing effective public policies, just as one would expect bishops to have a better grasp of Catholic faith and morals.

Social Justice and Social Change

When the Church involves herself in politics, she is wont to talk about “social justice” rather than charity. However, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly stated in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est , the special province of the Church is charity. It is the State which has justice as its proper end. This does not mean that the Church should not teach the principles of justice. Justice derives from the moral law, which Revelation helps the Church to enunciate with unmatched clarity. But there is a blurry line between charity and justice in the public context, even when both aim at the same goal.

For example, consider these questions: Is it a matter of charity or justice that free education should be available to all citizens? Or that the poor should receive a high level of housing and food benefits? Or that health care should be free? There is no “right” answer to these questions; the answers depend very much on the social context. In previous eras, nobody would have argued that the State had an obligation in justice to provide these things. The scope of the State was utterly insufficient to the purpose, and economic conditions were such that it simply could not be expected that a very large percentage of citizens could ever have access to such benefits. But if one person denied to another person a benefit to which he was ordinarily entitled—stealing a noble’s inheritance or riding roughshod over a peasant’s right to common acreage and shared equipment—then a matter of justice was clearly present. For the rest, the charity of friends, neighbors and the Church herself was essential to get people through difficult times.

In Western affluent mass societies, the general level of material well-being is far higher, and it is not (in theory) based on rank or class. Universal public education is a fact of life, and in a non-agrarian society education is seen as a key to making one’s livelihood. We tend to think, therefore, that everyone has a right to be educated; hence it is a matter of justice if someone is denied schooling. But we carry this only so far. It does not apply to college or graduate school. In other words, a moment’s reflection reveals to us that issues of justice are not always absolute. Instead, many issues take on a dimension of justice by virtue of the conventions of the social context in which the issues are raised. The most important point to recognize here is that the term “social justice” is very malleable; it is what the ancients recognized as distributive justice, and it must take circumstances into account. Thus it depends only partly on the natural law and to a much greater degree on the expectations, customs and capabilities of the society in question. (In contrast, charity faces no such conceptual problems: It is always a personal response to another’s need out of love.)

Health Care

Health care is an excellent case in point. The very dream that all people should have access to a high level of professional health care depends on the peculiar features of particular societies: the widespread availability of competent professional care; a generalized familiarity with such care throughout the social order; a high percentage of persons already enjoying the advantages of this care; a significant understanding of public health; the advancement of medicine to the point that the difference between those who have medical care and those who do not is both significant and predictable; and of course tremendous affluence.

But for this dream to be the proper province of the State, we must somehow translate it from the sphere of desire to the sphere of justice. One would expect that the special gift of bishops would be to articulate the principles which make a given potential benefit a matter of justice; the case needs to be made because there is very little absolute about this sort of social claim. Thus the bishops might suggest (as I believe they would be right to do) that the claim to health care (or any other social benefit) becomes a matter of justice in a given society when that society begins to perceive, in its own context, that health care is unnecessarily unavailable to defined groups of people who—again, in the culture’s own particular context—would ordinarily be expected to have access to it.

The example of education may again prove useful. At a certain point in Western history, it became a feature of our common Western culture that the vast majority of people could be educated. A variety of philosophical, social and economic circumstances led to this cultural shift, and it took a very long time for the availability of education to reach anything like what we might call critical mass. Once critical mass was reached, it became the norm that all persons should be educated in a certain way (so much so that people gradually lost a great deal of personal control over the matter). Once this became the norm—and not before—society was in a position to judge it an injustice if anyone was prevented from going to school. Health care is perhaps now on a similar trajectory. However, it is not a matter of absolute principle but of socio-economic-political judgment whether, in fact, our culture is in a position to demand a certain level of health care as a matter of justice.

Problems

Once again, the primary role of bishops is not to endorse a particular policy proposal or a particular demographic result, but to explain the various principles and related considerations which might be sufficient to make health care a justice issue. Such a case may well be worthy of serious consideration, given the current characteristics of our society. Moreover, I would suggest that the bishops ought to be uniquely qualified to make this case—just as they are generally unqualified to endorse any particular method of embodying such principles of justice in public policy.

After all, there are grave problems with any specific implementation of these principles in health care. Costs, quality of care, and personal liberty in determining the nature and scope of one’s medical treatment are among the more obvious. But the very involvement of the public order in medical care raises problems of its own, just as it has in education. It is no secret that a very large number of bishops were reared in the social traditions of modern liberalism. Perhaps as a result, many bishops assume that if a social problem exists, the Federal government must be put in charge of solving it. But he who lives by the Federal government may well die by it, for the Federal government is deeply involved in and supportive of quite a few grave moral evils in the realm of standard health care.

Bishop Murphy recognizes this difficulty, sort of. He warns that “no health care legislation that compels Americans to pay for or participate in abortion will find sufficient votes to pass.” But this is only another political judgment that no bishop is qualified to make. The smart money, I think, suggests that a universal medical system, if it were to pass all the other objections, would not be long subverted by such “petty” concerns as contraception, abortion and the use of aborted embryos in medical treatments—or even by assisted suicide, should that become the secular norm. One needs only to consider how we have fared in keeping such things out of insurance coverage. In any case, the main point is that Bishop Murphy, who only “sort of” sees the problem, does not see it as something that would deter him from demanding that the Federal government institute comprehensive health care now. The same ideological problems that undermine the values of the American citizenry in public education will be at work in the actual giving and taking of life in public medicine.

It probably isn’t necessary to raise the question of costs; the public is very sensitive to cost issues at the moment anyway. But Bishop Murphy’s letter does endorse the provision of ”comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.” This hides a hornet’s nest of questions, many of which revolve around the question of how much health care we can afford for how many. Alas, Revelation does not touch upon this issue. Questions of efficiency and quality are equally complex. For example, would it be unjust to allow persons of means to seek additional or better health care than the universal system provides? This would, after all, give them a social advantage. And would doctors and hospitals be permitted to provide such health care outside the system? Another huge consideration is the impact on illegal immigration of ever-greater public benefits for every man, woman and child residing on American soil.

Willy Nilly Doesn’t Cut It

Again, my point is not to argue against a better solution to health care in our society. As I have indicated, my personal assessment is that, although the best course is far from clear, our society does possess the combination of characteristics which make it morally necessary to think hard about this question, and to consider what might be done. As societies grow and change, along with their resources and their methods of using resources, different questions come to the fore, and sometimes circumstances do change enough to require the application of principles of justice to new areas of life, areas in which the question of justice was quite rightly inapplicable in another place and another time.

But it goes way beyond what we can know in our current context to assume willy nilly that these questions of justice are clear and easily applicable, or that one particular solution is obviously the best course. By all means, the bishops should lead a penetrating discussion of how and when certain social realities push new questions into the sphere of what we might call relative justice. They should apply this discussion very particularly to health care. And they should also point out clearly any absolute moral imperatives they see as critical to the discussion, such as not being forced to participate in murder. Then, based on an ever-deepening understanding of moral issues provided by cogent episcopal teaching, the bishops need to back away and allow the laity to do their own proper job: The formulation and implementation of specific public policies.

Eventually, I learned that my generation was, in this as in so much else, the exception to an almost universal fact of human nature since the dawn of time: the love of one’s native land. For civilized ancients, it was unheard of not to feel a love for your native country. Athenians loved Athens, Spartans loved Sparta, and Romans loved Rome. As the nation-state came into being, patriotism—the primal love of home—fueled the process as the English loved England, the French loved France and Spaniards loved Spain. Shakespeare gets exactly right the feeling of love for home when he speaks of his own native land in Richard II:

This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

This is as normal and natural as loving your own mother and father—because it is loving your own mother and father. We see exactly the same natural impulse to love home in the ancient Jews:

Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her,
all you who love her;
exult, exult with her,
all you who were mourning over her!
Oh, that you may suck fully
of the milk of her comfort,
that you may nurse with delight
at her abundant breasts!
For thus says the LORD:
Lo, I will spread prosperity over Jerusalem like a river,
and the wealth of the nations like an overflowing torrent.
As nurslings, you shall be carried in her arms,
and fondled in her lap;
as a mother comforts her child,
so will I comfort you;
in Jerusalem you shall find your comfort. (Isaiah 66:10-13)

At its most basic, this is as much a patriot’s anthem to his homeland as “America the Beautiful”.

But, of course, in the case of the biblical authors something else is happening as well: God is revealing Himself and grace is building on nature. The love of home in the hearts of all healthy human beings is, in the case of the inspired authors, transformed into a sign of our longing for our true home.

The right way to understand patriotism, then, is to recognize that, like all natural and healthy human things, it is sacramental. God reveals Himself in a human way. The great paradigm of this is Jesus Christ himself: God in human flesh. In Christ, God takes normal things and communicates with us through them. He takes plain water and raises it to the sacrament of divine cleansing, drowning, birthing, and quenching in Baptism. He takes the basic stuff of bread and wine and feeds our souls in the sacrificial meal of the Eucharist of His Body and Blood. Indeed, God speaks to us from all creation and fills our lives with signs of His love.

One of those signs is the human impulse to patriotism, which God transmutes into a sort of image or shadow or sign of love for a far greater Homeland. That is what the letter to the Hebrews is talking about when it speaks of the great heroes of the Old Testament:

These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city (Hebrews 11:13-16).

The ancients, just like us, longed for something more than mere earth. They loved Jerusalem. But they loved it because ultimately they longed to come to “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22). The saints are ultimately patriots of Heaven.

If “parents do not meet certain standards,” according to the BBC, the children can be “sent back to school.”

In reaction to criticism that the standards by which parents will be judged are ill-defined, Mr. Badman responded, “This is not some woolly statement; they will be judged on their [educational] plans. These statements should contain some milestones for children to achieve.”

Yet in spite of his implication that the homeschooling standards are reasonably clear, Badman went on to tell the BBC, “I’m calling for further work to be done, but also setting some parameters.”

Homeschoolers are clearly concerned.

One unnamed homeschooling parent told the BBC that she would not favor monitoring visits from the local authority because it had failed in its duty to provide a suitable education for her son in the first place.

Homeschoolers in the United States are paying close attention to the connection between these events and the fact that the British government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 2008.

The UNCRC, while signed by U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright in 1995, has never been ratified in the United States — a process that requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate — a situation that Barack Obama called “embarrassing.” [2]

Home educators in the U.S. have long feared that ratification of the UNCRC would undermine their parental rights in the name of “children’s rights” as defined by the UN. Recent events in England have only served to confirm these fears.

“An education should be broad and balanced and enable children to make choices,” Graham Badman told the BBC, sending up red flags for concerned homeschoolers.

According to a report from the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), an advocacy group located just outside of Washington, D.C., “UNCRC will be used to significantly restrict the freedom to homeschool in England.” [3]

The HSLDA report quotes Badman’s recommendations to the British government as stating, “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) gives children and young people over forty substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of signatories to give children a voice:

‘Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.’

Yet under the current legislation and guidance, local authorities have no right of access to the child to determine or ascertain such views.”

HSLDA points out that Badman’s report cites the requirements of the UNCRC and proposes, “That designated local authority officers should have the right of access to the home and have the right to speak with each child alone.”

While homeschoolers have reason to be particularly concerned, all Catholic parents should recognize that ratification of the UNCRC in the U.S. could threaten parental rights in a way that is irreconcilable with Church teaching.

The right and duty of parents to educate their children in accord with their Christian faith is nothing less than a fundamental matter of human dignity. It is not the purview of the State, properly speaking, to grant the right of education to parents; rather it is an inalienable right given by God, not the government.

The Vatican II Decree on Christian Education, Gravissimum Educationis , teaches that “parents are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators” (GE 3).

The State does indeed have a role to play in educating its citizens, but according to the Council it is best understood as merely a supporting role, one that should never pose a threat to parental rights, but rather should enhance them.

“Civil society’s function is to promote the education of youth in many ways, namely: to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid according to the principle of subsidiarity” (ibid.).

The principal of subsidiarity is often cited in Catholic teaching as one of the keys to an educational approach that honors the God-given rights of parents. It simply means that control is best exercised by the simplest, most local social unit as is fitting according to its ability. In this case, the principal of subsidiarity suggests that educational decisions are best made in the family as opposed to being dictated by the State whose role it is to aid in the “work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents” (ibid.).

The Council goes on to say that “parents must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools. Consequently, the public power, which has the obligation to protect and defend the rights of citizens, must see to it, in its concern for distributive justice, that public subsidies are paid out in such a way that parents are truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children (GE 6).

In this day and age when public schools so often teach our children in ways that run counter to a truly Christian conscience, this “true liberty” would naturally include not only leaving parents in peace to homeschool their children, but enhancing their ability to do so by providing public funding. First things first, however…

Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer of California have expressed a desire to bring the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) to a ratification vote as soon as possible. As the situation unfolding in England makes clear, Catholics in the United States must keep a close eye on the progress of the UNCRC ratification process and mobilize to defeat this enemy of subsidiarity and parental rights.

Pope John Paul II in his 1994 Letter to Families could have been speaking specifically of the dangers posed by the UNCRC when he said, “Whenever the family is self-sufficient, it should be left to act on its own; an excessive intrusiveness on the part of the State would prove detrimental, to say nothing of lacking due respect, and would constitute an open violation of the rights of the family.”

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8095864.stm

[2] http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/#content

[3] http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200906161.asp

Liturgy: Media and Music

The outpouring of public “liturgies” — yes, I wrote “liturgies” — following Michael Jackson’s death announcement eclipsed the announcement of the death of Farrah Fawcett. In the interest of full disclosure, I am no fan, nor even a follower, of either of these celebrities. However, it seems to me that the media and music associated with Michael (plus his tours and public relations efforts, of course) made his impact on people more global and long-lasting. His medium — the popular song — is short, tied to rhythm and lyric, and is easily reproduced and distributed both commercially and person-to-person via the web and cell and email. So the public mourning that looked so much like a celebration together with public singing of Michael’s songs and the wearing of garb closely reminiscent of him looked, felt, and sounded liturgical. Let us remember him, it all said. Oddly disconnected from his more recent legal troubles and accusations of child molestation, people were celebrating publicly across the globe — celebrating an individual whose music and lyrics and dress and even lifestyle of profligate spending (including giving to many charities), affected their choices, their values, their own lifestyles.

Here we see liturgy as a normal human response to affecting events. We should be reminded that we remember with music and lyric and dress in our Catholic liturgies — grace builds on nature. We should tell the Catholic faithful that we understand public liturgy. Even the pledge of allegiance to the flag is public liturgy in the ordinary sense. We do not have to ignore these events and refuse comment on them during our own liturgies and catechetical events. To do so is to miss the catechetical moment that is upon us. And to miss that an opportunity — a call — for prayer is being urged upon us.

Icons

What after all, are icons? They are sacred images. In Eastern Christian tradition, they are painted (actually they are said to be “written”), silent, and a source of grace from the prayer they engender. Yet, the sound and color of human lives can also engender prayer, and, thus, grace. Certainly we who celebrate every human life, from conception to death, with prayer and dignity, can celebrate the life and death of these two people. They were both masters of “the image.” That was their calling, their work, their employment in the world. Regardless of the low or high intent of their purpose or the evil or good of their achievement, they themselves were images. Images of God, even though marred. Still God loved them, loves them still. That’s Who God is. Love. We should remind those who mourn them, that God mourns them and the losses in their lives as well. That’s why He went to the Cross loving and mourning their and our losses. At the very least, the opportunity to point out to people what true icons really are is embedded in the very public stories of these deaths and the public appetite for stories about them. And just a word about this longing for story: Story is contained in the Eastern religious icons. Elements written into the icon connect the viewer to the sacred through the story of the saint, the narrative of the person or event in itself.

As the stories of Michael and Farrah’s lives are told and retold, it is time to point out that every human being is co-authoring with God the story of his or her life. Time to ask what they will say about you and me when we pass from this life.

Prayer

So, all that said, what does one pray about where Farrah and Michael are concerned? The obvious place to start is for the repose of their individual souls. I daresay that ordinarily when people talk about celebrities, they don’t even consider that praying for them is even an option. I remember being startled a few years ago when a Catholic friend told me to pray for Madonna because she was in terrible, eternal danger. I agreed, but it had never occurred to me to pray for her. After all, prayer like that, prayer for public things, was for situations, situations like the Soviet Union giving up communism, Red China, world peace, the demise of abortion in the US. Prayer for an individual celebrity? You bet. Their influence on millions of people, as “icons,” is tremendous. Why not pray for their conversion, for the people whose lives they touch — for their children!

But beyond that, there is a situation buried within these two deaths. The age of sexual promiscuity born out of the so-called sexual revolution is bearing bitter fruit and contaminating the lives of many youth, youth that are not plugged into the JPII generation. Who better embodied conflicted youth denied of childhood than Michael who grew up between the negative, apocalyptic cult of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and international acclaim onstage to become a man never happy in his own skin? Who better embodied youthful fascination with body image and sexuality than Farrah? We need to pray specifically for them, and we need to let everyone to whom we minister the gospel, even those in our pews, know that we are acquainted with those fascinations and attractions and conflicts and denials. We invite them to pray with us both for these celebrities and about the issues connected to them. And we need to let our faithful Catholics know that the Lord has the answers to all these fascinations and conflicts.

Catechesis

And that brings us to catechesis. Prayer for these two people — prayer that is open, unafraid to mention the terrible distress they each suffered and the terrible message they each proffered to others in their public wake — opens the door for the people we catechize: young people, people preparing for marriage, people preparing themselves for the baptism of their children, or the first Communion of their children, people in Bible study, all those sitting in the pews on Sunday wondering if priests pray individually for anything or only publicly, and what do they pray for? It opens the door at least a little bit, or should I say: it opens for them the Catechism. Our students can become aware of the relevance of prayer to popular culture, and are opened to at least hear us on the issues of the teaching of the Church on sexuality, Theology of the Body, and our true Love Who is God. It opens the topic of the true Icon of God, Jesus Christ, Savior and real King of pop culture, real Head of the Body in all its glory, the glory of the sons and daughters of the Father. What an opportunity for catechesis!

Don’t miss it!

Background

I rarely watch television.  My 13-year-old daughter liked this program because she loves babies and young children.  The children are adorable and the episodes usually had some sort of fun or challenging activity going on while the parents interacted with each other and the kids.  I found it only moderately interesting, but I sometimes joined my daughter to watch.

For those who may not watch any television or haven’t noticed all the front cover magazine stories on the way to the check out stands, let me update you.

Jon & Kate Plus 8 is a reality television show about Jon and Kate and their eight children: a pair of fraternal twins and sextuplets. The cameras are in their home and focus on the challenges of raising multiple children. The show is currently one of the highest rated programs on TLC and the fifth season premiere was seen by a record 9.8 million viewers, the most watched show of that evening including broadcast television, twice as many viewers as the show’s previous series high.

Jon and Kate’s different personalities were readily apparent.  Yet, husbands and wives are often very different, thereby presenting the usual marital challenges.  They seemed no different from many couples.  There were seemingly minor squabbles but they would come together at the end of each show and talk about it all.

The show suddenly grabbed my interest when I heard things were falling apart in a big way.  Reports of marriage infidelity and the two living very separate lives made headlines.  On June 22, 2009, legal proceedings were initiated in Pennsylvania to dissolve the ten-year marriage of Jon and Kate.  The episode announcing their separation became the most watched episode of the series, with 10.6 million viewers.

The Way of the World

The reason for my newfound interest in Jon and Kate is from my Catholic perspective as an author of a book on saved marriages and also as a wife and mother.  Mark and I have had our own ups and downs.  We know the stress of raising a large brood.  But we also have grown together in our faith in God and faithfulness to the teachings of the Catholic Church.  If the odds makers had taken bets on our marriage, they might have given us ten to one odds in favor of us splitting up.  And the “one” would have been thought possible due to the children and Catholic teaching against divorce.  There was a time when that was the glue that kept us together.  But let me tell you, although those are two good reasons, to live an authentic Catholic life, you need more.  You need love.  And the only true love is the love that comes from God.  Only then is there love enough to spread throughout the family and weather the storms.  It is the love that never ends.  You don’t get it from your spouse, you get it from God.  You become filled with that love and then it spreads from there.

Mark and I have not always been the poster children of happy couples, but by golly, though hell and high water, our marriage is stronger than ever now.  Our secret?  Prayer and filling ourselves up with God’s love.  This is something we’ve chosen to do.  It did not just happen.  I once heard Fr. Corapi state, “Remember, love is not a feeling it is a choice.”  Since love comes from God, it means asking for it and wanting it above all else.

Recently, when I expressed regret to my oldest son, Aaron, that Mark and I used to argue in front of the kids, Aaron remarked that even if he and his siblings got mad at each other over something, within minutes, they were always talking and friends again.  No one holds grudges in our family.  That made me realize that in the midst of our bad example we had also provided a good example.  You see, we had no money to take off on separate vacations or set up separate residences.  Instead, for good or for bad, we were stuck with each other.  Given that we were both striving to be good Catholics, the response to our marital discord was to turn to God and ask for the love we needed.  Even if I was furious with Mark, I knew neither of us was going anywhere so the only thing to do was apologize to God and spouse for any bad behavior on my part and ask for the love we needed to go on.

Just the other day, I went to a talk given by Fr. Tom Richter who spoke on the love of God.  He stated that Jesus filled Himself up with the love of the Father.  Nothing stood in the way of this for there is nothing of greater value.

Fr. Tom made a powerful point when he said that when he ministers to men in prison, he tells them that the most valuable thing they can have in this world, they can have in prison—to fill themselves up with God.  So many people that live supposedly free lives deny themselves this most important thing.  Jobs, money, prestige and social life are all things that people often seek at the exclusion of God.  Even though we know mentally that God should be our all and be at the center of our existence, we push Him out in favor of lesser things. To fill ourselves with the love of God is to be complete and to be in union with the greatest good.  But people often instead choose worldly things that will rust and corrode, leaving little or no room for God.

What does any of this have to do with Jon and Kate?  Everything.  I’ve watched as they’ve made more and more money. Re-runs attest that their home and lives, although complicated by a large family was once simple in other ways.  There was not a lot of money or luxuries.  The couple was a team.  As Kate went to have her tummy tuck, (a charitable donation by a plastic surgeon) the couple hugged and kissed before Kate went into surgery.  Jon valued his wife and expressed that he could not imagine trying to raise their children without her.  She, in turn, expressed her love for Jon.

High ratings turned this show into a regular weekly program.  Before the eyes of many, Jon and Kate began to live the American dream.  Nicer clothes, vacations, a bigger home and all the luxuries money could buy slipped into their lives.  Yes, the two personalities sometimes clashed and having a camera in their home must have created stress, but something much uglier began to happen: money corrupted this family.  Jon and Kate can both buy whatever they want and go wherever they want now, with or without the kids.  This, they do.

All the while, Jon and Kate continually look straight into the cameras and say, “The children come first. I’ll do anything for my children.”  Anything?  How about Retrouvaille, a serious marriage program to work on saving their family?  How about marriage counseling?  How about turning the cameras off and walking away from the money and publicity?  The money and all that the show has given them is supposedly for the children according to Jon and Kate.  The house belongs to the children so Jon and Kate will take turns living in it during their time of custody.

But what do the children want?  There’s no abuse forcing one to flee this relationship.  The example they are setting is horrible.  Jon and Kate cut each other loose so quickly, without any indication that counseling and/or God had been brought into the problem.

God Centered

My other daughter, Mary, likes to watch another reality T.V. show, Eighteen Kids and Counting.  This is about the Duggar family, which consists of parents Jim Bob and Michelle and their 18 children.  This family has a camera in their home too.  But the lifestyles are very different.  The biggest difference is that God is continually brought into the center of things.  They family still maintains a relatively simple lifestyle and it would appear at least from what the camera captures, the love of God is at the heart of this family and the material world of fame and fortune does not infringe on that.  One reality T.V. family is still thriving, the other falling apart.  One family is centered on God, the other seemingly not.

So, on the surface, it appears that the Gosselins have attained everything but on a spiritual level, they have nothing.  The family is splitting apart before ten million viewers.  It’s the American way and there lies the tragedy.  This couple and so many in our society are blind to the fact that without God in the center, things eventually spin out of control.

Filling oneself up with God—not money—is the way to love and happiness.  Studies have shown that big-time lottery winners typically become less happy than before their win.  Have you ever met a person filled with the love of God that was unhappy?  Do you know of people with lots of money who are unhappy?

Volumes of research in recent decades have shown that more money produces virtually no increase in life satisfaction.  Instead, the studies indicate that dramatic increases in one’s wealth creates only short-term happiness that lasts until people get used to their newfound status.

The Journal of Science reported in June of 2006, “The belief that high income is associated with good mood is widespread but mostly illusory.”  One study concluded, “People with above-average income… are barely happier than others in moment-to-moment experience, tend to be more tense, and do not spend more time in particularly enjoyable activities.”

It is true that even poor people divorce.  But a God-centered couple does not.  Even if their personalities are very different, it’s all about love.  We all know couples that are as different as night and day and yet they have love.  And just as the Beatles once sang, “Money can’t buy me love.”  No, God’s love is not for sale.  He gives it freely but we need to desire it — above all else.

The Gosselins are not really living the American dream; they are living the American tragedy.  I know some will tell me not to be so simplistic, that their troubles are about more than money.  I would agree.  My contention is that the troubles are actually about only one thing — God, or rather the lack thereof.  God centered marriages might still have their struggles but they don’t fall apart.

During the year of my beloved St. Paul, his words in 2 Timothy4:6-8 echoed in my soul as I ran along my chosen path: As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have longed for his appearing.

God has whispered His wisdom to me while praying the Rosary and running over the years. Taking only my fingers and rectitude of intention along as prayer tools, I open my heart to receive His light. I feel like the disciples whom Jesus instructed to take nothing with them during their first mission. I, too, have only the Paraclete to unite me to heaven as my Nikes pound the earth. The totality of the running experience frees my soul to pray. Even distractions, such as airplane engines ripping the sky above, serve as a point of meditation for me. This is earth. There are no planes in heaven. The noise reminds me that I will not let Satan snatch the joy of my prayer-run from me. I then hear only the birds or the wind-tossed leaves. I’ve even heard the silence of a fawn nestling in moss. She echoed the silence of my soul at prayer.

The Joyful Mysteries seem to yield abundant fruit during my runs. On the Monday following the Notre Dame student body’s standing ovation of President Obama, Our Lady reminded me to rejoice in the midst of fear. God’s perfect will for Mary, and humanity, was announced and incarnated, in time, both 2000 years ago in Nazareth and two days or weeks or years ago in Indiana. Christ defeated death through his birth in a stable. My fast-beating heart gave birth again.

While leaping roots and mud puddles: expected stumbling blocks along my way, the Holy Spirit showed me that love and service of others requires sacrifice. The Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth was not without its trials either. Mary had to overcome her own exhaustion, nausea, and travel logistics to attend to Elizabeth’s needs. She persevered. While praying this second mystery of the Joyful Mysteries, I meditated upon what keeps me from serving others. Do I judge whether their needs are legitimate? Are they worthy of the service of a very busy woman? Can I even afford to make the meal or donate the diapers? “Why is my hardened heart leaving good undone”, I’ve contemplated while approaching a hill I’d rather walk than charge. Mary then energizes me not only to run up the hill, but to act in the service of others.

During one run several years ago, I had counted off the Joyful mysteries with each breath but without apparently receiving the Breath of Life in my prayers. Finally, as I began to pray the fifth Joyful Mystery, the Finding in the Temple, my heart began to pound with joyful understanding. Jesus’ words to his parents, “I must be about my father’s business” became my answer to those who had chastised me about yet another pregnancy with the following comment, “Whatever you’re trying to prove, you’ve already proven it. You don’t need any more children.” Peace caressed me and my tiny, unborn tenth child. Perhaps Jesus didn’t know why He was in the temple. He only knew that He “must be about my father’s business”. I, too, couldn’t explain why my husband and I were open to a large family. My reasons weren’t important. I knew, with every stride, that I was running the race for God. Only His perfect will mattered for me and my family. The Father wanted Grace in the temple of my body and I submitted, answering, “Yes, I will be about your business, Lord.” The supernatural gift of Understanding given to me four years ago continues to breath life into me while I run and pray. Effective exercise and true prayer continue energizing one long after the prayerful run has ended.

Often, running is my prayer. It’s my small way of returning thanks to God for allowing me to co-create eleven children with Him. I struggle to regain fitness postpartum in order to glorify God in my body. Also, in justice, my children and husband deserve a mother and wife who cares about her body and soul. They deserve an energetic and happy mom. Prayer and exercise produce that fruit. I believe God is using my family to evangelize the world to the truth and beauty of the human family and to the goodness of children. Therefore, in living my vocation I represent what a Holy Catholic Mother may resemble. I try to present to the world an attractive example of Christian life in everything I do, including care of my body. God willing, my runs are helping to forge my victor’s crown.

The prayer of running inspires me to “finish the race” when I feel exhausted both on and off the trail. Running the Rosary has taught me to persevere through the end despite the crosses of my vocation. Many times I have not wanted to begin a run. On those days, I am gentle with myself. I start slowly. I walk until my body remembers that I am a runner. Sometimes I’ll walk for a time and then recommence the run. My body deserves respect and recognition for what it has given the world: children. Training myself as a runner teaches me to nurture my soul too. As St. Frances de Sales wrote, “Hate your imperfections, then, because they are imperfections, but love them because they make you know your nothingness and give to you an opportunity to exercise yourself in virtue, and to God to show His mercy towards you.” Running and praying work together and teach me another lesson of St. Francis, “Courage! Let us rise above ourselves, for God will help us, and we shall advance.”

St. Francis must have been speaking to me, because some mornings I advance by leaping out of bed when the “alarm” of a child screeches. Therefore, my Morning Offering lays unsaid on my nightstand. I don’t despair of my slow prayer-start to the day. When I remember what I’ve forgotten, I return to my prayers. All is not lost. St. Paul tells us to persevere to the end. He doesn’t give us a time frame. Physical conditioning takes months and years to attain. Athletes continually train in order to improve. So, too, our souls require the humility of patient nurturing. St. Alphonsus Rodriguez wrote, “Let one say to himself in the morning, ‘This day I mean to perform my ordinary actions well.’ So, that becomes easy and tolerable, which might appear very difficult if it were taken in a general way, and with the thought that this effort was to be made for a lifetime. Meanwhile, by proceeding every day in this manner, little by little a good habit is formed…” Beginning to run again after each pregnancy has informed my prayer-life. My legs have run St. Alphonsus’ counsel on wooded trails while my soul, too, journeys along its path to heaven.

Regardless of one’s hobby, if it is of God, it can become a prayer. I have mulched my yard and meditated, cooked and contemplated, cross-stitched and beheld the cross. For one whose mind is set on things above, everything becomes an opportunity to contemplate the goodness of God and to glorify Him with your body. Ora et labora, indeed.

For example, a bill introduced in the Maryland legislature reads as follows: “An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation …may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation because of the person’s … gender identity.” This would mean that males dressed as females could use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

Such legislation is designed to give legal protections to those who reject the sex they were born with and want to be publicly accepted as the other sex -– the so-called ‘transsexuals,’ ‘transgendered,’ ‘gender queer,’ transvestites, and others. Such persons deceive themselves, deceive others, and are being deceived by mental health professionals and surgeons. The public is being deceived by the media and activists into believing that so-called ‘transsexuals’ were born with biological problems that are remedied by surgery and that it is possible to change your sex.

No one can change sex; it is written in DNA on every cell of our bodies. The people demanding “gender identity and expression” protection are physically normal men or women, but according to the “gender” ideologues, what matters is not what sex you really are, but what sex you want to be or think you are. People could be sanctioned for simply using the correct pronouns when referring to a person who is obviously male, but wants to be female.

The following quote from an interview with Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, author of a collection of essays titled: Our Culture, What’s Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses demonstrates the effect such lies have on the culture:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed.[2]

One lie leads to another. A clearly male person presents himself in public as a woman. He has had surgery and hormone treatments to perfect his impersonation and he demands that we pretend this makes him a woman. He wants us to use female pronouns when speaking of him and to allow him to use the ladies’ restroom. He also wants to change his birth certificate and driver’s license. While some persons who present as the other sex are obviously not the sex they pretend to be, others are able to deceive their sexual partners without informing them of their true sexual identity.

Persons who present themselves in public as the other sex say they need such protections because they are afraid of violence. This fear is real. When someone is deceived — particularly in such a personal matter has the sex of an intimate partner or potential spouse — anger is an understandable reaction. Violent acts can never be condoned, but if such legislation is passed those who have been deceived will be denied any legal recourse and the deceivers will be portrayed as victims.

The circle of deception created by this “gender ideology” begins with those who want to be the other sex deceiving themselves. As children they may have been wounded, traumatized, abused, or rejected. They fell into envy and fantasy, imagining “If I were the other sex, I would be safe, loved, valued.” This envy grew into an obsession. They coveted the body parts of the other sex, and despised their own bodies. The idea that they were “transsexual” may have been suggested to them by a mental health professional or they may have seen reports of “sex changes” in the media. They deceived themselves into believing that this would be the answer to all their problems. While some may simply want to be the other sex, others may actually come to believe that they really are the other sex, that nature made a mistake and gave them the body of one sex and the brain of the other. Such a delusion is very difficult to treat, particularly when the person learns that there are surgeons able to fulfill their fantasy and create the appearance of the other sex.

While those applying for surgery may insist that they have the brain or soul of the other sex, they really don’t know what it means to be the other sex. Most can only present a very stereotyped image of their desired sex. They have to constantly monitor their own gestures and mannerisms. They are excited when they are able to deceive others — to pass — but admit that they are often not accepted as the other sex. They want the government to force people to go along with their deception, but even if such laws are passed they will only be able to fool some of the people some of the time.

While persons who want to be the other sex desperately want to believe that they were born with this problem, there is no evidence for this. Some men and women who want to be the other sex failed to identify with their birth sex as children. This condition, known as childhood gender (sexual) identity disorder (G[S]ID), is preventable and treatable. Even without treatment most children with G[S]ID grow out of it; however, a small number persist in their desire to be the other sex.

Not all persons who want to be the other sex suffered from obvious symptoms of G[S]ID as children. Some males are autogynephiles, who began in adolescence to engage in paraphilic transvestite fetishism. A paraphilia is a sexual attraction to something other than another person. In this case a man is sexually aroused by to the image of himself as a woman. As unhappy adolescents, these males engaged in masturbation wearing their mother’s clothing and fantasized about being women. Many autogynephiles marry, have children, and engage in male-typical careers, while secretly engaging in cross-dressing. For some autogynephiles, cross-dressing is not enough; they want to perfect this image through surgery. One autogynephile explained that these are men who want to become what they love.[3] After surgery many autogynephiles continue to be sexually attracted to women and insist they are lesbians. It is interesting to note that some radical feminists are offended by the stereotyped images of women these men present. Some feminist groups have restricted their gatherings to women born as women and living as women.

Those who are obsessed with the idea of being the other sex often resist therapy. They refuse to look at the psychological reasons for their desires. Some mental health professionals, frustrated by their inability to treat this disorder and concerned about their clients’ obvious dysphoria, are willing to go along with this deception. They give in to their clients’ demands and recommend a surgical solution to what they as therapists know is a mental health problem. They deceive their clients into believing that a “sex change” is possible.

The “sex change” surgeons know they can’t change a persons’ sex, they can only create a non-functional appearance of the other sex, but they also know they will be well paid for their skill and so go along with the deception.

The news media report glowing tales of how John became Jane and is now entirely happy. Reporters use the new names and incorrect pronouns. Headlines read “The Pregnant Man” when the reality is that a woman who had her breasts removed and received male hormones to induce beard growth became pregnant by artificial insemination. Doubters are labeled “transphobic.”

Public officials go along with the deception, allowing persons who want to be the other sex to falsify their driver licenses and other documents, even some who have not been surgically altered.

Those who go through mutilating surgery — who sacrificed so much to achieve their fantasy — have to continue the deception even though their unrealistic expectations are often not met.[4] Anne Lawrence, a post surgery autogynephile, explains how the fantasy breaks down:

Autogynephilic transsexuals may also find it harder to fully identify with women after transition than before, because the difference they inevitably observe between themselves and natal women become harder to rationalize after transition. Before transition, these differences can be attributed to the necessity of temporarily maintaining a socially acceptable masculine persona: after transition, when this excuse evaporates, autogynephilic transsexuals may be forced to confront reality. Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals often seem to expect that, with enough effort, they will be able to pass undetected as natal women after transition; but because their appearance and behavior are rarely naturally feminine, this expectation usually proves unrealistic.[5]

Lawrence also points out that when autogynephiles are not accepted as the sex they want to be they can be vulnerable to narcissistic rage, which is defined as the “disproportionate, compulsive pursuit of revenge that seeks to obliterate both the offense and the offender.”[6] Extending legal protection to persons who want to present themselves as the other sex will give these narcissistic autogynephiles the right to pursue legal sanctions against those who will not go long with the lie that they have changed their sex. Given that “transsexuals” suffer from a “fundamental disorder” in their sense of self and are prone to narcissistic rage[7], there is every reason to believe that they will use such laws to ruthlessly attack anyone who speaks the truth.

If you want to understand the full potential of such wrath, consider the case of John Michael Bailey, whose book The Man who would be Queen provoked retaliation from a small group of persons who didn’t like being labeled autogynephiles. They used the Internet to make outrageous accusations against Bailey, attacking his children, trying to turn colleagues against him, and to have him fired from his job.[8]

Lawrence applies the following clinical description of narcissistic rage to Bailey’s opponents:

…need for revenge, for righting a wrong, for undoing a hurt by whatever means, and deeply anchored, unrelenting compulsion in the pursuit of all these aims… There is utter disregard for reasonable limitations and a boundless wish to redress an injury and to obtain revenge… The fanaticism of the need for revenge and the unending compulsion of having to square the account after an offense…The narcissistically injured… cannot rest until he has blotted out [the]… offender who dared to oppose him, to disagree with him.

Even if only a small number of autogynephiles are prone to narcissistic revenge, they could cause incredible harm to anyone who speaks the truth. They would see injury everywhere, file complaints, and institute lawsuits.

The laws adding “gender identity” to anti-discrimination legislation would allow men and women with serious psychological disorders, some of whom are prone to narcissistic rage and revenge to use the law to persecute business owners who are attempting to protect the privacy of customers in restrooms and locker rooms.

If “gender identity” is added to anti-discrimination legislation, the lie of “sex change” will be taught in the schools. It won’t be long before we will have children’s books about how Johnny’s daddy is now Johnny’s mommy and everyone is living happily ever after. Teachers and other school personnel will expect to be accepted in whatever form they appear. Mr. Brown will come back after summer vacation as Miss Brown.

Confused children with G[S]ID who need treatment are already being pushed down the path to surgical mutilation. Schools are being told that if an elementary school boy or girl believes that he or she is the other sex everyone should go along with this fantasy. The school should allow these troubled children to change their names, dress as the other sex, and use the restrooms of the other sex. Other children will be punished if they object or speak the truth.

And it gets worse. In some places, at age 11 these children who think they are the other sex are given puberty-blocking hormones so that secondary sexual characteristics do not appear. Then they are given hormones proper to the other sex, so that at age 18 they can be surgically mutilated. In other words, the entire educational, psychological, and medical establishment is conspiring to see that these children never receive proper treatment. There is no research on the long-term effects of these hormone treatments on developing the bodies and brain. Do we really believe that 11-year-old children have the judgment necessary to decide to permanently surrender their sexual identity and reproductive potential?

It seems like such a small change –- just add “gender identity” to anti-discrimination laws, but such a change discriminates against the truth and endangers children. We have an obligation to oppose it with all our energy.

One way is to stop using their language. Their words distort and deceive. I am currently working on Lexicon for the profamily movement. We need a common vocabulary so that we can speak the truth about the human person.

If you are interested in participating in the development of such a Lexicon or would like to view my suggestions, email me at dalemoleary@yahoo.com and request the paper “Don’t Say Gender When You Mean Sex.”

In the New Testament, different approaches to pre-Christian paganism are evident.  Paganism is a search, but it is a search hampered by confusion about the goal, about how to reach the goal, and about even desiring the goal.  In short, it is a search for the happiness Who is God that is befogged by concupiscence: the disordered appetites, weakened will and darkened mind that result from original sin.

That is why Paul’s language so readily shifts from sounding, at times, as though paganism is a human delusion to saying it is the worship of devils to saying it is a thing shot through with what the Church would later call “seeds of the Word”: hints of revelation from God himself. 

Here, for instance, is Paul addressing the Lycaonians after they have tried to worship him as a god in the wake of his miraculously healing one of their number:

Men, why are you doing this? We also are men, of like nature with you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways; yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness (Acts 14:15-17).

Notice how Paul sees the many-sidedness of pre-Christian paganism.  Pagans are, at once, devoted to “vain things” ranging from lifeless idols to devils.  Yet they are also “not without witness”.  Paul will say the same thing to the worshippers of the Unknown God in Acts 17, even quoting their own poets as though they are some sort of quasi-inspired writers.  So, on the one hand, the pagans are “feeling” for God.  They desire Him and are searching for Him.  But they are also commanded to repent because the “times of ignorance” are over with the coming of Christ.

Of what are they supposed to repent?  Paul’s diagnosis is unequivocal: 

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles (Romans 1:18-23).

If the essence of paganism is a search, its central blunder is this: it ignorantly worships the creature instead of the Creator.  For us moderns, ignorance is always exculpatory.  In the New Testament it sometimes is, but not always.  Jesus cries out on behalf of the pagan soldiers who are driving nails through his hands and feet: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 24:34).  But Paul also tells us that pagans are “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Ephesians 4:18).  In other words, Paul recognizes that sometimes we are ignorant because we have chosen to be ignorant.  Concupiscence darkens the intellect. 

This brings us back to the distinction between pre- and post-Christian paganism.  Pre-Christian paganism often is a search for God that results in repentance and the response to grace.  In post-Christian paganism, we face something different: the deliberate search for something besides God and the attempt to return to the worship of the creature instead of the Creator.  That places the error far more deeply in the will than in the intellect.

The impulse to worship the creature seldom expresses itself these days in the crude forms of pagan antiquity.  There aren’t too many statue worshippers out there.  But paganism is still as diverse as it was 2000 years ago, and in many ways, it is now more resistant to the antibiotic of the gospel.  Catholics who wish to speak to it intelligently must therefore take it on a person-by-person basis and never try to treat it as a blanket ideology.  As Pope John Paul II says, “Man and woman are the road the Church must walk.”