I have learned in all this that music is powerful beyond words, and often does what words alone can never do. I have often heard or read a Scripture, which may have had only marginal impact on me. And then the choir takes it up in song and it is pressed on my heart like never before, such that I can never forget it.
I have also learned with humility that I may preach boldly, but that it is often the choir’s sung response that makes the thought catch fire. I have learned to link what I preach to what is sung and work carefully with the choir and musicians. For while the spoken word my inform and even energize, the sung word strikes even deeper, engraving the word not only in the mind, but touching the deepest parts of the heart.
Music can often go where the word alone cannot. Beauty draw us to goodness and truth.
In my parish tonight our choir had its annual concert. 900+ in attendance, standing room only. There was a 20 piece orchestra and music that ranged from classical to Gospel, all religious in nature.
In tonight’s praise-filled concert, the congregation spent as much time on its feet in praise as seated and listening. Twice, they would not let the choir stop, and the refrain had to be taken up on both occasions, three times before the Spirit said, “It is well.” No one could leave Church tonight without the words and melodies of those songs alive: Great is thy faithfulness Oh God my Father….A change, A change has come over me….For every mountain you brought me over, for every trial, you’ve seen me though….I’ve got to say Thank you Lord!
In the concert a song was sung that, to some extent helps to illustrate how music can go where words cannot. The song stretches back to a scene in the movie, The Mission.
The scene is of a 17th Century Jesuit missionary priest, Father Gabriel, who goes deep into the rain forest seeking to win souls for Christ. He has heard that the indigenous people living there, though hostile to strangers, have a wonderful gift for music. Arriving near a settlement, he is aware that suspicious and fierce warriors lurking among the trees, likely intent on killing him, surround him. But Fr. Gabriel takes out his oboe and begins to play the melody that was the theme for the movie.I have included the scene in a video below.
As he plays the beautiful melody, the men emerge from the trees and begin to listen, now aware that no man who means them harm could play such a beautiful melody.
It is all a perfect illustration of the ancient insight that the beauty is powerfully related to truth and goodness. So Fr. Gabriel opened the door to truth by the beauty of music. And where his words would likely have had no impact, or be met with hostility, the beauty of the melody he played made most of them drop their weapons and open the door to him. Now they were ready to hear his words. But it was music, it was beauty, that opened the way.
In recent years the beautiful melody played by “Fr Gabriel” has been set to words and is now sung to new audiences who never saw the now old movie. The song in Italian is called Nella Fantasia and a quick summary of the translation is:
I my dream I see a place where all live in peace and in truth, and souls are always free, and fully human in the depth of their hearts.
Tonight in our concert the choir sing this beautiful piece, and I thought how, once a gain, it wasn’t just the words that had impact, it was the magnificent beauty of the melody. And, somehow the vision of the words was alive if, but for a moment, and the Kingdom of God shown through: that place of peace, truth, freedom and the human person fully alive.
Through beauty the vision, good and true, was shared in the depths of every soul present at the concert. For, in the end it is not a dream, it is the reality of the Kingdom of Heaven. The words may speak of a distant future, but the beauty of the music made it present now. Yes, the goodness and truth of the Kingdom were now, if but for a moment, expressed in the beauty of music and deepening the the commitment to follow the beauty, to goodness and truth.
Perhaps it was Fr. Gabriel playing his oboe all over again to us, hostile denizens of a cynical and jaded 21st Century. But the melody by its beauty rings true. And the beauty points to the truth and goodness of the vision and opens doors to the heart that mere words could never do. The cynical mind tell us it will never happen, but beauty tells us it will, and that it already does, for true beauty echoes from haeven.
And in a hushed Church, a word went forth, preceded by beauty, and for just a moment a dream, good and true, echoed in many hearts: In my dream I see a place where all live in peace and in truth, and souls are always free, and fully human in the depth of their hearts.
Music is powerful beyond words.
Here is the original scene from The Mission where Fr. Gabriel reaches the people through beauty (all but one).
And here is a version of the song based on the melody of Gabriel’s oboe. I regret I don’t have a recording of it by my own choir to share with you, but this video captures the beauty. Again the Words are in Italian and the basic translation is I my dream I see a place where all live in peace and in truth, and souls are always free, and fully human in the depth of their hearts
There was an expression common among the Rabbis of Jesus’ time, and perhaps even now, wherein one Rabbi would ask another a question, but request the answer be given, “Standing on one foot.” Which is a Jewish way of saying, “Be brief in your answer.”
And that sort of expression may be behind the question that is raised today by the scholar of law who asks, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
Just as an aside, it is likely, that the scholar of the law is not only asking for brevity since he is in a hostile stance with Jesus. (The text says he speaks to Jesus in order to “test” him). In effect he says to Jesus, “Alright, let’s get right to the point. You’re talking a lot of new things, but what is the greatest commandment?”
But for this reflection let’s just set aside the background hostilities and allow Jesus to recite the Law standing on one foot. And in so doing, Jesus recites the traditional Jewish Shema:
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד.
Šĕmaʿ Yisĕrāʾel Ădōnāy Ĕlōhênû Ădōnāy eḥād.
Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.
The fuller text recited by Jesus is from Deuteronomy 6:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. (Deut 6:4-6)
And Jesus adds, also in common Rabbinic tradition: And the second is like it, You neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
That’s it, the whole Law, standing on one foot. The first table of the Law, (the first three Commandants): Love the Lord your God. The Second table of the Law, (Commandments 4-10), Love your neighbor.
It is said that the ancient Rabbi Hillel, being even briefer, said of the second table of the Law, Do not do unto others that which you would hate done unto yourself, and all the rest is commentary.
We like to make it more complicated, but it really isn’t.
No other gods– If I really love God I should need separate laws that tell me I ought not put other gods, whether things or people ahead of him? No!, I want to be faithful and would never dream of being unfaithful by “sleeping with other gods” of any sort.
I Love His Name – Neither do I need rules that tell me not to use God’s name hatefully, or in vain and empty ways. I love his Name, and just to hear it lights up my heart with love.
I love to Praise Him – And if I love God, I do not need to be compelled by law or fear to come to Church on Sunday and worship him. I want to worship him and praise his name.
I love my family, Church and Country – And if I love my family my Church and my country , I do not need to be told to reverence those who have lawful authority in those places. I love my parents and my family, and am willing honor, reverence and pray for them for all set in authority and honor there. I love too my Church and willingly love our leaders and pray for them. And I follow the teaching of the Church with joy, trusting that I am hearing the voice of the Lord who teaches me through the Church. And I love my country and pray for our leaders that God may uphold them and guide them. I willingly follow all just laws and work for unity based in truth and for the common good.
And I love my neighbors, So why would I want to kill them, whether physically, emotionally or spiritually. If I love others I reverence their life and act in ways that build them up and encourage them and help them to have a richer and more abundant life rooted in the truth. I would never act recklessly to endanger any of them. Of course not, I love them.
I Love human life – And if I love my neighbor, why would I tempt them, or exploit them sexually? If I love the human family, why would I endanger it by treating as light the great sacredness of human sexuality by which God calls us into existence? Why would I want to look at pornography or laugh at crude jokes that demean something so sacred? If I love others why would I merely want to gratify myself at the expense of others? If I love, I grow away from these unloving things.
I love others by respecting what is rightfully theirs – And if I love others why would I wish to steal from them, harm or endanger what belongs to them or unjustly deprive them of what is rightfully theirs? Why would I want to act unjustly toward others by refusing them just wages or by giving just work for just wages? Why would I be unjust to the poor by refusing to help them when it is in my ability to help them. For if I have two coats one of them justly belongs to the poor. If I love others why would I steal or act unjustly? No, I want to help them and am glad when they are blessed. I respect what they rightfully have have and share in their joy.
I speak the truth in love – And why would I lie to those I love? Or why would I seek to harm their reputation or gossip about them? Why would I pass on hurtful things that I don’t even know are true? And why would I fail to share the truth in love? Love rejoices in the truth, so why would I lie or suppress the truth?
I rejoice in the good fortune of others – And if I love others why would I seek to unjustly possess what they have or resent them for what they do have? No, I love them and am happy for them. Perhaps their blessings mean that I too will be blessed.
I reverence the families of others – And why would I ever seek to harm the marriage or family of another or resent them for the gift they have in their spouse and family? No I am happy for their blessings. I am happy that my friend has a beautiful wife and well-behaved children. Out of love I seek to encourage him to rejoice in his gifts!
So there’s a little commentary if you need it. But it all comes down to love. Love rejoices in God and wants whatever God wants. Love rejoices in the other and wants what is best for them.
Now of course love is the key. And many of us struggle to love. But God can give us a new heart, a heart that actually starts loving God, fully and freely; a heart that has a deep love, even affection, for everyone. God can do that for us. Yes, if we want it, God can do it:
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (Ez 36:26-27)
A thousand questions and doubts may come to mind, when we are called to love. It is true even when we love, we cannot always say yes. Love sometimes must say no, and love cannot approve everything. Love must sometimes correct and reprove. But, in the end, people know if you love them or not, and they know if you love God. And if people know of your love and experience it, it is possible to say even difficult and challenging things. Yes, in the end, our thousand questions are still answered by love.
And now we ought to stop. For, since Jesus is giving the law standing on one foot, then the preacher must also brief. You and I like to complicate things and ask lots of question. But in the end, it is simple enough: Love! And all the rest is commentary.
This song reminds us that to love God, is first to experience powerfully his love for us. One day it will finally dawn on each of us that the Lord died for us.
There are a number of Biblical texts that speak of being generous to the poor, for to do so will brings bountiful blessings. Or put negatively, if we are stingy we will come up short in our own blessings.
Just for a brief post today, consider the following verses, and then see a rather funny demonstration of these verses in a Fita Crackers Ad (from the Philippines).
Here is a promise from the Lord:
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap (Lk 6:38).
But the text goes on to state a clear principle:
For the measure you measure to others, will be measured back to you.” (Lk 6:38)
And again comes the rule of returning proportion:
Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously (2 Cor 9:6)
And so the Lord the admonishes us
One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. (Prov 11:24)
And now a word from our sponsor that illustrates well the text: Who sows sparingly will reap sparingly. The Ad is “clever by half.”
I have often pondered how the Church has survived 2000 years. I have considered how long the Church could have survived without the promise of Christ that gates of Hell would not prevail, and without the Holy Spirit. I have concluded that we would have lasted about twenty minutes, max.
Yet here we are, a kind of miracle, so big, that no one notices. 2,000 years old, (longer if you ponder our Jewish roots). Empires and nations have risen and fallen during that time: The Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the great and expansive European nations with their widespread colonies: the British empire, the Spanish and French expansions and later contractions. It was once said, “The Sun never sets on the British Empire.” Now it does. And all Europe, as we know it, may be in the late autumn of its existence. Chinese dynasties have risen and fallen, more recently the Nazi and then Soviet regimes have come and gone. In the 7th Century the Muslims came on the scene, expanded, contracted and now, it would seem, are expanding again.
But through all this the Church has withstood. Sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, but always, miraculously left standing, though all crumble around her. What other nation or organization can, as we do, trace its roots in an unbroken line of successors (Popes and bishops) back to its founder? It is true we have suffered some divisions within, some precarious moments, and it is true some have broken away from us. But the center has held, and the line is unbroken. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the Church). The Church stands, while Empires, nations, movements, and fads have come and gone.
And this miracle shines forth despite significant human obstacles within her: often terrible scandals, poor preaching, bad example, abuse of power, poor priorities, disorganization, sweeping heresies, schisms, lack of faith, and just plain stupidity.
It is said that the Napoleon, threatening to destroy the Catholic Church, was scoffed at by the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris in these words, “Priests have been trying to destroy the Church for 1800 years and been unable!” Words sad, but at times true. Corruptio optime pessima (the Corruption of the best, is the worst). Yet here we still are.
An old hymn (though Protestant in origin) is true when applied to the Catholic Church:
Though with a scornful wonder
we see her sore oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping;
their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.
Mid toil and tribulation,
and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation
of peace forevermore;
till, with the vision glorious,
her longing eyes are blest,
and the great Church victorious
shall be the Church at rest.
Until that time, we shall endure and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against us. Though dismissed by many who predict our demise, it is a promise of Christ (Matt 16:18) and it has proved true despite many previous predictions of our demise.
This does not mean that the Church is not in need of purification and pruning. And we have and will continue to experience this. I am convinced that we are still in a time of pruning. The Lord has taken the tall and proud vine of the Church, so luxuriant, it seemed, fifty years and before in this land, and has pruned us, by allowing us to be tested. This is a time of purification. A time not yet complete. But, as I have remarked before, I experience the Church here in America to be in much better condition than the more terrible times of the 1970s and 1980s. The pruning may not yet be fully over, but there are signs of greater purity and intensity already in: fervent and orthodox younger clergy, fine and wonderful new religious, many new and superb lay movements, and many individual lay people powerfully dedicated, sober and clear about their faith and the need to be light, even to accepting a kind of martyrdom in this ever darkening world.
The Church is surely a miracle; one before our very eyes. The world, and even many of the faithful, may think we are on the ropes and ready to go down. But we will endure, by the promise of Christ. An old spiritual says, Get on board children, children, there’s room for many-a-more. Nations, cultures, empires, and ideologies, will come and go. But there’s one ship that’s going to make it through this old storm tossed world, and that is the Church. Get on board children, (and stay on board), there’s room for many-a-more.
Photo Credit: The Cardinal’s Portrait by Rosenthal – A wonderful diptych of sorts. On the canvas painted by the monk, we see an image of the Church as we want her to be. On the left is the all too human reality of the Church. Ah, but the Church endures, by God’s grace.
This video of the Church being (re)built in France inspired me to write this post. Enjoy the video as you see a sign of new life and a visual image of the church being (re)built.
There is a magnificent interview over at National Review Online of professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, Christopher Kaczor. He is the author of the new book The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (Available at Amazon HERE). The interview is conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez, of National Review, and though she takes up the voice of a pro-“choice” advocate, she is not.
Professor Kaczor answers the most common questions and objects with great clarity. I would like to present a few excerpts of the lengthy interview here and encourage you to read the rest. I will excerpt it in the form of listing the question and the pertinent point he makes. And few minor remarks by me are in red. The Full article is here Pro-Life Aristotle
1. What right do you, a man, have to make such a case [against abortion]?
KACZOR: Legally speaking, everyone has a right to free speech, including speech about abortion….has the right and obligation to speak out in defense of the defenseless and in favor of a just social order. The question …seems to presuppose that abortion is simply and solely about women, but this is a false supposition. The majority of abortionists are men — more men than women describe themselves as “pro-choice” — and in the United States, men pay for abortions with their tax dollars. Aside from these considerations, every abortion involves the pregnant woman, the expectant father, the one who is aborted, and the society that allows it.
I would only add here that just under 50% of babies killed are male. I remember be “serenaded” at the last Pro-life march here in DC by pro-abortion counter demonstrators who I had witnessed to. They “sang” for me: “Hey, hey, ho, ho, pro-life men have got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho, if you got pregnant then you’d know!” They also told me, that as a man, I had no right to speak on this issue and since I was a priest, I was even more disqualified. As you might guess, a few of them accused me of being a pedophile. Yes, yes, if you put yourself out there expect to get it with both barrels
2. No book [or law] will eradicate the fact that there are women who will feel the need to abort their unborn children and doctors who will provide the service. It was the case before it was legal and it will be after.
KACZOR: I think you are right that abortions took place prior to legalization and abortions would continue if abortion were made illegal. The same point can be made for theft, child abuse, and assault, which have always happened in human history and which will always happen. Indeed, if people never did the act in question, making a law about it would be superfluous.
Exactly and I would add that i think laws do influence some people not to do certain things. I know that one of the reasons I never tried drugs in High School was that I knew they were illegal and the risk associated with such use helped to deter me. Many say you cannot legislate morality. To certain extent I agree and don’t lots of unnecessary laws, but my own experience is that law both reflects and influences moral decision making.
3. What’s the least compelling argument supporters of legal abortion make?
KACZOR: “It is my body, it is my choice.” [Actually], in abortion, there are two bodies involved, the body of the pregnant woman and the body of the human being in utero. [They] can be of different blood types and different races, and it can happen that one of them dies and the other lives and vice versa. If there were only one body involved, then absurdities follow such as that a pregnant woman has two heads, four arms, and, if she is carrying a boy, also a penis. Further, “choice” is a euphemism disguising the reality. Everyone supports good choices that are just and promote human welfare. The question is whether abortion is such a choice. Great answer, and humorous to boot, showing the thoughtless absurdity of the slogan.
4. What’s different about your Book and your argument?
My argument is not faith-based, but rather based on reason and evidence. There is no appeal to theological authority; there are no Scripture citations to justify conclusions, and no premises that come from ecclesial authority. The case against abortion is made to all persons of good will, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. As a priest I usually have recourse to Scripture. But it is clear that we must also make use of Natural Law arguments based on natural reason.
5. Is it just to tell a [pregnant] teen she’s got to have a kid…?
Of course, no one should ever be forced to become pregnant, but a pregnant woman already “has a kid.” After pregnancy has begun, the question is not, “Do we force her to have a kid?” but rather “Will we support this expectant mother and her child?” People of good will should answer “yes.” A wonderful turning back of the the phrase “have a kid.”
6. What does Aristotle have to do with the poor mom who feels as if she has no alternatives when she realizes she is pregnant? The desperate teenager? The single professional who can’t both do her job and have this child?
KACZOR: I believe that everyone, including the poor mom, the desperate teenager, and the single professional, desires to find true happiness. I also believe that Aristotle, and even more fully Thomas Aquinas, showed that the way to true happiness consists in activity in accordance with virtue. There can be, therefore, no authentic happiness found in activity that is unjust.
I can think of one case in particular: a young student, not yet finished with her education, who found herself pregnant with a man she did not know well. With so many responsibilities, both to her extended family and to her studies, she felt desperate, alone, and trapped. It was truly an act of heroism for that woman to decide to place that child for adoption. I know the woman in the story very well. She is my birth mother. I feel such an enormous debt of gratitude to her….I don’t think there is any woman who in the long term regrets, even in the most difficult of circumstances, making the choice for life. But I know there are many thousands of women who still remember and mourn, even decades later, the date that their baby would have been born.
A moving and wonderful story of how making virtuous choices, even when difficult brings happiness.
7. Are there myths about abortion you’d like to use this book to shoot down?
[One] myth is that there is a debate about “when life begins.” In fact, informed parties, both those opposed to and those in favor of abortion, acknowledge that the human fetus is a living organism. Notice the phrase, informed parties. I have met more than a few uniformed people who still buy into the “tissue” argument or have been convinced of it by a Planned Parenthood official. Still, I am convinced that, deep down, everyone knows the child is alive and is a human being.
[Another] myth is that the debate is about whether the “fetus is a human being.” Informed participants in this discussion, regardless of their views about abortion, understand that the living organism within the woman is a member of the species homo sapiens…..The real question in the debate is: Should all human beings be respected and protected, or just some?
The debate about “personhood” is really the debate about who will be included in the human community, who will be respected, and who will receive legal protection. This debate goes back over the centuries, throughout which various classes of human beings were excluded from the human family. Those excluded tend to change over time but have been at various points Native Americans, Africans, Catholics in Protestant-dominated countries, Protestants in Catholic-dominated countries, non-Muslims, Jews, the handicapped, and women. Every single time we’ve said, this or that class of human beings does not merit protection and respect, I think we’ve made a terrible mistake. Today, I believe we’re making another terrible mistake in excluding from full protection and respect human beings prior to birth.
Yes, those who deny personhood or full legal recognition to the infant are in some pretty terrible company and heir to so pretty awful chapters in human history. Any quick look at history reveals how ugly it all is.
8. So what if a mother’s life is in danger? What if she has cancer? What if she will likely die if she is not treated? And what if when she is treated, the child might very well die?
KACZOR: Any legitimate medical procedure that is needed to save the woman’s life — whether or not she is pregnant — may be performed, so long as the death of the unborn child is not sought as a means or as an end. Of course, a pregnant woman may choose, if she wishes, to decline such interventions in order to preserve the life developing within her. These cases are governed by what is called the principle of double effect….So long as the death of the unborn child is not sought as a means or as an end, and the procedure is necessary in order to save the life of the mother, it may be done even if it brings about the bad effect of fetal death. In a similar way, the death of the mother may not be sought as an end or as a means, yet she may choose to accept her own death as a side effect of protecting the life of her child. Innocent human life is worthy of respect and protection, but in some tragic situations, life will be lost whatever is chosen.
Again, the key point with double effect, is intent. There can be no direct intent to harm the child in the womb. One may forsee the possible or even likely loss of the the child, but does not wish or intend it. Further, the death of the child cannot be means by which the woman is saved. The death of the child is only the regrettable side effect of a procedure that is critically necessary to save the mother.
The whole interview is wonderful and he even uses a Star Trek analogy at one point. Consider reading the article. I am interested in your comments. I also realize that the “double effect” scenario mentioned at the end is troubling and difficult for some who are not used to hearing it. But it is straight-forward Catholic moral theology. Nevertheless, I welcome questions about that and also that readers might also supply greater insight to that or any of the points made here.
When I was in High School, a school of 3,500 students, we had several academic tracks for the students. Some of us took the college prep track which emphasize the academic disciplines such as math, science, literature, grammar, writing, history etc. But back in those days (1970s) there was still a sense that college wasn’t for everyone. And so we also had some other tracks. On one side of the school there was a magnificent “industrial arts” lab where guys learned most of the trades, such as plumbing, basic electrical, carpentry, sheet rock, masonry, and car repair, even drafting. Another section of the school trained mostly the young ladies in licensed practical nursing, typing, stenography and basic book-keeping. There was also a culinary school.
Quite remarkable really.
Most of that is gone now, at least here in the Washington DC area. I say with some degree of frustration and sadness that I have heard that the drafting lab where I once learned mechanical drawing is now a nursery for the many young girls to have their babies watched while they go to class. Another sign of the cultural meltdown.
There was a lot wrong in the 1970s, but the insight of multiple tracks wasn’t one of them. Frankly not every one is cut out to go to college or needs to. There seems to be hyper emphasis on college. Many public and Catholic high schools like to boast that 98% of their graduates went to college. But why should 98% go? Is it possible that the pressure and increasing “requirement” that everyone go to college is an unjust expectation? Is it really necessary that everyone have a college degree to get, even entry level, clerical work or tradesman status? Why?
I wonder about “justice” here for two reasons
1. Tuition rates are disgracefully high. Many families and students incur enormous debt to jump through the increasingly required college “hoop.” There are some State Colleges and community college alternatives that are more reasonable, but even there, books are horribly expensive as are the increasing requirements for laptops, lab equipment, electronic readers and many other ancillary stuff. I am not asking for any regulation of tuition rates but I wonder about many of these college campuses which pride themselves on their “socially enlightened” views and then jack up prices like this.
Tuition has gone way out of sight. Currently over 60 colleges and universities in the country charge over $50,000 a year for tuition. Here in DC, Georgetown charges $52,161 and George Washington charges $51,775.[1] At some point, rates like this become unjust and drive up other more affordable schools as well.
Again, I am not asking for some Government agency to regulate tuition rates. What I am proposing is if we as a culture ought not step back and ask if “requiring” college for so many, is necessary and just. Perhaps it is time to reexamine trade schools and other avenues as entry points into our economy.
2. Time – A college degree used to take four years. Not exactly short, but manageable. You got your BA or BS, your ticket was punched, and you went into the workforce. Today, however, there are increasing requirements for the MA and even the doctoral degree to get “access.” So, add two, three or more years and, by the way, pay even more, and go deeper into debt.
In short, creeping credentialism is costly in terms of time and money. When things get this costly and time consuming, it is time to ask if it is necessary that we require such an elaborate and expensive system for people to “get their ticket punched.”
I have seen employment ads for car mechanics that listed a college education as preferred. Why? I have seen the same thing in want ads for chefs and cooks. College? Is that necessary? Closer to home, I have seen Catholic parishes list secretarial openings that strongly prefer college degrees. Why? Sure, for the parish business manager a degree and or significant professional experience is essential. But for a secretary who types, answers phones, keep records, and makes ordinary use of Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, is a college degree necessary? Why do we do this, and is it possible we are unnecessarily shutting out the poor or others who, for various reasons, could not have access to the college scene?
Finally, I am going to get really controversial and wonder if a College Education is not overrated as well. Years ago, College was an intense experience of the life of the mind where one sampled from the deepest veins of human learning; reading the classics, studying ancient languages, reading the philosophers, theologians and scientists. One emerged having drawn deeply of these, and being rather conversant in the great ideas that underlay the modern sciences, culture, economics and political theory.
Today college has morphed into a kind of trade school, but a very expensive and time consuming one. Students specialize quickly and sample far less of the foundations of learning and knowledge.
Further the lifestyle of college campuses (as we have discussed before) is poisonous to the moral life, and even the education of young people. Widespread drinking, fornication and drug use are usually unchecked by academic leaders. None of these help the life of the mind, and they surely kill the life of the soul. The college scene also devastates maturity and many leave college less mature and self disciplined than they entered.
I have talked with a few people in HR departments in both private and government sectors and they indicate that many college graduates are unprepared for the discipline of work. Many of them have short attention spans, a party-rock spirit, and are not used to hard work and showing up on time. Job one is for many of them to grow up and quickly, otherwise they do not retain employment long. While not all college students exhibit these problems it is enough of a trend to mentioned.
While this topic is not strictly a theological one, I have tried to couch my remarks in terms of justice, and also culture, which we comment on a lot here.
Please let me know what you think and what your experiences are. I do not want to be unjust in my own reflections, but at the bottom line I think we need to augment and open other viable paths into the workforce for high school students today. A college degree has its place, but is far less necessary than we make it; or so I think. How about you?
Here’s a classic comedy routine by Guido Sarducci called Five Minute College:
The Gospel from today’s Mass was of the familiar parable of the man with a big harvest who built larger barns to store his excess, but then was called a fool by the Lord for he would die that night and his riches profit him nothing. I have written before on the parable itself but would like to reflect here a bit more on the lines just before and after the parable.
The passage begins as such:
Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?”
The Lord then tells the familiar parable and how the rich man dies surrounded by his riches, but a fool and unprepared to meet God because he thought somehow that his wealth could sustain him for years.
Then comes the memorable line:
Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God.
While this line may invite a post describing at length a list of what matters most to God, I’d like to limit the reflection more on how, what we are usually most anxious and concerned about is not usually what matters to God.
Look at how the passage begins. A man is concerned about money and that he should get some share of the family estate. Surely Jesus who cares about justice will side with him! But the reaction of Jesus indicates a kind of irritation with the nature of the request. In effect he says, “Look, this sort of stuff is small potatoes. You’re all concerned about the wrong thing. You have far bigger issues in your life you ought to be thinking about (like greed, and a host of other sinful drives that will destroy you) than money and fair share. I have not come to be a banker, a real estate attorney, a probate judge, or a financial adviser. And as for you, you need to get your focus and priorities right.”
Here of course is a kind of paradigm (or example) of a common human problem, and that is, that we often get all worked up about the wrong things and pay little attention to things that matter far more. Consider a few examples:
I. In listening to people pray, including myself, at public gatherings it is interesting how most of the prayers (almost 100%) deal with worldly matters. “O Lord, fix my finances, fix my health, fix my spouse, fix this or that situation so I am more comfortable and better situated, help me get a promotion at work.” None of these things are wrong to pray about, but notice the worldly and passing quality of most of it. It is almost as if we were saying to God, “Just make this world a better and comfortable place for me. Give me enough health, friends, money and creature comforts, and that’s all I need, I’ll just stay here forever!” In a way it’s a terrible thing to say to God and surely there are things for which we should ask that matter more to God.
I am sure God waits for the day when we will finally say from our heart, “Lord give me a closer walk with you….help me hunger for your justice, righteousness, truth and holiness. Help me repent of my sins and desire greater holiness. Help me yearn for the day when I can come and live with you and grant me the grace to be prepared to enter your presence. Take away my sinful attachments to this world and make my heart’s truest desire to be You and the joys waiting for me in heaven with you.” I am sure God’s waits for the day, for these are things that matter to God.
In the end, nothing matters more to God than you, yourself, and that you be made ready to be with him forever. Money, who cares? Health? That passes anyway, as does the body, and worldly glories. But the soul? Now here is something that matters particularly to God. But we go one praying for money, health, greater comforts, etc. Not wrong per se, but not the true priority, a priority which is often wholly neglected by us.
II. What then is our greatest problem? Lack of money, health or resources? No! Our greatest problem is our sin. Jesus says, If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better to loose part of your body than to have it all cast into hell (Matt 5:30).
What is Jesus saying? He is saying that it is more serious to sin than to lose your hand, or your eye, or your foot.
Now we don’t think like this. If I were to lose my hand in some terrible accident, I would hate this day for the rest of my life. Indeed, it would be terrible. But why don’t I think this way about my sin? To God my sin is a far greater problem than a financial shortfall, or even bodily loss.
My sin matters to God, because he sees what it does to me, and that it is a far greater danger for me than any other worldly danger or problem. And yet, most of us pay little heed to this and are un-alarmed by it. But we sure know how to hit the panic button if we lose our job or get a diagnosis of cancer.
Our priorities are wrong and we are not rich in what matters to God. That is, we are not rich in repentance, cries for mercy, and a sober understanding of our truest and deepest problem, our sin.
III. And look how we too often raise our children. Almost all the focus is on worldly success. Johnny might know little or nothing about God, the Mass, Scripture or Sacraments, but let Johnny bring home a bad report card, and the reaction is quick. Here is a problem to get to the bottom of, because if Johnny doesn’t get better grades, he might not get into the premier local High School, and then, might not get into the best college, so he can make a killing, (oops, I mean a living).
So, the parents go into action. Perhaps a tutor is hired to help with math etc. Meanwhile Johnny barely knows the Our Father, doesn’t have a clue at Mass, his moral life is heading south, and all he knows about Adam and Eve is that they were “in the Bible or something.” Finally Johnny’s scores are better and he proceeds apace to the finest local High School.
One day his father proudly says to the Catholic pastor, “Great news! John has gotten a full scholarship to Princeton.” And the pastor says “Great!” When what he should say to the father is “OK fine. Now let’s find out who is going to preach the gospel to him up there. You know that it will be, (like most college campuses), a moral cesspool of fornication and drinking. So, if we’re not serious about John’s spiritual life, he may go in there, come out a big-wig lawyer, and yet be heading straight for Hell. So what’s the plan for his spiritual welfare and growth?”
But do the pastor or parents really give any thought to this? Usually not.
And so John climbs the ladder of success but it’s leaning up against the the wrong wall.
Too often parents, pastors, families and parishes are not rich in what matters to God. Our children hear that they should study hard, get good grades etc., to make it in this world. Of itself this is not wrong. But their souls are more important, and matter more to God. How well do we teach and equip them to care for the vineyard of their own soul? How does this compare to worldly preparations? And do we conform to what matters more to God?
Well, perhaps this is enough. But the point here is that too often, too many of us are not rich in what matters to God. We too easily resemble the man in the crowd who was asking Jesus, the Savior of the world from sin and hell, about money. A sad demotion of Jesus to be sure, but also highly disclosing of a basic human tendency of caring more about passing worldly things, than eternal lasting things or God himself. Too easily we store up riches for ourselves but are not rich in what matters to God.
Help Lord! We need a new mind, but even more, a new heart.
OK I admit it, I am likely making up a word. But, by the term “noninfallibilist” am I referring to those who, in the discourse of matters of faith and morals, are dismissive of any teaching by the bishops and Pope that is not infallibly defined. Now as you may have guessed, those of this school, not only wish to exhibit a lot of freedom in what they have to believe, but also will define downward what qualifies as infallible.
Back when I was in seminary, thinkers of this sort were predominantly, if not exclusively on the theologically liberal end of the spectrum, and generally they used as their starting point their dispute with Humanae Vitae. Of course they insisted that it was not infallibly taught and, hence, they were free to dissent. They also appealed to the “spirit of Vatican II” which they claimed among many other things, had liberated us from from child-like obedience to the magisterium. The only problem was that the actual letter of the documents of Vatican II were not quite as “liberating” as the so-called “spirit” was.
For example, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium spoke of the Infallibility of the ordinary magisterium when it said:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine in- fallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among them- selves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held [definitive tendendam]. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. (LG, 41)
Further, it also said,
Religious submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authoritative Magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; indeed, that his supreme Magisterium be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, according to his manifest mind and intention.” (Lumen Gentium 25.2)
Oh Yeah? As you may remember, if you’re a bit older, or may suspect even if younger, the dissenting theologians of the late 60s and 70s parsed every word of these paragraphs, not to richly understand them, but to be done with them. And, as you may have guessed, they could find almost no instance in which the criteria set forth for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium or submission to the non-infallible teachings of a pope, actually or ever applied. Reams and reams of papers were published trying to minimize or neutralize the notion that we should open to being taught in faith and morals by the ordinary magisterium, and that if something wasn’t infallibly declared by the Pope (a rare exercise of the extraordinary Papal Magisterium), we were simply free to go our way, confident that the the ordinary magisterium or the the local bishop was no wiser that we in just about anything, including faith and morals.
Docility (teachableness) and obedience were on vacation.
Further, those were the times in which the great indoor sport of most prominent theologians was to show how nothing really applied, and how what seemed to have been quite plainly stated, did not mean what it actually said. Scripture was diced and sliced. Apparently Jesus never really said or did most of what Scripture sets forth. And plainly stated biblical morality didn’t really mean what it apparently and rather plainly stated. And, as we have seen, the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council had to yield to the spirit in which they were “obviously” intended. Actually quoting the texts was “indelicate,” “reactionary” and indicated “rigidity.” Ah, such were those heady days.
But today, I am concerned that such an attitude is not the sole mindset of dissenters on the theological left. The attitude is becoming increasingly widespread among most of the faithful, whether theologically liberal or conservative. Further, the attitude is less theologically considered and more just an unquestioned, even unconscious assumption, to wit: if something is not infallibly taught, I am free to wholly disregard what the bishops and even the Pope is saying. Of course what is meant by “infallibly taught” is a concept only vaguely understood by many, and very narrowly defined and interpreted by others. At some point, infallibility, a valid theological distinction, can become a sort of legalism.
Imagine a child explaining to his parent why he is ignoring them: “You didn’t threaten me with significant punishment, so I just ignored you.” But frankly a parent shouldn’t have to threaten a child, a child should be willing to be taught even without official threats and pronouncements. And yet many Catholics exhibit just this sort of attitude when it comes to the Church, our Mother: an unwillingness to be taught unless very stern and strict pronouncements are forthcoming or very specific formulae are iterated (As one theologian opined: mater si, magistra no! – Mother yes, teacher, no!).
Pervasive – As I have said this attitude was once the domain, largely, of the theological left. But now many on the theological right, irritated by a few decades of Bishops who, according to them, have strayed politically left, or have not towed the line tightly enough on liturgy, pro-life, etc., are also adopting an attitude, that they can wholly ignore the Bishops, who have a teaching office, unless we are dealing with something “infallibly” taught.
Last week on the blog I posted the issue of Capital Punishment, and while granting that the death penalty was not intrinsically evil, wondered if it wasn’t time to allow our shepherds (the Pope and the world’s bishops) to lead and teach us in the matter that, given our struggle with the culture of death, we ought to stand against the use of the death penalty in all but the rarest cases. The answer I got back from most readers was an emphatic “no.” And many reasoned that, since the matter was not definitely taught they had no obligation whatsoever to consider or stand with the Pope and the Bishops on this.
Many of the same Catholics are shocked and angered at the decision of some bishops and liturgists to simply ignore or withstand the Pope’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, encouraging more widespread use of the Traditional Latin Mass. But such are the times in which we live, where the climate of camps and the rigid refusal to be taught or be open to even non-infallible issues is common throughout the Church.
Some will argue that the Bishops have strayed beyond faith and morals when they issue letters on immigration, the economy, healthcare and the like. Possibly, but in all these areas there ARE important moral issues, biblical teachings, and Catholic social teachings that OUGHT to be brought to the discussion. Bishops do have duties to keep Catholic and Biblical teaching part of the discussion. And Catholics especially, ought to be more open to being taught, even when the matters are non-infallible and even if the view is at odds with their own political, economic and scientific views.
Consider the following quote from the Catechism:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (Catechism 892)
Now, some will want to endlessly parse the words, and so strictly define everything, that the statement above almost never applies.
But pastorally what # 892 says to me is that I should be willing to be taught by my Bishop and that what he, and especially the bishops as a whole teach together, ought to be a very important part of my thinking. What the Republicans or Democrats or talking heads think may be an influence, but how much more so my Bishop, in matters local, and all the Bishops and the Pope, in matters more universal.
Why should a newspaper editor, or political party influence me more than the the bishops of the Church? At bare minimum I should seriously consider what is taught by the bishops, and, even if I come to a technically different conclusion on some policy matter, I will at least take seriously the Catholic and Biblical principles they enunciate, and seek to include them in the policy considerations of the temporal order.
Having quoted this Catechism paragraph to one of the interlocutors in the Capital Punishment combox they (in effect) sniffed and said, that # 892 is not an infallible teaching and “I am free to disregard it.” I will not even argue the question of infallibility here, but the point stands that we ought to be more willing to be taught.
To conclude we might reflect on two virtues that are critical to having faith: docility and obedience.
The word docility is scorned in the modern world and caricatured as causing one to be a pushover, easily brainwashed etc. But docile in Latin means to be “teachable.” Hence, to be docile means to be teachable, to be open to the wisdom and knowledge of others. Like it or not, our Bishops do have a teaching office and, like it or not, they are the bishops God has permitted and intended for us. We ought not simply dismiss what we do not like, but remain open and teachable. Docility, though often maligned, is the door to deeper knowledge and faith and it better disposes us for wisdom.
Obedience too is maligned by the modern age. But here too there are Latin roots that disclose the deeper meaning: ob + audire means “to give a hearing to,” “to listen with open ears.” Hence obedience too implies that we are willing to listen, to be taught, and to strive to understand what someone in authority is teaching and setting forth as a course of action. Like it or not, our Bishops have authority and, unless they are setting forth evil or error, we ought to give careful consideration to what they teach and the vision they set forth.
I wonder if the “noninfallibilists” of our time will have anything to do with these notions. But my question remains, are we really free simply to ignore the bishops, and the Pope except when they clearly teach infallibly? Are we not in fact defining faith and Church-life downward by this attitude? What of docility and obedience in more ordinary matters? Is it really an all or nothing scenario, or are we on more of a continuum here where the default setting ought to be a listening ear and a teachable spirit?
I am sure many of you will have responses and distinctions to make. Remember I am starting a conversation not issuing an edict (as if I could). But I only ask this, that you might be careful not to so distinguish docility and obedience that they cease to exist as real categories. I know there are distinctions to be made and scenarios to consider which I have not set forth here, but there is also a general norm to be followed of docility and obedience, of religious assent of mind and heart. So have at it, and remember: caritas, caritas!
This video is a lot of fun. I have often thought of the aging of dissent in the Church, and still see a lot of hope in many younger Catholics. But given the reflection here, I am not so sure that dissent has had a few grandchildren. Anyway, the video is a hoot.
