You’re going the wrong way!

25 April 2009
Saint Mark’s Day


You’re going the wrong way! One of my favorite movies is Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. There is a very funny scene where Del Griffith, played by John Candy, is very distracted listening to his music and smoking cigarettes. At one point he realizes that he is very warm with his winter parka on, but instead of pulling over to remove his coat, he tries to remove it while driving. To make a long story short he nearly wrecks the car and finds himself on an exit ramp. As he returns to the highway, he does not realize he is going in the opposite direction. His passenger, Neal Page, played by Steve Martin, is asleep through it all.

Soon a man and woman in the other lane attempt to warn him that he is going the wrong direction. Instead of listening to them he ignores them and says that they’re drunk. “How would they know where we’re going?” He continues laughing with glee that the couple was trying to tell him the direction that he should go. I won’t spoil the film for those who have not seen it, but it is a wonderful film about metanoia, turning around, indeed turning from a selfish, self-centered way of life to an other centered, unselfish, thoughtful, altruistic way of life – or at least embarking upon that path.

How does this scene have to do with today’s Catholic? Everything. There are many Catholics – indeed Christians – who think that they are going in the right direction. Are we going in the right direction? As individuals? As families? As a school community? As a parish? As a Church?

Catholicism is the oldest Christian expression of faith in Jesus Christ. We believe that within Catholicism the fullness of God’s Revelation is made known to us; His Word and His Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist

All of the disciplines in the building have rules. For instance in English one cannot just create his own spelling rules or grammar rules; in math 2+2 cannot equal 3.764 just because Uncle Jimmy says it is so. The athletic department has to abide by rules and all sports have specific rules for fair play. So it is with the faith of the Church.

I strive to share with the students (and parents) the Tradition of the Church that comes to us from Christ and the Apostles and the early church. I cannot change the mission of Catholic education.

An example of what I am speaking of can be given with polls. There have been many polls where Catholics deny the importance of regularly Sunday worship, the respect for the gift of human sexuality, the life of the unborn or elderly, the integrity of the human body and even the bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead and his promise to return again in glory.

What this boils down to is that many Catholics claim to believe, but by their lives they are practical atheists, or worse, nihilists. Pope Benedict XVI speaks of those who live their Christian life as if God does not matter, or as if life itself does not matter or mean anything (nihilism). I believe he is on to something. There are people who claim to love Christ, but believe and do almost the exact opposite of what he taught and what he lived. I have much more respect for a sincere atheist than the nominal Christian who is really a nihilist. At least the atheists are honest. And no wonder so many people have become atheists. The reason? The poor example of those who claim to be Christians or Catholics.

G.K. Chesterton said “Christianity has not been tried and found lacking; it has been found difficult and not tried.” Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, admired Jesus and often quoted from the Sermon on the Mount. Once when asked, “Though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you reject becoming his follower?" Ghandi replied, "I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Are we being Christ to the World? Are we truly the Body of Christ? Do we believe what Christ said? Are we truly being formed into the image of Christ? Are we merely minimally informed about Jesus or are we allowing Christ to form us, are we being formed into the image of Christ? And are we helping to form the world into the Kingdom of God?

Now we are faced with an empty tomb. If the tomb is empty, then how must we live? If we wish to follow Christ, then we must take up our Cross and follow Him.

As a parent of a teenage myself, I am concerned for the faith of our young people. I realize adolescence is a time for great questioning, but educators across the country are seeing more and more students who are opposed to any intellectual challenge and seem to have all the answers. Yes, I realize Plato had the same complaint against some of his students in Athens in 400 B.C., but do hear me out.

In our culture there is this idea held by some that one can claim to be a good Christian or a good Catholic and not abide by the Commandments or the teachings of Christ and the Church and somehow we all going to somehow stumble into heaven on judgment day, no questions asked. If that is true, then why did Christ go through his agony and die on the cross? What was he saving us from is there is no possibility of losing eternal life in heaven?

C.S. Lewis spoke about those who want all the comforts of a loving God, but don’t want to bother with any of that bothersome morality or changing of behavior that makes us begin to look like a Christian follower of Christ.

In our culture, many people who fall into this category in the words of St. Paul, “they make a pretense of religion, but deny its power” (2 Tim. 3:5). Since many people do not practice their faith, they do not live the faith. They not only do not know their faith, they do not pray. Nor they do not pray with the church. Allow me to explain. Some will pray, sure, but their prayers rise to an image of god that is the bubblegum machine god in the sky, above the world, who has no real connection to the human condition, but a god no less. However, this god is not the God of Jesus Christ.

The god they believe in is really ignorant of most things – especially their personal lives and obnoxious and sinful behaviors – and as such this god is much like them. This god, therefore, excuses their every indiscretion, moral lapse, or sin as just a part of being “human”, or better yet, this god has no moral code at all and as such is unconcerned about so-called “correct” behavior. This god is therefore really only “there” to serve their needs – when they call upon him. Again, St. Paul’s words come to mind: “They make a pretense of religion, but deny its power.”

So, the humans are really in charge of this god, or consider him a talisman to ward off the opposing team’s efforts to beat them in athletic competition. This god is fashioned in their own image and likeness, and he – or “it”, more appropriately – is at their disposal and whim. Usually such prayers addressed to this god are for things and are primarily focused on personal needs. As such, the talk of a personal savior is copiously employed here. Again, the “relationship with god” resembles their own personal relationships.

Pope Benedict refers to such an appropriation of God to be merely for some type of psychological comfort, rather than an intimate and growing relationship with the Transcendent, though imminent, God: the God of Jesus Christ, who humbles himself to share in our humanity. This god is merely “a slob like one of us.” He is not the God that raises up a fallen humanity and calls us to reach for the heights of the kingdom, a kingdom where we are to bring God’s kingdom to the present world: on earth as it is in heaven.

St. Paul taught us to proclaim the truth of the gospel in season and out of season. I have always striven to do that in my 20+ years of teaching adolescents. In paragraph 1666 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church we are reminded that “The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called "the domestic church," a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.”

On the Third Sunday of Easter this year the Second Reading is from 1 John 2. “The way we may be sure that we know [Christ] him is to keep his commandments. Those who say, "I know him," but do not keep his commandments are liars, and the truth is not in them… This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived” (1 John 2.3-6).

In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says. “Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5:19)

Jesus said: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19.17). “You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother’” (Mk 10.19). "If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Jn. 14.19) “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me” (Jn 14.21).

Jesus said: “If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love. This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. You are my friends if you do what I command you” (Jn 15: 10, 12, 14, 17).

In 1 Tim. 1:9-10, Paul writes Timothy to clearly inform him and the church what it means to NOT be a disciple of the Lord. Namely those who are: “lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”

In 2 Tim. 3:2-5, Paul continues: “People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power.”

In 1 Cor. 6:9-11, “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

In 1 Cor. 6:15-20, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ's members and make them the members of a prostitute? * Of course not! (Or) do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For "the two," it says, "will become one flesh." But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.”

Finally, the very definition of Marriage itself is up for grabs in our culture. Allow me to remind us all of what marriage is. From the Catechism of the Church:
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).
1661 The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1799).
1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from the gift of a child (GS 50 § 1).
1666 The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called "the domestic church," a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.
Also, chastity is challenged today and many of our youth have been so infected with the sins of our culture, that they no longer regard the practice of sexual expression outside of marriage as a sin. The Catechism assists us in teaching about Chastity.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery (self-discipline) which is training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."127
2340 Whoever wants to remain faithful to his baptismal promises and resist temptations will want to adopt the means for doing so: self-knowledge, practice of a self-discipline…, obedience to God's commandments, exercise of the moral virtues, and fidelity to prayer.
2342 Self-mastery (self-discipline) is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life.129 The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.
2343 Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin. "Man . . . day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves, and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth."130
2347 The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate Christ who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divinity. Chastity is a promise of immortality.
2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ,"135 the model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.
2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.
Finally, the Christian identity is formed through personal prayer and communal prayer. The Liturgy, particularly the Sunday Eucharistic Liturgy, forms us as Church. We are formed by Word and Sacrament. When we gather as community in Christ we form the Body of Christ in a special way. When we receive the Eucharist, that is, the Body of Christ, we most fully become the Church, that is, the Body of Christ.
I use this analogy in class: if we don’t regularly attend practice for sports we won’t be able to play in the game. If we cannot follow the rules of the game, we won’t be allowed to play either. So if we don’t practice our faith or abide by the teachings of faith, then how can we claim to be Christians? Sunday Mass attendance (I am slow to use that word because, hopefully, we participate in Mass and not simply punch our ticket) is essential for church. In our culture “faith” or church attendance is nothing more that eternal fire insurance. I pray it is a lifestyle choice for you and your family.

Is it an important measure of a Catholic school’s effectiveness whether its Catholic students, past and present, attend Mass regularly?

Vatican II (Gravissimum Educationis par 2) emphasized that the development of a personal spirituality and participation in the Eucharist are included not just as aims, but as the principal aims of a Catholic school: "Such an education [Christian education] does not merely strive to foster in the human person the maturity already described. Rather, its principal aims are these: that as the baptized person is gradually introduced into a knowledge of the mystery of salvation, he may daily grow more conscious of the gift of faith which he has received; that he may learn to adore God the Father in spirit and in truth (cf. Jn. 4:23), especially through liturgical worship."

Parents have a serious moral obligation to educate their children. Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church. As such, the Resurrection of Jesus is the fundamental event upon which Christian faith rests (cf. 1 Cor 15:14). It is an astonishing reality, fully grasped in the light of faith, yet we commemorate the day of Christ's Resurrection not just once a year but every Sunday and every Holy Day of Obligation. Saint Jerome said: "Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, it is the day of Christians, it is our day".(3) For Christians, Sunday is "the fundamental feast day.

As Pope John Paul II taught in a 1998 apostolic letter, Dies Domini, the obligation of celebrating the Sunday Eucharist is not an arbitrary law imposed by the Church but "an indispensable element of our Christian identity". Do we want many teachers and students in Catholic schools to be left with the impression that, practically speaking, participation in the Sunday Eucharist is not required for authentic Catholic or Christian faith? Do we want teachers and their students to be implicitly taught that, in an institution aiming to form Christians, participation in the Sunday Eucharist is at best of minor importance or cannot be expected? If so, then the expectations of Catholic schools will be seriously diminished.

The values learned implicitly from students’ teachers can be flawed. Any lack of appreciation of the Eucharist is likely to be absorbed by students whose teachers are significant adults in their lives. Students influence one another, and a climate can be created in which students are taught – both verbally and by implication, that attending Mass is irrelevant and unnecessary. Research demonstrates that even the verbally unexpressed attitudes of teachers powerfully influence students. And it is well known how strongly adolescent behavior is also influenced by that of their peers.

Surely drastic and difficult decisions need to be taken to ensure that, first of all administrators, teachers and parents, understand and appreciate the place of the Eucharist in the Church or the Christian life. If these adults do not participate in the Eucharist fully, consciously and actively, the downward spiraling rejection of the great gift of the Eucharist by young Catholics is likely to continue. What then of the future of Catholic schools and the Catholic Church in America?

Most Rev. Robert J. Carlson, Bishop of Sioux Falls, writes, “We need to be clear in our expectations and call young people to be faithful. Parents need to be partners with us, and if they are the ones who are irresponsible, then they have to be called to the faith witness which is expected of them. Attending Mass on Sunday is a serious moral issue. In a Sunday Eucharist, we participate in the paschal mystery. The mystery of the church is made present.”

Sunday Mass attendance used to be a “given.” Practicing Catholics understood the Ten Commandments and the precepts of the Church as requiring attendance at Sunday Mass. Unfortunately here in the United States, attendance levels have been declining with an average of around 40% attendance, and even now that percentage seems to be declining.

The Pope himself as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is asking for a special effort on the part of all Catholics to sustain and improve Sunday Mass attendance. We are each called to evangelize on this issue.

St. Paul wrote to the Romans: “I urge you therefore, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect… For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another.”

What are the signs of our Christian community? Does a shared community here truly exist? Or have we fallen for the cultural lie of self-sufficiency and rugged individualism which allows us to be off in our own world with our own set of values and code of behavior, rules which can be vicious and completely alien to the mission and vision of the Gospel, Church, and school.

Parents have the duty and responsibility to educate their children in the faith; students who come to a Catholic school should expect a solid, Catholic education. But today the importance of sports and social life is the top priority for some students in the Catholic school. The devotion of athletes and their parents, and the near worship of athletic success, is, by all definitions religious in zeal and, indeed, the athletes and their parents are missionaries with an evangelical zeal.

Therefore, if the concept of a Catholic high school is simply a private-school with fine athletic teams where many people admit that the idea that the Catholic faith is first and foremost among faculty, students, and parents is really only a myth, then are we perpetuating this myth of Catholic education? And why?

Again, if the Catholic School is no longer where the Catholic Christian faith is the primary reason for the school’s existence, then should the church not question whether to continue funding a Catholic high school?

Consider how much local parishes support the schools. As a member of a parish myself, I know that a certain percentage of my weekly donation to the collection goes to further Catholic education. If I am no longer certain of the Catholicity of a Catholic high school, then the situation becomes an issue of injustice, not only to the students and teachers, but to the families and donors who are actually supporting the mission of Catholic high schools.

Are the best days of Catholic education schools indeed behind us?

When Catholics routinely no longer believe in the existence of God, miracles, the Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, or hearken to Church Teaching concerning the power of prayer, the inviolable dignity of each and every human life from conception to natural death, the dignity of human sexuality and marriage, weekly church attendance and participation, the requirements of social justice, pursuing the common good, and belief in the afterlife, and instead believe that the Church has perpetuated a lie or a myth that has deceived millions throughout history, this seems to be a situation that must be addressed in every Catholic home, not simply in the classroom.

It is – without a doubt – a struggle for the very soul of the Church and our faith in Christ. Our Catholic high schools were established to further the commitment to the faith. May we continue to nurture the faith of our ancestors – many who came here to the United States as unwanted pilgrim immigrants and established Catholic communities with their blood, sweat and tears.

Do we ever accuse Martin Luther King, Jr. of imposing his religious beliefs upon an unwilling southern majority?

A fellow Catholic and Christian recently wrote in our local paper that “The pro-life movement…has politicized” itself “to the detriment of society by attempting to force its religious beliefs on the rest of America…. The war on abortion will not be won or lost in the political arena. The sooner the pro-life movement comes to terms with this reality, the better and more effective it will be in promoting a culture of life that all Americans can embrace.” At first glance his argument seems plausible, even preferable.

However, as a student of history, one can recall such statements made regarding slavery. “The war on slavery will not be won or lost in the political arena. The sooner the abolitionist’s movement comes to terms with this reality, the better and more effective it will be in promoting a culture of life that all Americans can embrace ….” Need I go on in drawing the analogy to the Civil Rights struggle?

The words of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. come to mind: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Was not Martin Luther King, Jr.’s movement rooted in religion? Do we ever accuse Martin Luther King, Jr. of imposing his religious beliefs upon an unwilling southern majority when he demanded that the black Americans be treated the same as white Americans? And all because of his belief that the dignity of human beings was rooted in the fact that human beings were created in the image of God and by Christ becoming fully human therefore all human beings are brothers and sisters in the Lord?

If the pro-life cause were to suddenly compromise on its principles to placate the pro-choice side, and have peace in our time, then should we have also compromised on slavery? Compromised on Nazism? Or compromised on Civil Rights?

Doesn’t the Declaration of Independence impose a religious belief? “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Englishman William Wilberforce was opposed for his stance on slavery, yet time has proven he was a political prophet. No one in their right – or left – mind would attempt to justify slavery today, yet pro-slavery forces argued that Wilberforce was forcing his religious conviction on the populace.

Was Mr. Lincoln a Republican who “forced” his religious and political beliefs on an entire nation when he issued his Emancipation Proclamation? He violated the pro-choice southerners and their choice to own slaves.

Did the Allies force their religious beliefs on the Nazis when they liberated the death camps, i.e., “Relocation Centers”, like Auschwitz and then arrested the Germans who ran the camps and tried them at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity?
What of Bishop Desmund Tutu who strove against Apartheid utilizing his Christian religious tradition? And did not the Quakers and other Christians who vigorously opposed slavery do so from a religious argument based in the belief of innate human dignity?

Ought we now – in the name of tolerance – accommodate for other opinions as varied as strident pro-slavery or pro-Nazi sentiments? Ought we have compromised on slavery, civil rights, or even Nazism? Perhaps the allies should have allowed the concentration camps that were in German hands to remain open?

Would we – could we “tolerate” religious beliefs that demanded human sacrifice every New Year’s Eve to ensure that the year would be prosperous? If we tried to prevent this, would their argument not be stated thus: Who are you to impose your morality on us? Why are you imposing your religious beliefs (that life is inviolable) on us? This is an extreme example, but the case has been made that this type of argument leads to relativism.

Medical science has already shown conclusively that human life begins at conception. Yet the real debate now is whether nascent human life constitutes human personhood. Until our laws catch up with the scientific, biological reality that human life – indeed human personhood – begins at conception, the dilemma of abortion will forever remain with us.

No one makes a gut wrenching decision over removing an appendix or a tumor. An unborn child is its own person. If it were not, then none of us would be persons; we would still be parts of our mother's bodies. The right to life does not depend upon someone giving someone the right. It is an inborn, innate given at human conception.

Without any fixed morality for social and political existence, truth becomes a relative term and the dignity of the human person and the right to life and liberty becomes subject to political power or dominant philosophical thought. Again, if there is no truth to the innate dignity of human beings, then the concept of human dignity has collapsed.

Unfortunately, slavery was justified by denying the human personhood of human beings of African descent. The Nazis justified the death camps and anti-Semitism by claiming that the Jewish humans were not fully human.

This proclivity to deny human dignity is made especially clear now in the popular movement to create human beings in laboratories in order to harvest their valuable biological material, i.e., stem cells, in hopes of treating diseases afflicting human persons. The argument goes that they – the unborn, the embryonic humans – are not human persons, but merely potential humans, and as such they have no rights. The unborn are treated as disposable biological material with the argument that they are not fully human because they are not human persons. The objective truth of the humanity of human beings has been displaced with subjective norms. Yet if there is no objective truth regarding the humanity of human beings, then the objective truth of the dignity of each and every human person is lost.

A society that affirms the dignity of the person but then also permits fetal experimentation, abortion, or euthanasia is denying equality before the law. Showing respect for human life may also require the exercise of conscientious objection not only in relation to war, but also to procured fetal experimentation and abortion. Medical research, which has great potential for human progress and service, must also respect the integrity of the human person from the first moment of conception.

Therefore all human experimentation or research that disregards the inviolable dignity of the human being must be avoided. When a law denies an entire category of human beings the status as human persons, the very foundations of law and civilization are weakened. It is impossible to advance the cause of human dignity without recognizing and defending the right to life. All other rights are founded on and flow from this most basic of rights.

Democracy is false when it fails to recognize and affirm every person’s dignity and his or her subsequent rights. Violence toward others and self is not life giving, but death dealing. Nothing but an unconditional respect for human life can be the foundation of a truly renewed culture and civilization.

Of course, abortion is a mere symptom of a deeper moral problem, but many Americans have already turned against the slaughter of abortion. A century from now, the pro-choice opponents of those who hold that preborn human life is human life will be making a new accusation: They will blame the Church for abortion (just like some blame the church for slavery and the Nazi Holocaust). Unfortunately, they will have a point. They will name the prominent Catholics and Christians who supported abortion in our day and hence judge the Church by their actions - or inaction.

HOLY EASTER

Some of you have lost loved ones, indeed parents, brothers, or sisters, and even children.

We can then imagine the disciples utter horror of seeing Jesus arrested, scourged, crowned with thorns, stripped of his garments and dignity, and then to be crucified.

When Jesus was crucified he was harshly treated and, as the scripture reads, “…so marred was his look beyond that of resembling a human being; he was pierced for our offenses…like a lamb led to the slaughter…and who would have thought any more of his destiny?”

Dead men don’t rise. The Romans had death down to an art. They knew how to kill people. Crucifixion was the most dishonorable death imaginable. Crucifixion was typically carried out by a team of five men: a chief centurion and four soldiers. The victim was usually stripped naked and the soldiers would gamble for the condemned man’s garments.

Crucifixion was considered a most shameful and degrading way to die. The Jewish historian Josephus writes that the Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions as they tormented the condemned.

The goal of Roman crucifixion was not simply to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. In the ancient world, an honorable death required a proper burial.

So now you can understand why the Resurrection of Jesus was so unexpected. He was dead. Very dead. His Mother Mary, Saint John, and St. Mary Magdalene were at the foot of the cross when he died. It wasn’t a pretty sight. And yet now the disciples were witnessing the risen Christ Jesus in their midst. It just didn’t add up.


And today we hear about Mary Magdalene weeping at the tomb. What a saint! Faithful to the end while the other disciples – except John – ran for cover.

She was weeping because she thought Jesus' body had been removed. Mary has not yet imagined the possibility of the resurrection. She assumed that Jesus' body had been stolen. This shows that resurrection faith did not come easily to Mary or Peter or the other disciples.

Their reaction both to Jesus' death and to the empty tomb was despair. Even when she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She was not expecting to see him alive. What is clouding our eyes from recognizing Christ in our midst?

In Mary’s case her tears were no doubt blurring her vision. Have you ever cried so much that you can’t see straight? Mary was in that state. Her Lord was missing!
Even when we don't recognize or see Jesus, our lives can be changed. When Jesus called Mary by name she recognized him.

The early church turned the world upside down because they were overjoyed by the resurrection. They believed because they experienced the Risen Lord.

The resurrection is not just a matter of formal doctrine or church teaching that you have to believe in to be a good Christian. It is what makes us Christians. We don’t believe in the resurrection because it’s in the gospels; we believe in the gospels because of the Resurrection of Christ!

There are many people who call themselves Christian yet they merely go through the motions. Others have been honest enough to admit that they no longer believe.

But let’s examine the details again before we ignore the empty tomb.

If the Resurrection of Jesus was just a story made up by the early church, then why did so many of the members of the church endure horrible martyrdoms for a lie?

And if the church members were telling a lie, then they certainly wouldn’t have had written that women were the first witnesses to the Resurrection! In all the gospel accounts the women were the first to witness the resurrected Christ.

Furthermore, why would hundreds of followers who had scattered in fear and trembling after Jesus’ torturous death begin to boldly confess and profess their faith in a Risen Jesus and call Him Lord and Savior, risking all their worldly possessions as well as their very lives?

Many early Christians willingly accepted death rather than deny their faith in Jesus Christ!

Can you say Simon–Peter? What gave this scaredy-cat, sword-bearing, rooster-fearing fisherman the guts to stand up in front of thousands and proclaim the Kingdom of Christ?! Luke tells us it was the Holy Spirit and as a result 3000 people were baptized on the day of Pentecost – 50 days after Easter!

Jesus is as controversial today as He was when He walked the earth. “Come to Me, all you who are weary and find life burdensome. I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon your shoulders and learn from Me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and your souls will find rest, for My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Mt 11 28-30). With such a statement, then either Jesus was an egomaniac or God in the flesh. As for those who claim Jesus was merely a good moral teacher or only a social reformer, His own words betray Him. He did not come simply to teach. He came to save that which was lost.

Just think about it: A carpenter from nowhere Nazareth becomes a Jewish rabbi and preacher – then gets in trouble with the Romans – nothing new there – and he is crucified. So what? Sometimes hundreds were crucified under Roman rule. Why should one more cross be any different than the rest? Yet the story goes out that this Nazarene has resurrected bodily from his tomb three days after his burial. And this good news turned an empire upside down and eventually the Emperor Constantine would accept baptism and outlaw crucifixion and legalize Christianity. That in itself is astounding! Some would say that this is further evidence that he is indeed Risen from the dead.


Jesus' command to Mary Magdalene teaches us that the resurrection is not simply the end of sorrow and separation but the beginning of ministry. She is to go to the disciples and proclaim the resurrection to them. Mary is the Apostle to the Apostles, for the word apostle means: “one who is sent.”

Mary is told not to cling to Jesus because the Risen Lord is not a possession for us to grasp only for ourselves, but a message, a person, to be shared with the world.
Neither is His Resurrection something nice or just for us to recall once a year along with the Easter bunny so we can think happy thoughts as we eat dyed and boiled eggs, munch on those godforsaken yellow marshmallow peeps, and bite off the heads of chocolate rabbits.

No, Jesus’ Resurrection is much more than an Easter basket full of sugar and plastic eggs. Jesus is the real deal. All that He has, he shares with us: His Father, His mother, His Holy Spirit, His body & blood, soul, and divinity, and even His risen life. And we can begin to share in this Life now, experiencing his life in our souls and bodies. We have access to it in many ways, but especially in the Word of God and in the Eucharist.

So, if the tomb is empty, everything is changed. Today has to be different from last Friday. Either he is raised from the dead or his tattered corpse rotted away on some Palestinian dung heap where it was pecked at by vultures and wolves.

We must be willing to show people the way of justice even if this means we risk losing friends and so-called friends, even if it means we may be labeled out of touch with modernity or opposing what is popular or expedient or politically correct.

Standing up for what is true and right will often cost us something – it may even cost us our lives – yet we know that death does not have the final word.

We know that even the worst suffering imaginable can bring forth life in abundance! Our response to our own crucifixions and deaths is to have a deepened trust in God; for just as Christ was raised by the glory of the Father, so too will we be raised to new life on the resurrection of the Last Day.

So, if the tomb is empty, everything is changed. Either He has been raised from the dead and everything he taught is true, or else we have duped by one of the most elaborate hoaxes ever to deceive humanity! There really is no middle way. Either Jesus is who He claimed to be, namely the Lord, or else he was a liar or a lunatic.
The tomb was empty, that was for certain. But how was it emptied?

Our faith tells us that He is Risen. Jesus’ first command to us in the gospel of John was: “Come and see.”

May we have the courage to follow him so that we might truly believe that He is our Lord.

THE PASSION OF CHRIST

Holy Saturday Morning:

Here's an article I wrote that appeared during Lent 2004 on CATHOLIC EXCHANGE. It dealt with film: The PASSION of the Christ, but ultimately dealt with Christianity in general. It may be apropos today since Christianity has taken a few lumps lately from God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Speaking recently in Spain, at the University of Valencia, Dawkins said that Pope Benedict is "stupid, ignorant or dim."

Yet as Gerald Warner, columnist with The London Telegraph, wrote: "Not even Pope Benedict XVI's worst enemies have ever accused him of being stupid. The pontiff's awesome intellect and academic record have discouraged his most disparaging critics from pursuing that line of attack. Now, however, the man [Dawkins] possessing the mother of all intellects has expressed his contempt for the Pope's cerebral limitations."

At any rate, here's the article:
http://catholicexchange.com/2004/02/13/93695/

The Passion of The Christ: A Different View February 13th, 2004 by John W. McMullen

Seeing how everyone seems to have an opinion concerning Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of The Christ, even before it has been officially released, I thought I would add my drop of reflections to the accumulating ocean of verbiage.

Is This All a Fiction?

There have many critics — even some Catholic critics — of the film, but most have not experienced the film. I have not seen the film either, but my thoughts will deal with the criticisms themselves.

One of the major criticisms hurled against Gibson, as well as all Christians — indeed against the gospel itself — is that the gospel accounts do not portray a historical passion. In other words, these critics — even some theologians — question the veracity of the passion narratives themselves. The critics argue that the gospel texts were not written to portray history; therefore, the entire birth, ministry, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus are called into question.

However, these same scholars will point out that Saul of Tarsus — the notable Pharisee and ardent opponent of the gospel message of Jesus who oversaw the martyrdom of Saint Stephen — wrote his epistles 30-plus years before the first gospel was penned. In reading St. Paul's texts, however, one reads of the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ. Therefore their own scholarship appears to betray their argument against the historicity of the gospel passion accounts.

In the early Church the memory of Jesus' suffering and death was the focus of our redemption. An entire third of the Gospel of Mark is devoted to the passion and death of Christ. The early Christian writings also portray the passion as an actual event. Even non-biblical writers at the time, such as
Flavius Josephus, chronicled the crucifixion and death of Jesus. The testimony of the early church community is clear. This Jesus was crucified — and rose again. How else does one explain the Christian sect's continued existence, born from the life and teaching and death of an obscure rabbi, condemned by Rome and put to death upon a cross? The story of Jesus' resurrection and its effect upon world culture is undeniable.

A Different Jesus?

It is in the death of Jesus that believers experience salvation since He took our sins upon Himself. If this belief is what is in question, then perhaps we are thinking of a different Jesus than the Jesus Christ of our historical faith — one of the critics' own construction.

To those critics, especially Catholic, who doubt the historicity of Jesus' salvific death upon the Cross, I really don't know what to say. Saint Paul himself railed against Jesus until Jesus appeared to Him on the road to Damascus. The rest is history.

Yet the same critics claim that the Gospels are tainted with the virus of anti-Semitism. If the Gibson film is anti-Semitic, then Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan were tainted with anti-German hatred and should have likewise been condemned.

When I was a younger man, and the movie Jesus of Nazareth aired every holy week, I didn't so much get the idea that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death. If anything, I was concerned that viewers might draw a parallel between the religious leaders of the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and those of the Catholic hierarchy and clergy.

I am curious why films such as Dogma and Stigmata which challenged not only Catholicism, but the entire Christian faith, went noticeably unchallenged, while a film that depicts the heart of the Christian faith and the heart of the liturgical year — the paschal mystery and the holy triduum — has been so vilified?

If the gospel accounts do not truly represent an historical reality, namely, the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, then, in the words of Saint Paul, we are to be pitied indeed.
All of Christendom Witnesses to This

What of the millions of Christians throughout history who have meditated upon the Via Crucis, the Via Dolorosa, the Way of the Cross? Were they duped into believing a myth? What of the millions of devout Catholics and others who have prayed the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary which follow Christ in His final hours of agony to procure for us our salvation? Was it all one great campaign of propaganda propagated by Constantine and his meddlesome mother, Helena? If we can no longer rely upon the truth of the Gospels, are we now to abandon them? And with them, Jesus Himself? I think not. And with me stands all of Christendom.

The witness of the martyrs and their blood is the seed of our faith. In the words of Gamaliel, a Pharisee and rabbi at the time of Jesus, when speaking about the entire Jesus movement: Be careful what you are about to do. for if this endeavor is or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it is of God, you will not be able to destroy it; in fact, you may even find yourself at war with God (see Acts 5: 33-39).

A Nazarene carpenter turned preacher who was crucified by the Roman government should have never been remembered. Yet He is the man most depicted in the history of art (and His mother is the most depicted woman), and His life had such an effect upon the world scene that time was literally divided in two. What is it about this man that requires of us to make a decision? In the words of many, either He is the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. We each must decide who He is.

Jesus is as controversial today as He was when He walked the earth. “Come to Me, all you who are weary and find life burdensome. I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon your shoulders and learn from Me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and your souls will find rest, for My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Mt 11 28-30). With such a statement, then either Jesus was an egomaniac or God in the flesh. As for those who claim Jesus was merely a good moral teacher or only a social reformer, His own words betray Him. He did not come simply to teach. He came to save that which was lost. The very name Jesus in Hebrew is rendered “Yahweh Saves.” No wonder He is called Savior.

May His passion be ours as we both evangelize and wait in joyful hope for His coming again in
Glory.

Feticide versus Aborticide

Indiana legislation would lengthen prison terms for those who murder or attempt to murder a pregnant woman and cause the death of her unborn child. The House Public Policy Committee approved the bill which was motivated by the shooting of an Indianapolis bank teller, Katherin Shuffield, who was five months pregnant when she was shot during a robbery in 2008. Shuffield survived the shooting, but the twin girls she was expecting did not. Current Indiana law allows prosecutors to file murder charges in cases where a fetus dies, but only if the mother is at least seven months pregnant.

I wonder how many lawyers would argue that since abortion is legal, there can be no charges against anyone for killing an unborn child – if we are to be consistent in our laws? Until our laws catch up with the scientific, biological reality that human life – indeed human personhood – begins at conception, the dilemma of abortion will forever remain with us. In other words, why is it wrong to kill an unborn baby, but abortion is defended as appropriate and maintained as legal?

Some people will argue, "It is the Mother's right and only the mother's right to choose if she will keep her baby, because at that point it is a part of her body." This is the fallacy. If the pregnant woman is murdered, the point of this new law will be that two persons were murdered. And many pro-choicers are very uncomfortable with this new legislation. The ones who are not should be.

No one makes a gut wrenching decision over removing an appendix or a tumor. An unborn child is its own person. If it were not, then none of us would be persons; we would still be parts of our mother's bodies. If we use the (il)logic of those who say: "It's a child if she wants it, but not a child is she wants to abort it." Think for just a moment about what they are saying.

Would anyone object to me saying, "Personally I am opposed to aborting unborn Jews and blacks, but if you don't believe they are persons, then go ahead - they're not persons according to you"? The right to life does not depend upon someone giving someone the right. It is an inborn, innate given at human conception.

We would do well to remember when Lori Schultz, age 21, of Elk Point, S.D., threw her newborn baby away in a garbage bag rather than keep the child because she feared her boyfriend's reaction to the new addition in their relationship. However, she was charged with second degree manslaughter and could face ten years of prison for the act. Had Lori secured the services of a reputable abortionist none of us would have ever heard of her story and she would not be facing a prison term.

William Wilberforce was opposed for his stance on slavery, yet time has proven he was a political prophet. No one in their right – or left – mind would attempt to justify slavery today.

Of course, abortion is a mere symptom of a deeper moral problem, but many Americans have already turned against the slaughter of abortion. A century from now, the pro-choice opponents of those who hold that preborn human life is human life will be making a new accusation: They will blame the Church for abortion (just like some blame the church for slavery and the Nazi Holocaust). Unfortunately, they will have a point. They will name the prominent Catholics and Christians who supported abortion in our day and hence judge the Church by the actions of the spineless.

Moral Relativism’s Effect Upon Democracy and Education

We are mortified to learn that some students have not learned of the horrors of Auschwitz or the Nazi regime; still other children now question whether it was right for the world to criticize Nazi beliefs.

To show the effects of relativism upon education, (and putting aside the whole question of the morality of war), one recent poll indicated that a disturbingly high percentage of American students called into question the Allies’ declaration of war against Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II. Some of the students asked: “Who were we to tell the Nazis they were wrong?” This might be summed up in the common mantra: “We all have our own truths. What’s true for you may not be true for me.” If this philosophy is true, then why should we prefer democracy over totalitarianism?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, days before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, declared that we live in an era of a “tyranny of relativism.” Such a “dictatorship of relativism does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

There is a risk of equating democracy with moral relativism. Without any fixed morality for social and political existence, truth becomes a relative term and the dignity of the human person and the right to life and liberty becomes subject to political power or dominant philosophical thought. Again, if there is no truth to the innate dignity of human beings, then the concept of human dignity has collapsed.

In our own times, relativism has infected education. Monsignor Luigi Giussani, the late founder of the Communion and Liberation Movement writes in his book, The Risk of Education: Never before has society – understood as a general mental climate and life-style – had so many tyrannical tools to invade our consciousness. Today, more than ever, society is the sovereign educator or perhaps more correctly, mis-educator. In this climate, the educational crisis appears first as a lack of awareness in which teachers themselves become unknowing promoters of society’s flaws. It also appears in a lifeless approach to teaching, in which teachers lack the energy to wage war against a pervasive negativity…1

According to the Jesuit theologian Josef Jungmann, education is an introduction to reality. The word “reality” is to the word “education” like destination is to a journey. The whole meaning of the human journey lies in its destination, and the destination is present not only in the actual moment that the journey ends, but along each step of the way… Clearly, then, the value of an education is measured by how closely and obediently it follows reality.2

As a child matures, his character begins to develop. And character development entails a growing awareness of self and of the total meaning of the reality that surrounds him. This will develop into his worldview. A child derives his worldview in large measure from his parents or from his teachers.

Parents, the givers of life, bring their children into a certain worldview, a stream of thought and civilization. Their authority is inescapable and is given together with a responsibility even if they refuse to accept it. In the life of the [child] they represent the permanent coherence of his origin, a steady dependence on a total sense of reality. Clearly, the school also has a position of authority
insofar as it claims to develop and carry on the education received at home.3

An educational approach that begins with the supposition that things do not have meaning will leave a child to wander aimlessly, like a man with a quiver full of arrows, but no target for which to aim.

Such aimlessness or purposelessness induces uncertainty and fear, and “the result will be indifference or alienation, a lack of commitment to reality.”4 This might explain why many teenagers and adults react with the post-modernist sneer of sarcasm, skepticism, cynicism, or disdain for tradition and commitment, and exhibit “a bitter detachment from all serious offers of commitment.”5 Nonetheless, “An existential commitment is a necessary condition for a genuine experience of truth, and therefore for the conviction to exist. We cannot understand reality unless we are in it.”6

Yet many people have grown up implicitly taught that the universe has no meaning. And if the universe has no meaning, then neither do they have meaning. And if there is no purpose to existence, then why bother with anything? Therefore, pursuing a life of pleasure may well become the end of all things.

Such lack of character building has led to our current socio-political situation of rigid rhetoric, polarizing polemics, and divisive diatribe. But the deep-seated human desire and need for commitment is such that:

[People] will be attracted to clear-cut proposals…. In recent years, the phenomenon of [young] people who embrace political extremism has shown us the depth of this need. It has also shown that political ideology, which claims to explain all of reality, in fact seriously constricts this need.7 As it is, political ideologies often attempt to reduce the whole of reality into partial worldviews and “the need to confront reality is forced into a narrow ideology that cannot contain it. The gulf separating the depth of reality and political ideologies is well supported by the anxiety many politically active young people feel when they repeatedly question their own experiences….”8

Secular teaching today does not really help the student to form a unified explanatory hypothesis [a unified worldview]. The excessive analytical quality of the curricula leaves the student at the mercy of a myriad of data and contradictory solutions which lead them to feel disconcerted and saddened by uncertainty. This situation is not improved by new guidelines that aim to counteract the situation by correcting the most visible phenomena such as teaching by rote or the fragmentary nature of the curricula.9

The standards-based, standards-alignment approaches to education or teaching-to-the-test techniques are also insufficient means to the end of education. None of these approaches teach the young how to think because they neither give them a framework, or a “tradition,” if you will, in which to think out of, nor a philosophy of thought in which to think with. Technology is another tool for learning, but unfortunately is regarded by some as the most important science in and of itself to the neglect of language, history, math, science, and especially the arts and humanities. Technology for technology’s sake.

Such fragmentation reveals an emptiness and the student is like a child who finds a large clock in a room. Smart and curious, he picks up the clock and slowly takes it apart. In the end, he has fifty or one hundred pieces before him. He was really clever, but now he feels lost and begins to cry, for the clock is all there, but it’s no longer there: he lacks the unifying idea that would allow him to put it all together.”10

There is a conception today that the ideal school is an agnostic11 or “values neutral” school uninterested in proposing a unified worldview to the student. Yet skepticism and cynicism robs the heart of its gift of enthusiasm, the soul of passion, and the mind of intellectual curiosity; the student then has no firm footing and his education is built on sand. Students believe that they are made to study an assortment of things but they are not helped to understand what these things mean. Sadly, many students today not only do not want to study or go to school, but they don’t know why they are required to study or go to school.

Sometimes, when the absurdity and impossibility of such an [educational] system becomes obvious, the solution is to expose the student to the widest possible range of conflicting authorities in the belief he will spontaneously and maturely select what is best. I believe this is the “dis-educational” method par excellence. It eliminates coherence from education, making authority – and therefore nature – useless, with the result that the student’s very development is literally de-natured…. The result is irrationality and anarchy.12

A fundamental aim of education must be to assist the young in drawing connections between the tradition that he has received and the life he has experienced. Lacking this ability new experiences will lead him to adopt one of the following three attitudes: indifference, where he will feel abstracted from everything that does not directly touch him; traditionalism, where…people hide behind rigid beliefs to avoid being threatened in their faith from the outside world; or hostility, because an abstract God is certainly an enemy [to personal freedom], someone who at the very least is a waste of time.13

Unless the young are taught about the past and tradition, they will have on which to base their emerging worldview, and neither will they have the necessary intellectual tools be able to choose one worldview over another. They will either invent ones or remain forever cynical.14

One must also be willing to question and examine his worldview. In the classical sense this is called criticism. And unless one is able to critique his worldview, then whatever one is taught “will either be irrationally rejected or irrationally kept, but will never mature.”15

Unfortunately criticism is viewed as…negative. Students sometimes fear to critique their faith for fear they will be rejected by the teacher or peers…but faith that is not questioned is not faith, but blind adherence. 16

Unfortunately, at present, if one questions the motives of his government, he may be accused of lacking patriotism or treason. This is true for the Peace of the Program in 2084. Under the rule of pax romana, the world was “governed by the distance among individuals and by the law of violence in varying degrees.”17

To educate means to develop the child’s self-consciousness, the feeling he has of being responsible in the face of something greater than he is. In turn, to be responsible means to be answerable to something. Not, however, as contemporary culture believes, to be answerable [only] to ourselves…for this leads to ambiguity and even alienation. What I am trying to say is that the educator must be able to promote the unfolding of an ideal, of something which is ultimate and greater than us, so that whatever we do is not done for our self: this is the abolition of selfishness.18

Education must urge the young to take on personal responsibility and independence. However, the independence cannot be an unbridled rugged individualism. Each individual must serve the common good of the human family.

What can a family do against a society that dominates its children through television? …What can the family do to counteract the barrage of advertising? How can it stem the influence of what we hear on all sides, the trite repetition of the same arguments, some of whose tragic aspects are the lack of respect for the unborn child, and the casualness of sex, marriage, and divorce? By itself, the family is powerless! An intelligent family will come out of its complacent, comfortable position and create relationships, a social fabric, in opposition to the dominant social fabric.19

It is through a mature, free association with other individuals who share the same fundamental concerns that we can resist the dominant influences. We can do all of this provided that we understand – and maybe we are compelled to such a step out of love for our children – that this concerns not only them but us as well. Having children to educate is one of the greatest occasions God has given us for reawakening our faith.20

T.S. Eliot, the great poet, wrote that, “Where there is no temple, there shall be no homes…” meaning that where there is no religious sense, there are no homes, only “shelters and institutions”.21 A community is a deep union born from a life shared together, which arises from the recognition of a common structure. In our organizational fixation, we tend to confuse associations with communities…. A community is a sharing of life in its very essence…an inner dimension at the source of our thoughts and actions.22

The so-called neutral school, because it is not interested in proposing a unified worldview, is also unable to generate real communities and thus deprives the student of a structure that is crucial to his personal quest.23 The communal dimension is part of any true educational undertaking.24 One must have companions on the journey of life. Indeed, education is a community effort and one of the tasks of community.25The family…is the first and most influential educating community.26

Ultimately, education must take place within the context of family and community. For Christians, especially Catholics, this requires each believer to become an active member of the Church, the Body of Christ. The church is the continuing presence of Christ in the world. In the words of the ancients, as the soul is to a body, so is the Church to the world.27

Democracy is threatened when so much economic and political power is controlled by an oligarchy.28 With technology and mass production, large corporations continue to put smaller firms out of business and citizens are reduced to subjects. The subjects then lose their personal individuality to the impersonality of a mass of consumers.

Many people today simply seek entertainment and when not being entertained they have no feeling of self-worth or dignity. For many people, their meaning for existence seems to depend upon pleasure, drugs, or television or the entertainment industry itself.29

Perhaps the ultimate era of totalitarianism is already upon us. Imagine a ruling oligarchy that not only has control of the political process but is also in charge of all the major corporations, industry, financial institutions, energy companies, oil companies, mass media communications, entertainment, and the arts. What then becomes of the individual in our mass-marketed culture? Humans have been reduced to consumers. The corporations produce the need for consumer goods and then produce them for the consumer to consume. Adolph Hitler wrote that all effective propaganda must be confined to a few formulas (or slogans) and those must be constantly repeated to imprint the idea in the mind of the masses. The method is simple: create a need and fulfill the desire or pacify the fear.

Endnotes

1 Luigi Giussani, The Risk of Education (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001) 73-74

2 Ibid., pp. 50-51.

3 Ibid., pp. 65-66.

4 Ibid., pp. 55-56

5 Ibid., p. 56.

6 Ibid., pp. 68-69.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., p. 57.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid., pp. 58-59.

11 Here I use the term “agnostic” in its classical sense; from the Greek a (not) and gignoskein (to know). T.H. Huxley coined the word agnosticism to express his position of suspended belief. He believed that beyond knowable facts, satisfactory evidence concerning the nature of the universe was not available; he used the term agnosticism to apply to any proposition for which the evidence was insufficient for belief. Nowadays agnosticism principally refers to suspension of belief with respect to God. Guissani implies that there is a school of thought that does not believe there is a meaning to existence and in the final analysis, no ultimate meaning to education or the process of learning.

12 Guissani, pp. 66-67.

13 Ibid., p. 72.

14 Here one might emphasize the importance of learning from history and its mistakes so as to not repeat them. One is also concerned to hear that some students have not learned of the horrors of Auschwitz or the Nazi regime; still other children have been taught that the Shoah never happened. To show the effects of relativism upon education, (and putting aside the whole question of the morality of war), one recent poll indicated that a disturbingly high percentage of American students called into question the Allies’ declaration of war against Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II. One student replied: “Who were we to tell the Nazis they were wrong?” A prevailing attitude today is that one idea is just as good as another. It might be summed up in a common mantra: “We all have our own truths. What’s true for you may not be true for me.” If this philosophy is true, then why should we prefer Democracy over Totalitarianism? This is but one example of the tyranny of relativism.

15 Giussani, p. 9.

16 Ibid., p. 10.

17 Ibid., p. 27

18 Ibid., p. 129.

19 Ibid., pp. 130-31.

20 Ibid., p. 131.

21 Ibid., p. 127.

22 Ibid., p. 74.

23 Ibid., p. 75.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., p. 9.

26 Ibid., p. 75.

27 Here I would be remiss not to recommend The Religious Sense, At the Origin of the Christian Claim, and Why the Church? books by Luigi Giussani.

28 Oligarchy – government by the few or a government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt or selfish purposes. The word can also refer to the group exercising the control. In 2084 the Media is an oligarchy controlling the masses with Technocracy, a bastardization of the democratic
process.

29 While it may seem that certain prescription drugs are over prescribed, in no way do I suggest that those with legitimate health problems – physical or psychological – should be denied medication. The drugs of 2084 are more along the lines of methamphetamines, recreational use of marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, or others. However, in recent years certain drugs have also been introduced that increase the libido or sexual function; with these there is a risk that the biological act of intercourse may become an end in itself. If so, the act reserved for marriage may be reduced to simply an instrument for pleasure, the persons involved rendered mere sexual objects, and the only concern being placed on physical performance. Instead of the couple giving themselves over freely, gifting each other with their total persons, the sexual act becomes
individualistic, self-focused, and only a matter of what one individual is getting from the other.

30 Gaudium et Spes, section 76.

31 Ibid.

32 Notable & Quotable”, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1978. Cardinal Wojtyla was elected Pope in 1978 and chose the name John Paul II.

33 Catechism of the Catholic Church, (CCC), paragraph 2273

34 Matt. 19.26

35 1 Pt. 4:4.

36 Hebrews 11:36-38.

37 Rev.12:4.

38 Genesis 4:1-16.

39 Isaiah 5:2.

40 Psalm 11:3.

41 Isaiah 2:4.

42 Psalm 27:14.

Pontius Pilate is Alive and Well and Living in Washington D.C.

On Good Friday we hear Pontius Pilate ask Jesus "What is Truth?" In many ways Pilate is the patron saint of relativists and many political candidates today.

One of the most commonly held convictions today is that there is no real right or wrong, nothing is true or right. The prevailing attitude is that one idea is just as good as another and none are better or worse than another. (The irony is, of course, if you challenge this belief the person is likely to say you are wrong, hence destroying their very idea that all ideas are equally true). However, if we carry this idea out and hold that all moral systems are equal and there is no hierarchy of values, then perhaps Republicanism is no better than Nazism as a form of government. If one set of ideas is no better or worse than another, then being an American would be no better than being a Nazi. As it is, we do believe that some moralities are better than others. Yet if there is no such thing as truth, then how can anyone claim that as a true statement? If the universe is devoid of objective truth, then how can we know that objectively? If freedom is to be regarded as a complete break with tradition and objective truth, then good and evil are determined only by variable opinions among individuals.

Without any fixed morality for social and political existence, truth becomes a relative term and the dignity of the human person and the right to life and liberty becomes subject to political power or dominant philosophical thought. Again, if there is no truth to the innate dignity of human beings, then the concept of human dignity has collapsed.

Many people have grown up believing that the universe has no meaning. And if the universe has no meaning, then neither do they have meaning. And if there is no purpose to existence, then why bother with anything? Therefore, pursuing a life of pleasure (i.e. addiction) may well become the end of all things.

We are mortified to learn that some students have not learned of the horrors of Auschwitz or the Nazi regime; still other children now question whether it was right for the world to criticize Nazi beliefs. To show the effects of relativism upon education, (and putting aside the whole question of the morality of war), one recent poll indicated that a disturbingly high percentage of American students called into question the Allies’ declaration of war against Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II. Some of the students asked: “Who were we to tell the Nazis they were wrong?” This might be summed up in the common mantra: “We all have our own truths. What’s true for you may not be true for me.” If this philosophy is true, then why should we prefer democracy over totalitarianism?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, days before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, declared that we live in an era of a “tyranny of relativism.” Such a “dictatorship of relativism does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” Today these questions are being raised: “What exactly qualifies for human personality? What constitutes human personhood? What does it mean to be human?” There are college professors who now advocate that human personhood must be earned by a human being meeting certain criteria determined by the intellectually and physically fit. Perhaps a child has earned personhood by the time she is two years of age. Some say as late as seven years of age. The argument is that a human being is not necessarily a human person.

Yet recall the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life…” Unfortunately, slavery was justified by denying the human personhood of human beings of African descent. The Nazis justified the death camps and anti-Semitism by claiming that the Jewish humans were not fully human.

This proclivity to deny human dignity is made especially clear now in the popular movement to create human beings in laboratories in order to harvest their valuable biological material, i.e., stem cells, in hopes of treating diseases afflicting human persons. The argument goes that they – the unborn, the embryonic humans – are not human persons, but merely potential humans, and as such they have no rights. The unborn are treated as disposable biological material with the argument that they are not fully human because they are not human persons. The objective truth of the humanity of human beings has been displaced with subjective norms. Yet if there is no objective truth regarding the humanity of human beings, then the objective truth of the dignity of each and every human person is lost.

A society that affirms the dignity of the person but then also permits fetal experimentation, abortion, or euthanasia is denying equality before the law. Showing respect for human life may also require the exercise of conscientious objection not only in relation to war, but also to procured fetal experimentation and abortion. Medical research, which has great potential for human progress and service, must also respect the integrity of the human person from the first moment of conception. Therefore all human experimentation or research that disregards the inviolable dignity of the human being must be avoided. When a law denies an entire category of human beings the status as human persons, the very foundations of law and civilization are weakened. It is impossible to advance the cause of human dignity without recognizing and defending the right to life. All other rights are founded on and flow from this most basic of rights.

Democracy is false when it fails to recognize and affirm every person’s dignity and his or her subsequent rights. Violence toward others and self is not life giving, but death dealing. Nothing but an unconditional respect for human life can be the foundation of a truly renewed culture and civilization.

Pope John Paul repeatedly warned of anti-life forces and movements, and called upon all peoples of good will to build a culture of life based on a civilization of truth and love. Charity calls us to love one another as God has loved us. In a sense we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. We are responsible for the welfare of others. As followers of Jesus, we are called to be neighbor to everyone, especially those who are most in need: the poor and lonely. In helping the disenfranchised, the hungry, the foreigner, the sick and imprisoned, we serve Christ Jesus. “Whatsoever you did to the least of my people, that you did to me.”

The Christian is called to live out the love God has already given us in Jesus, for He first loved us. The Christian leads a moral life not to earn God’s Grace or favor; rather, a Christian leads a moral life in response to the Grace of God already given.

For the Christian, Jesus challenges us to action. “When I was hungry you gave me to eat; when I was a stranger, you welcomed me; when I was sick you cared for me; and when I was in prison, you visited me.” He did not say: “When I was hungry you starved me; when I was a stranger you exiled me; when I was sick you euthanized me; when I was in prison you executed me, when I was an embryo you harvested me, or when I was unborn you aborted me.”

Human civilization has its roots in marriage and family. Human dignity is rooted in the Revelation that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. To truly understand the nature of married love, one must understand the nature of human personhood. God instituted marriage in the beginning when he created the first man and the first woman. Marriage is a pillar of civilization and married love is a covenantal bond, a life-long sacramental union of a man and a woman sustained by the fidelity of conjugal friendship and the procreation and education of children. Such a covenant and communion cannot be closed in upon itself; rather it is fruitful in its love and service to the communion of society.

However, a society is only as good as its individual domestic society, the family. The procreation and education of children is a participation in God’s creative act. The family as the domestic church is called to proclaim the gospel of Christ through the example of charity. The family is where a child first learns the virtues of life and love and truth. Parents are their children’s first teachers. The family is called to serve human life through a stable environment. The work of parenting and educating children is not an option for spouses. If parents fail their children in this responsibility, then the family fails society; if the family fails in this responsibility, then the entire human family fails and with it all of society. Indeed, married love’s great work is parenthood. For this reason, the future of humanity hinges upon marriage and family.

The institution of Marriage cannot be reduced to nothing more than a disposable contract with conditions and pre-nuptial agreements or be redefined by the parties involved as a mere transitory union of two persons. The choice to enter into the marital covenant is a choice to remain faithful and united as husband and wife through sorrow and joy and sickness and health. The spouses can endure in the valleys of emotional dryness and celebrate on the mountaintops of exhilarating happiness; it is to be open to new life; and the spouses promise to remain faithful to one another all the days of their lives together.

Marriage builds up society through love and service to one another within the family. The sacrament of marriage can be a visible sign of invisible grace because God’s love can be experienced through each other. Therefore Marriage is a cooperation with and participation in God’s grace, and as such it will endure, for “With God all things are possible.”34

The future of marriage, the family, and respect for human life will determine the future of our culture and civilization; the pursuit of social justice, protecting the rights and the dignity of the human person, and fostering the common good of the human family must be the concern of every person and every human institution.

With the ever increasing bombardment of mass communication and powerful media conglomerates, how can the integrity and value of the human person be defended and reaffirmed? Or is it too late to ask the question?