Dare to Discipline

I used to listen to a talk radio host who would say, “In the department store of life, sports is, after all, the toy department.” Surely that’s a useful message for us “weekend warriors.”

But let’s take that comment a step further. In the department store of life, is our faith merely a department–and a “boring” one at that, such as housewares or women’s clothing? If so, then what about the rest of the store? Are there parts of our life that our faith doesn’t affect?

I think it’s very easy to compartmentalize our day. If we’re not careful, however, this could lead to our assessing our spiritual development based mostly on religious observance. In other words, we might look to whether we “got in” our Rosary, chaplet, holy hour, or whatever other devotion(s) we set out to do each day, as if these admittedly good things were ends in themselves.

Or we might pride ourselves on our “orthodoxy,” but then check our faith at the door in certain areas of our lives, such as in our business dealings or even our highway driving. Yet deep down we know that religious observance and doctrinal orthodoxy, to be authentic, must inform the totality of our lives.

Our Lord instructed His Apostles to go “make disciples of all nations” (Mt. 28:19). This call goes in a special way to bishops as the legitimate successors of the Apostles. Yet the call goes out to all of us. And when it comes to the family, parents are, in the words of Pope Pius XI, “vicars of Christ” within the home, the “domestic Church.” The various duties of parents described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 2221-31) all point to the vocation of Catholic parents to make disciples of their children. “Disciple” comes from the Latin word discipulus, which means “learner.” But just as being a disciple is more than mere “learning,” making disciples is more than mere “teaching.”

As the Church has emphasized in recent decades, teachers must first and foremost be witnesses. In other words, they must already be disciples themselves. But what are the hallmarks of a disciple, a true follower of Christ? One concise response was given by Our Lord Himself when He said: “Anyone who wishes to be My disciple must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Lk. 9:23).

What kind of disciples are we raising if we spoil our children, deny them nothing, and soften the daily requirements of Christian living when they seem inconvenient or burdensome? As far as that goes, what kind of disciples are we?

The word “discipline” comes from the same root as disciple. Discipline is not limited to correcting inappropriate behavior. It’s more about instilling virtue, self-control, and a sense of order in our children’s lives as well as our own. As Scripture says, “At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it” (Heb. 12:11).

Discipline is hard work even in the intellectual realm, as sound catechesis requires some memorization. At times it’s easier to give in and let the child do what he or she wants, but such short-sighted solutions in the long run lead to ruin. But we don’t merely discipline–we “disciple” our children as we draw them around Jesus in the Family of God (Catechism, no. 542).

Our children are watching us like hawks. Sure, they watch me when I’m praying with them or explaining Church teaching to them. But they’re also watching to see how I respond to conflict or disappointment, how I treat strangers, how I use “free time,” and where I turn for refreshment and meaning in life. What do they see?

Our children are God’s, not ours. Yet He entrusts these treasures to us for a time. Therefore, making disciples of our children must always be the top priority. We really need to “bring it” when it comes to their religious education, beginning in the home. What excuse could we possible have for doing less?

School Choices

When I was growing up in the 1960s and ’70s in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Catholic education didn’t seem that complicated to me. Like most of the other kids from St. Elizabeth parish, I attended the parochial elementary school for eight years and then went to one of the Catholic high schools in the area.

Now, as the father of six children, I understand that there’s much more to providing an education for my children than meets the eye. There are now more educational options than ever, and Catholic schools can be very expensive for medium-to-large middle-class families.

My wife Maureen and I annually survey the horizon to help us prayerfully discover what’s best for each particular child, keeping in mind his or her needs, gifts, and interests, but above all our duty to provide for our children’s formation in the Catholic faith. We’re well aware that many of our own school contemporaries stopped practicing the faith upon graduation, and so we see clearly the need to discern the matter with great care. The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that parents not only should select a suitable school, but even more “they have the mission of educating their children in the Christian faith.” It seems to me that this “mission” from God should not be taken lightly.

There are many ways that Catholic parents can fulfill their mission to educate their children in the Christian faith. This brings us to the next document in our survey of the documents of Vatican II: the 1965 Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis, or “GE”).

Among the various choices, pride of place still belongs to Catholic schools, where the faith is taught in the context of a thoroughly Catholic curriculum and environment. In fact, GE “reminds Catholic parents of the duty of entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible and of supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children” (no. 8).

In addition, there is now a growing number of “independent” Catholic schools. Many of these schools have arisen in response to perceived deficiencies in the existing Catholic and public schools. They tend to be smaller and more autonomous, giving parents greater control over curriculum and student life.

Other private schools, including Protestant-run Christian schools, often provide a high-quality education coupled with strong moral formation. The downside, of course, is that the Catholic faith is not taught and in fact the child will likely be challenged early and often regarding his or her distinctively Catholic beliefs. The child will require very strong grounding in the faith at home to flourish in that setting.

Public schools are always an affordable option, and in some cases they may be the best choice because of the range of special educational services and programs they provide. Given the pervasively secular nature of the public school system, however, parents need to be especially vigilant lest their children end up being formed by the popular culture rather than the Catholic faith.

Home schooling continues to be the fastest-growing option. In the United States, more than 2 million children are home schooled, and that number is increasing every year. My own family home schooled for many years. No doubt, it can be demanding–especially for larger families. Yet, by seeing our home as a “Catholic school,” we firmly believed that we were singularly embracing our mission as the primary educators of our children as described by Vatican II.

We must consider all of our options in light of the reality of today’s political and social climate. Societal attacks on marriage and family life filter their way down to individual families in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. If someone today speaks out against perverse lifestyles, he’s vilified and sent away for “sensitivity training.” However, large families are fair game, and derogatory comments about the Catholic faith or one’s family size are commonplace and socially acceptable.

Further, exercising our right to educate our children as we see fit comes at a significant cost. For example, as a home schooling father, even before buying books and school supplies for my home, I still had to support the public and Catholic school systems through my taxes and tithes. Now with kids in Catholic elementary and secondary schools as well as a Catholic college, I can understand the financial pressures Catholic parents face when it comes to education.

While assistance from the government in the form of vouchers would be most welcome, parents should also be able to expect assistance and support from the local Church when it comes to our educational choices. It seems to me that a culture of cooperation would be much more constructive than a culture of competition and suspicion. One encouraging example of this cooperation occurs when Catholic schools, taking their lead from the public schools, allow home schooling families to use some of their resources.

For many reasons, there is a natural tension among proponents of the educational alternatives available to us. The fact is that in choosing what’s best for their particular children, Catholic parents “should enjoy the fullest liberty in their choice of school” (GE 6). The Catechism further affirms the parents’ right to choose a school that corresponds to their own convictions (no. 2229).

In response to all this, I’d like to offer four principles that have guided my family’s decisions regarding the education of our children, which has led us to home schooling, Catholic schools, public schools, and independent schools at different times.

The Church and Media of Social Communication

The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) promulgated two documents at the conclusion of its 1963 session. By far, the more influential (and controversial) of these documents was the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, which we examined last week. The other document was the Decree on the Media of Social Communication (Inter Mirifica), the subject of today’s post.

Clearly in the 50 years since Inter Mirifica, there has been an explosion of new information technologies that create new opportunities—and challenges—for the Church. In the years since Vatican II, the Church has continued to develop her approach to this changing landscape, from the annual World Communications Day to her reaching out to those engaged in new media technologies at both the national and international level.

Despite the many changes in this sphere of human activity, Inter Mirifica does articulate some timeless principles that are just as applicable today as they were in the pre-Internet 1960s. The Council was clearly concerned about the responsible use of media to promote what is good, true, and beautiful. And clearly the Church has always seen advances in the field of mass communications as creating new, appropriate means of evangelization—from Vatican Radio in the 1930s to EWTN and now to the proliferation of Catholic blogs, podcasts, and apps.

Catechesis on the Fourth Commandment

This week we transition from the first three commandments, which set forth our responsibilities to God, to the last seven commandments, which specify how we are to love our neighbor. The first of these commandments is:

Honor your father and your mother.

It’s no accident that our duty to honor our parents comes next. In the first instance, we must honor those to whom we owe our very lives. St. Paul goes so far as to say that human parents are a reflection of God’s fatherhood: “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:14-15; cf. Catechism, no. 2197).

The Fourth Commandment is the only commandment dealing with love of neighbor that is not expressed in terms of “Thou shall not.” Rather, the commandment points how we should act to foster life-giving relationships in the home, which has been called a “domestic Church” or “Church in miniature” (cf. Catechism, nos. 2204-06).

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church beautifully summarizes the duties of children toward their parents:

“Children owe respect (filial piety), gratitude, docility, and obedience to their parents. In paying them respect and in fostering good relationships with their brothers and sisters, children contribute to the growth in harmony and holiness in family life in general. Adult children should give their parents material and moral support whenever they find themselves in situations of distress, sickness, loneliness, or old age” (no. 459).

Meanwhile, there is a beautiful section of the Catechism (nos. 2221-33) that describes the duties of parents toward their children. I think every Catholic parent would find guidance and even food for meditation in that section. I would only highlight here the parents’ role as the “first heralds” of the Gospel to their children as well as their ongoing responsibility to form their children in the faith and Christian virtue.

When children become adults, parents should welcome and joyfully respect the Lord’s call to one (or more!) of their children to the priesthood and religious life. Sure, parents should also rejoice should their children be called to Christian marriage or the single life, but in today’s social climate calls to the priesthood or religious life are too often opposed or even thwarted by Catholics parents who don’t fully appreciate the beauty and goodness of such vocations.

The Fourth Commandment does not only apply to family relationships.  It calls upon us to honor and respect all who hold positions of lawful authority.  Examples would include our bishop and pastor as our spiritual fathers, as well as our secular leaders. Only God’s authority is absolute, but we are to respect all those with authority in our lives, and obey legitimate exercises of such authority.

Authority should always be exercised as a service, putting the community ahead of one’s own interests.  It should respect:

• Fundamental human rights
• The rule of law
• Distributive justice
• The principle of subsidiarity
• The truth about God, about man, and about the world

Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God.  All citizens should collaborate with public authorities for the sake of the common good (see Catechism, nos. 1905-12).  This moral obligation on the part of all citizens includes these duties, among others:

• Pay taxes
• Exercise the right to vote
• Defend one’s country
• Voice just criticisms in defense of others or the community

While citizens are generally called to submit to lawful authority, a citizen is obliged in conscience not to obey the laws of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral code.  “We must obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

When to Confirm

Through the years I’ve encountered many opinions from Catholic leaders and religious educators regarding the appropriate age for Confirmation. While we can agree to disagree as to what would be the best approach in a given pastoral setting, it’s important that we know and understand the parameters that the Church has provided us on this topic.

We begin by examining the Church’s guidelines regarding those to be confirmed (in the Latin Rite), taken from the Code of Canon Law, canons 889-91:

Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.

§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.

Can. 890 The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and come to it at the appropriate time.

Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.

As one can readily see, the requirements are vague and not particularly onerous. In order to receive Confirmation, one needs to be baptized, obviously, and also “suitably instructed,” “properly disposed,” and “able to renew the baptismal promises.” These requirements are meant to be read in the context of canon 891, which foresees the “age of discretion” (about seven years of age) as a normative, “appropriate” age. So, the sacrament does not require a fully “mature” faith, but rather the faith of a “suitably instructed” seven-year-old.

Hating the Sin, Loving Our Friends

I recently received a letter from a concerned parent which contained this comment: “One of our daughters has stated that she believes that they are turning against their gay friends if they support the Catholic Church doctrine on the subject.”

Is the Church really against people who identify themselves as “gay”? Of course not. But how do we explain the Church’s position in a culture that increasingly promotes homosexual liaisons and even “gay marriage”? What kind of guidance can we give parents such as one quoted above? After all, the Church has always taught—based on natural law and Scripture–that homosexual acts are serious sins (see Catechism, nos. 2357, 2396).

First, I think we should be clear as to what we mean by terms such as “love” or “friendship.” Our Lord said that there is no greater love than to give one’s life for a friend (John 15:13). Friendship entails sacrifice; love involves a sincere gift of self to another.

Further, when we truly love someone, we desire his or her good. The greatest good we can desire for another is his or her eternal salvation. This may sound good in theory, but it can be most challenging in practice when our friend or loved one is on a trajectory away from God. Are we willing to speak the truth in love to them? Do we have the courage to be ambassadors of hope and mercy? Alternatively, out of human respect, misplaced tolerance, or lack of religious conviction have we become “enablers” of sin?

The Church has always taught that we love the sinner even as we hate the sin. The Church certainly would not want anyone’s children to “turn against” or sever their relationships with their homosexual friends, but would challenge them to be “real” friends who desire their friends’ eternal well-being.

Second, it just may be the case that our children’s friends are so hostile to the Church that our children’s espousal of Catholic teaching on homosexuality alone would end the friendship. Here we have to affirm the challenging truth that fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Church must be the priority. We hold out every available olive branch, but we cannot deny Christ just to keep a friend. Our Lord on several occasions reminded us that our vocation as Christians would at times require us to face rejection, even from those close to us (see, for example, Luke 12:49-53). Yet He does give us the consolation of His Holy Spirit to help us in those difficult situations.

 

Gay Parenthood

One argument offered in support of same-sex marriage is that children raised by same-sex couples have no more problems than children raised by their married biological parents. Aware that a major impediment to their agenda is public concern about the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, gay activists have encouraged researchers to “disprove” this concern. They offer their “findings” to the courts in marriage cases.

The majority of these studies do not compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by married biological parents, but with children raised by single mothers or in other less-than-ideal circumstances. Further, many of these studies have been shown to be externally or internally invalid. And in some cases, researchers simply ignored their own findings and skewed their conclusions to fit their agenda.

Persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) are human beings. It’s natural for them to want to experience the joy of having children: to love, to nurture, to leave a legacy. There’s nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become pregnant and bear a child, or a man wanting to experience the joy of seeing his son grow into manhood or his daughter develop into a beautiful woman.

Yet children are not trophies, or a way to meet one’s personal needs, or props to help forward an ideology. People aren’t a means to an end; they’re meant to be loved for their own sake. Therefore, no one has a “right” to a child. It’s children who have the rights. When circumstances separate a child from one or both biological parents, adults should try to create a situation for him or her that is as normal as possible. No matter how honorable the intention, no one has the right to compound the tragedy of separation from biological parents by subjecting a child to another suboptimal situation.

At this point, children raised by same-sex parents are being subjected to a massive social experiment not undertaken for their benefit, but to further the gay rights agenda.

Activists might claim that couples with SSA are “rescuing” children by adopting them out of poverty or other hard circumstances. Although laudable, this intention doesn’t negate the real problems caused by same-sex parenting—problems deeper and longer-lasting than material deprivation. This argument also loses force when one considers the many roadblocks to adoption faced by stable, well-to-do married couples. Same-sex adoption doesn’t necessarily provide more homes to needy children; it often keeps those children away from married couples who would otherwise adopt them.

Of course, when reproductive technologies are used to create babies for same-sex couples, these children aren’t being “rescued” from anything. Instead they’re being intentionally (and immorally) conceived to be placed in suboptimal situations. At best, this is treating the child as an object, a possession, without regard to what may be best for him or her.

On pp. 218-19 of her outstanding book, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage (Sophia, 2007), author Dale O’Leary summarizes the risks to children of same-sex parenting as follows:

(1) Each of these situations is either fatherless or motherless. Children flourish when they can identify with a parent of their own sex and feel loved and accepted by a person of the other sex.

(2) These children are fatherless or motherless because of adult decisions–often based on a need to feel validated or “complete”–not unavoidable circumstances. Either by adopting them or conceiving them artificially, their care-givers deliberately choose to deprive their children of a mother or a father.

(3) In every same-sex household, one or both parents have no biological relationship to the child. Often compounding the situation are complicated and often contentious legal and emotional relationships with sperm donors, surrogate mothers, former spouses, and ex-partners.

(4) Persons with SSA have a psychological disorder rooted in childhood trauma, which can negatively affect their relationships, their attitudes toward the other sex, and their attitudes toward parenting. They are also more likely to have psychological disorders and therefore are more prone to engage in behaviors that might negatively affect their children.

(5) Adults with SSA are part of a community that views itself as oppressed and in conflict with the greater society. This at-war-with-the-world stance places a burden on the children.

(6) Homosexual behavior is considered sinful by many religions, and same-sex parenting is otherwise stigmatized to some degree in mainstream society. The majority of people in most communities believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Right or wrong, this can’t help but isolate the children raised by same-sex couples, creating feelings of differentness and inferiority.

(7) The community of adults with SSA tends to have attitudes toward sexuality that encourage sexual experimentation and don’t adequately protect minor children from exposure to sexually explicit materials and sexual exploitation.

Living Vicariously

We’re all accustomed to referring to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. After all, it was Peter who received the keys, and as Catholics we recognize the role of St. Peter’s successor as Christ’s chosen representative to rule and guide the Universal Church until the end of time.

But one teaching that sometimes gets overlooked today is that the bishops are not simply vicars of the Pope, but vicars of Christ Himself in the particular Church (i.e., diocese) assigned to them. They legitimately exercise their role only in communion with the Pope, but nonetheless they personally exercise their office in the name of Christ as a successor of the apostles. He is neither a mere representative of the Pope nor does he legitimately exercise authority apart from the Pope (See Catechism, nos. 880-96, especially 894-95).

Of course we saw all this play out last week when Archbishop Naumann made his ad limina visit to the Holy See with the other bishops from Kansas and Nebraska.

Some may be surprised to know that a number of Popes have even referred to Christian parents as vicars of Christ in the home. For example, Pope Pius XI, in his 1929 encylical Divini Illius Magistri, wrote: “Parents . . . should be careful to make right use of the authority given them by God, whose vicars in a true sense they are.”

Of course this truth connects well with Vatican II’s emphasis on the family as the “domestic Church” or “Church in miniature.”

Now the Pope, the bishops, and Christian parents are all vicars or representatives of Christ in different senses and in different realms, but these roles again need to be understood and exercised in a complementary, not competitive sense.

Who’s Your Teacher?

Every year during Holy Week, my family puts out an Easter display, which, like the more familiar Nativity scenes, provides a tangible image of the events of the particular liturgical season. After the Easter Vigil, we roll the rock away from the opening of the tomb and remove the resurrected Jesus.

One Easter morning, I asked my then-four-year-old son, Samuel, whether he had checked out Jesus’ tomb. He ran downstairs to investigate, much like Peter and John did on the first Easter morning. I was so pleased; everything was going as planned.

However, Samuel soon came back and reported, “He wasn’t in there, so I put Him back in.” (Pause for chuckling.) “Where did you find Jesus?” I asked, to which he innocently replied, “Over by the television.”

Obviously, my wife and I have much more work to do with Samuel and our other children to ensure that they understand the central mysteries of our faith. Like Samuel with the Easter scene, not every lesson has been a smashing success, but we realize that we cannot lose heart, because teaching our children the ABC s of the faith is a crucially important responsibility. The Church tells us, after all, that because we are parents, we necessarily are teachers.

In today’s Gospel we hear, “As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’ [or ‘teacher’]. You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers” (Mt. 23:8). This is from the same discourse in which Jesus says, “Call no one on earth your father” (Mt. 23:9). Does Jesus really mean that we should avoid using these titles? Of course not. After all, these terms continued to be used by Christ’s followers in the New Testament after this discourse, and they have been continuously used throughout the history of the Church.

One incident in St. John’s Gospel sheds particular light on the nature of Christ’s teaching. On this occasion, the Jews marveled at Our Lord’s teaching and asked, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” Jesus responded by saying, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (Jn. 7:15-16). Jesus’ religious teaching was authentic because it came from His Father. It was a question of divine authority, not mere human learning or ingenuity, no matter how clever or insightful.

That same principle applies to all of us. We’re authentic teachers (or, more technically, “catechists”) to the extent we communicate the person and teachings of Christ rather than our own opinions or agendas. While we rightly adjust the way we communicate the teaching depending on age, culture, and other variables, Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8), and His teachings are true in every age. Christ commissioned the Apostles–and all of us–to pass on His teachings (see Mt. 28:19-20).

As Catholics, we understand that the Church’s magisterium, or official teaching office, alone has “the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition.” This refers to the special gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Apostles and their successors to ensure that no “break” occurs in the teaching chain. In other words, Jesus entrusts what He received from the Father to the Church, so that when the Church teaches, God Himself is teaching (cf. Lk. 10:16).

Some Catholics experience difficulty accepting a “magisterium.” The word comes from the Latin “magister,” which simply means “teacher.” However, for many people the term has negative, perhaps very negative, connotations. If one looks up “magisterial” in the dictionary, one finds secondary meanings such as “dictatorial,” “imposing one’s will,” “overbearing,” and “pompous,” among others. These negative connotations sometimes carry over into one’s perception of the Church.

As we know, the magisterium is hardly a dictatorship. In fact, the Church teaches us that the magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. But let’s face it: In today’s “dictatorship of relativism,” as Pope Benedict has described the present climate, the assertion of objective, revealed truth as represented by the magisterium is an affront and a stumbling block. We are taught to choose and create our own truth, particularly in moral areas in which our inclinations and desires might clash with “magisterial” teaching.

Catechizing for Conversion

I often hear complaints that many Catholics are ignorant of the faith. We rightly critique the various factors that contribute to this phenomenon, from defective catechetical materials to uninspired teaching and a lack of parental support. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around.

While all of the above may be true, it’s nonetheless fair to say that the problem is not so much a failure of catechesis so much as it’s a lack of evangelization (and thus a lack of faith).

Catechesis is about helping a person mature in the faith. In other words, it’s about “educating the true disciple of Christ by means of a deeper and more systematic knowledge of the Person and the message of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Pope John Paul II, On Catechesis in Our Time, no. 19). 

Notice that the Holy Father assumes here a living faith, that the person being catechized is already a disciple. In practice, that’s an assumption we cannot afford to make, especially in today’s culture. The Holy Father admitted as much, and also said that catechesis not only must nourish and teach the faith, but also unceasingly arouse it.

While all of this is part of  ”evangelization” in a broad sense, arousing one to a personal commitment to Christ is evangelization in the stricter sense, and that’s the sort of evangelization that I think is often lacking, and when it is, catechesis just doesn’t stick.