Showing posts with label Chesterton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chesterton. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Homeschooling: The Dreaded "S" Word


In case you are new to the series, you can start at the series opening or the first series post.

Though the perceived lack of socialization is one of the most common objections people have to homeschooling, I am not concerned with it. Why am I so confident about my children having friends and learning how to “play nice” with others? Well, I have many reasons. That specific question can be summed up as follows: they do not need to be in a traditional school environment in order to have friends and learn to get along.

First and foremost, one of the reasons I do not want them in a traditional school environment is the type of “socialization” that goes on there. I mentioned it in this post, but it bears repeating:
“Children (and adults) have a grave need to be kept away from temptation so as not to fall into sin. Both public and private schools (secular and Christian) are full of foul language, materialism, sexual information, tolerance and encouragement of sin, and false religions. All these things can cause children to succumb to sin and turn away from their family even with a Godly, religious upbringing. The large amount of time children spend in school, school activities, and transiting to and from (seven to eleven hours on school days, nine months a year) as well as the strong urge to fit in can easily allow children to be led down the wrong path.”
School, even Catholic school, is too often the place where children learn inappropriate ideas and behaviors. Rather, children should be sheltered from such things until they are properly educated so as not to be swayed by popular opinion. As Chesterton says in the book All Things Considered, “Right is right even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about it.” Young children and even old children will have a hard time understanding this and respecting it when they are pressured by others or just want to be accepted.

Children feel a need to fit in. In schools, most children are ostracized if they do not have a cell phone, wear designer clothes and shoes, watch the latest TV programs or play the latest video games, possess the latest toys, or fulfill all other forms of materialism. This can lead to bullying and other major problems, especially when the child no longer feels accepted. Yet, this mindset of needing to have the latest and greatest is typical of the worldly, which is exactly what we as Catholics are called to avoid.

Finally, where else in life are we separated into groups based solely on age? It is certainly not done at work, church, or even college! These institutions are a mix of many different ages, races, and backgrounds; so, it would seem even to the opponents of homeschooling that proper socialization happens when the child is exposed to other children and adults of all ages. Children need to learn how to get along with and respect others of all ages. How is this being taught in a classroom of ten-year-olds?

My confidence comes from knowing children will learn proper socialization in the home and community. Homeschoolers are not shut up at home twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. They are more exposed to their siblings, children of all ages from other homeschooling families, and adults from all over the community. So now the question becomes: how is it even considered proper socialization to expose children to materialism, peer pressure, and age-class?

For more information on homeschooling, please read the resources listed here.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Homeschooling: Why Is It Important?


In case you are new to the series, you can start at the series opening or the first series post.


Although not everyone has the ability to homeschool (because of financial or other concerns), it is important for so many reasons and I will try to address as many of them as possible in this post; so it is rather long.

As emphasized by a declaration from the Second Vatican Council and by Blessed Pope John Paul II in two different writings, we as parents must keep in mind that we are not only the primary but also the principle educators of our children. This duty was not given by the Church but by God himself and as such this right is completely inalienable. (See Familiaris Consortio, 40.) In Proverbs 1:8, the child is told “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction, and reject not your mother’s teaching.” We must teach our children from the beginning about the world and about God. It is our duty and our right to be the principle teachers of our children, not to surrender our responsibility to someone else.

Whether we want the duty or not we are the primary teachers of religion. Our attitudes, actions, beliefs, and words will form the child in his or her view of religion. Catholic schools are not designed to be the only or even the primary teachers of religion, because the child will follow the parent, not the teacher. Therefore, homeschooling fulfills the duty for us as parents to educate our children, especially where religion is concerned.

Along with this, I must emphasize the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a principle of Catholic social teaching which states that all institutions exist for the sake of the individual/family so that whatever the individual/family is able to do, society should not take over and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over. Below are two excerpts from writings of Blessed John Paul II.
Familiaris Consortio, 45: “But society -- more specifically the state -- must recognize that ‘the family is a society in its own original right’ [111], and so society is under a grave obligation in its relations with the family to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity. The public authorities should take care not to take from families the functions that they can just as well perform on their own or in free associations; instead it must positively favor and encourage as far as possible responsible initiative by families.”

Letter to Families, 16: “Parents are the first and most important educators of their own children, and they also possess a fundamental competence in this area: they are educators because they are parents. They share their educational mission with other individuals or institutions, such as the Church and the State. But the mission of education must always be carried out in accordance with a proper application of the principle of subsidiarity. This implies the legitimacy and indeed the need of giving assistance to the parents, but finds its intrinsic and absolute limit in their prevailing right and their actual capabilities” [emphasis original].
Thus, when parents have the ability to teach their own children, it becomes important that they do. They have the ultimate responsibility as primary and principle educators of their children to teach them the ways of the world. As Chesterton says in What’s Wrong with the World, “How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone?” Governments cannot usurp this responsibility from parents, although many states try. Parents have an obligation and a right to decide what is important for their children to study and to teach it to them. The government’s role is to make sure children are being taught, but not to tell the parents what to teach.

We must also heed the warning from Chesterton in one of his Illustrated London News articles when he says, “The purpose of Compulsory Education is to deprive the common people of their commonsense.” Looking back at my old education post, we recall this quote from the HSDLA.
“Is it merely a coincidence that the two countries [Germany and Japan] whose educational system we have most admired gave rise to totalitarian states in the 20th century, bent on world domination? Looking into the dying embers of two world wars should remind us that the utopian impulse that lures men to entrust control of the individual—including compulsory attendance and state control of education—to the wisdom of the state, sets the stage for corrupt and domineering governments. And, as experience should have taught us, this can lead to horrible results. Although today’s proponents of compulsory attendance will argue that their purpose is benign, when the power to control education is concentrated in the hands of a few, it can easily be turned toward objectives which are not all benign.”
We must be careful sending our children away for nine months a year, twelve to fourteen years of their young, moldable lives, especially when there is plenty of evidence of schools keeping parents out of the loop. How many children are graduating today, after twelve years of school, without the ability to perform simple math problems or to write articulately? As parents, it seems by giving up our responsibility to the government, we have ourselves allowed education to decline.

The purpose of compulsory education today is quite different than when it first came into law. In the 1800’s, its main purpose was to keep children out of the work force and teach them to become good citizens. Today, it seems to be solely about test scores—teachers teach to the tests as well as teaching test-taking skills. Many schools have gotten rid of recess time and some have even gotten rid of the playground. (Yes, it is true. I have read the news articles.) The authorities think more time sitting in a classroom will somehow make better students, but many of the boys are being drugged with ADHD medications in order to keep them still (more on that later). Meanwhile, many young homeschooling students are finished before lunch and have higher test scores!

Children (and adults) have a grave need to be kept away from temptation so as not to fall into sin. Both public and private schools (secular and Christian) are full of foul language, materialism, sexual information, tolerance and encouragement of sin, and false religions. All these things can cause children to succumb to sin and turn away from their family even with a Godly, religious upbringing. The large amount of time children spend in school, school activities, and transiting to and from (seven to eleven hours on school days, nine months a year) as well as the strong urge to fit in can easily allow children to be led down the wrong path. This article shares a similar perspective: Parents: Beware the Danger of Peer Orientation.

We must always remember that even though we live in the world, we are not of the world. As Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world: but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and the acceptable and the perfect will of God.” Cultures, society, sometimes even laws must not keep us from living as true Catholics. The popular opinion, government mandates, and even “majority rule” do not imply goodness or Godliness. Let us look at James 1:27. “Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation and to keep one's self unspotted from this world [emphasis added].” It is clear that we must not live as if we are of this world and it follows that we must not allow our children to live as if they are of this world as well. Looking back at the previous paragraph, we can see that the influence of others can and most likely will greatly exceed our own as parents when the children are sent off to school.

Finally as mentioned above, the bible stresses the importance of parents passing on their faith. Blessed Pope John Paul II in his Letter to Families says, “Certainly one area in which the family has an irreplaceable role is that of religious education, which enables the family to grow as a ‘domestic church’” (16, emphasis original). We cannot send our children off to Catholic school and expect any faith teaching to stick if we are not practicing our faith and setting the example in the home. In the Second Vatican Counsel’s declaration Gravissimum educationis, Pope Paul VI states, “Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators. This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking” (3).

Public schools, especially, cannot teach religion to children when there are children from twenty different religions present in the classroom. Yet, Chesterton says in What’s Wrong with the World, “It is quaint that people talk of separating dogma from education. Dogma is actually the only thing that cannot be separated from education. It is education. A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching.” Even when the schools are trying to avoid religion, they are still actually teaching it. They just choose, willingly or unconsciously, to teach atheism.

As you can see, there are so many immensely important reasons to homeschool our children. If you can make the sacrifice to teach your children, you should do so, for their benefit and the benefit of this country and the world. Where the family goes, society will follow.

For more information on homeschooling, please read the resources listed here.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Marriage Series: Introduction


Many people today walk down the aisle thinking they love the person they are about to marry and hoping they will spend the rest of their life with him or her. This is almost the way it should be. If this were a complete picture, why do as many as fifty percent of marriages end in divorce? Moreover, why are so many people cohabitating instead of getting married?

To answer these questions, we must start at the beginning. I believe that many people today no longer understand the meaning and value of marriage and the family. They do not understand the true, God-given meaning of love. They do not understand the sanctity of the marital act. They may not even understand or believe their marriage vows! How have we gotten to this state? How can we return to God’s way? I hope that you will learn all this and more in the wonderful series, I have put together. I look forward to sharing each post with you!

The topics for the series are:
* An Introduction to Marriage
* Between Man and Woman (Only)
* Soul Mates
* Courtship vs. Dating
* Is “Love” Required for Marriage?
* Chastity before Marriage
* Cohabitation
* Interfaith Marriages
* Engagements
* Prenuptial Agreements
* Getting Married in the Church
* Vows
* “Getting to know each other”
* Marriage is for Children
* The Importance of NFP in Marriage
* True Love … What is Love?
* Raising Children in the Faith
* Theology of the Body and Marriage
* Arguments are Not the End
* In-laws and Family
* Marriage and Money
* Women and the Vocation of Marriage
* The Problem of Divorce
* Some Final Words about Marriage

Just like my last series, I have used a great deal of sources. Instead of linking each source on each post, I have compiled them here for ease of reading. Please read the ones that interest you. They are all Catholic sources and I enjoyed reading them myself!

These are available free online:
* The Holy Bible from New Advent
* Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI
* Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) by Bl. Pope John Paul II
* Familiaris Consortio (The Family in the Modern World) by Bl. Pope John Paul II
* “Letter to Families” by Bl. Pope John Paul II
* “Letter to Women” by Bl. Pope John Paul II
* Family, Marriage, and De Facto Unions by Bl. Pope John Paul II
* “Preparation of the Sacrament of Marriage” from the Vatican
* “Between a Man and Woman Q&A About Same Sex Unions” by USCCB
* “Statement on Same Sex Marriage” by USCCB
* Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan by USCCB
* Married Love and the Gift of Life by USCCB
* Catechism of the Catholic Church on USCCB
* Catechism of the Catholic Church on Knights of Columbus: better for searching
* “Pastoral Letter on Cohabitation” by The Kansas Catholic Conference
* Catholic Dating Guide by Jason E. King
* Preserving the Sanctity of Marriage by Rev. W. Becket Soule, O.P.
* Superstition of Divorce by GK Chesterton
* Divorce versus Democracy by GK Chesterton
* The Defendant by GK Chesterton
* Manalive by GK Chesterton
* Superstition of Divorce Lecture by Dale Ahlquist

These must be purchased:
* Together for Life by Joseph M. Champlin
* “Living Together Before Marriage” by Katrina Zeno and Christopher West
* Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West


Remember to check back here often, as I hope to update this page frequently.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The New Marriage Series

This is not my introduction to my new series. It is only an overview and look ahead for everyone to see what is in store!

I feel it is important for me to site Catholic sources with my series. I do not want to write another one like my Back to Nature series where I strictly state my ideas and thoughts. These latest two, Open to Life and now Marriage, are too important not to add Catholic sources.

With that said, I have a great deal of reading in store for me with this series. I have not read all the papal encyclicals about marriage, women, and family. I also have books from Chesterton, Bishops’ letters, and a few Catholic web articles that I plan to read. I hope that my motivation and time management will help me to accomplish this quickly so I can start writing.

If you watched my introduction page for my last series, you saw immense growth in the amount of posts I had. I started with about four posts in mind and the series grew to a total of 22 (including the introduction and closing remarks)! This one is already starting to do the same. I began my thoughts with only the idea of soul mates and it has grown from there. I currently have these posts in mind, but I am hoping to add many more:

* Between a man and woman
* Soul mates
* Courtship vs. dating
* Cohabitation
* Engagements
* Prenuptial agreements
* Vows
* “Getting to know each other”
* Theology of the Body and Marriage
* Arguments
* The importance of NFP
* In-laws and family
* Marriage and money
* Women and the vocation of marriage
* The problems with divorce

As I said previously, I am taking a little time off to move and delve into writing ahead for this series. I plan to post my Marriage Series Introduction in about two weeks.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Open to Life: Eugenics and IVF


If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


After reading my last post, you might think eugenics is ancient history and not even worth discussing. But if you remember the quote from Chesterton, “I know that it [eugenics] means very different things to different people; but that is only because evil always takes advantage of ambiguity,” (emphasis mine) you might think twice.

Today, that I know of, there are two extreme forms of eugenics going on openly in this country and everywhere else around the world. One way, IVF and the term “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”, I will discuss now. The other way, abortion, I will save for my next post.

According to Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Family, “Increasing numbers of clinics are also offering … pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for weeding out embryos with certain genes or of a certain sex, “selective reduction” for destroying developing unborn children in multiple-gestation pregnancies, and even custom-designed embryos for clients seeking children with certain levels of beauty and/or accomplishment.” If this is not the proper definition of eugenics, I do not know what is!

Many things that I have read about IVF openly state that only the “best” embryos are implanted. What this means is that most embryos conceived in a dish are then tested for abnormalities, deformities, deficiencies, and disorders and if anything is found in the genetic tests, those embryos are then destroyed. In other words, babies are made every day in labs, and then if found to be imperfect, they are killed.

This truly is eugenics at its “finest” and I am sure that all proponents of eugenics including Hitler, would be proud of the “advances” we have made in the field of baby making.


Up Next: Eugenics and Abortion

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Open to Life: Eugenics and Birth Control


If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series: What is Openness to Life?


Chesterton said in Eugenics and Other Evils, “I know that it [eugenics] means very different things to different people; but that is only because evil always takes advantage of ambiguity.” (emphasis mine)

In 1883, Sir Francis Galton coined the term “eugenics” meaning “good birth”. His idea was to use selective breeding (based on his cousin Charles Darwin’s theories) for “the betterment of mankind”. Many people throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s advocated for eugenics. One woman in particular was a true advocate for eugenics in the United States. Her name: Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger (who I talked about briefly before) edited and wrote for a magazine titled The Birth Control Review. In the February 1919 issue, she wrote an article called “Birth Control and Racial Betterment” with this as its opening, “Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit” (p. 11, emphasis mine). This woman is the one who encouraged the Anglican Church (the first church) to accept contraception, and this woman is the one who founded Planned Parenthood – the biggest abortion provider in the nation today.

Now some may say, well that was just the founder of Planned Parenthood. They do not believe those things anymore. My reply to this is simple – where are all Planned Parenthood clinics? Certainly not in rich neighborhoods. What class of people does Planned Parenthood “help” around the whole world? The poor and almost exclusively the poor. However, they “aid” the poor by giving them contraceptives and abortions, by taking away their children, not by eliminating their poverty.

We now have a whole class of people that are unwanted: babies. Innocent children are being slaughtered for “women’s rights”, “choice”, and “population control”. In other words, for “the betterment of mankind”. (Sound familiar? Reread above.) We need to realize that preventing the birth of a child is an evil thing. Most people have always known this, but it is made to sound harmless with the words “eugenic”, “birth control”, or “reproductive freedom”.

If we want to turn this around, we must know where we left the right path.Birth control has led to the decline in our society (see this post and this one). Speak out against abortion. Use and advocate for natural family planning. Vote for politicians who will overturn Roe v. Wade, make euthanasia illegal, and keep marriage between a man and woman. Do not assume that others will lead the way. Everyone must do his or her part.


Up Next: Eugenics and IVF

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Open to Life: Chesterton and Birth Control


If you are new to this series, I recommend starting at the beginning: Open to Life Series What is Openness to Life?


Because I admire Chesterton and his penchant for always writing Truth, I wanted to share what he had to say about birth control. Chesterton was very much against the idea of birth control. He saw what the outcome of its use would be as did many others (including Pope Paul VI who I will talk about later). In The Well and the Shallows, Chesterton said this about propagandists of birth control:
There are not many things that move me to anything like a personal contempt. I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification. I do not feel any contempt for a Bolshevist, who is a man driven to the same negative simplification by a revolt against very positive wrongs. But there is one type of person for whom I feel what I can only call contempt. And that is the popular propagandist of what he or she absurdly describes as Birth-Control.

You may remember a portion of this quote I used to have on my side bar. It comes from an essay entitled “Obstinate Orthodoxy” in his book The Thing: Why I am a Catholic.
If those called free-thinkers are sentimentalists, those called free-lovers are open and obvious sentimentalists. We can always convict such people of sentimentalism by their weakness for euphemism. The phrase they use is always softened and suited for journalistic appeals. They talk of free love when they mean something quite different, better defined as free lust. But being sentimentalists they feel bound to simper and coo over the word "love." They insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control. We could smash them to atoms, if we could be as indecent in our language as they are immoral in their conclusions.

Picture Credit:
The American Chesterton Society
From Social Reform versus Birth Control, Chesterton states,
The Birth-Controller does not bother [with high society], for the perfectly simple reason that it is not such people that he wants to control. What he wants to control is the populace, and he practically says so. He always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it is producing so many children. The question he dreads is "Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?" His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: "You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice; I will deprive myself of your children."

Also from Social Reform versus Birth Control:
The very name of "Birth Control" is a piece of pure humbug. It is one of those blatant euphemisms used in the headlines of the Trust Press. It is like "Tariff Reform." It is like "Free Labour." It is meant to mean nothing, that it may mean anything, and especially some thing totally different from what it says. Everybody believes in birth control, and nearly everybody has exercised some control over the conditions of birth. People do not get married as somnambulists or have children in their sleep. But throughout numberless ages and nations, the normal and real birth control is called self control. If anybody says it cannot possibly work, I say it does. In many classes, in many countries where these quack nostrums are unknown, populations of free men have remained within reasonable limits by sound traditions of thrift and responsibility.

And this prophetic bit (from the same),
The fact is, I think, that I am in revolt against the conditions of industrial capitalism and the advocates of Birth Control are in revolt against the conditions of human life. What their spokesmen can possibly mean by saying that I wage a "class war against mothers" must remain a matter of speculation. If they mean that I do the unpardonable wrong to mothers of thinking they will wish to continue to be mothers, even in a society of greater economic justice and civic equality, then I think they are perfectly right. I doubt whether mothers could escape from motherhood into Socialism. But the advocates of Birth Control seem to want some of them to escape from it into capitalism. They seem to express a sympathy with those who prefer "the right to earn outside the home" or (in other words) the right to be a wage-slave and work under the orders of a total stranger because he happens to be a richer man. By what conceivable contortions of twisted thought this ever came to be considered a freer condition than that of companionship with the man she has herself freely accepted, I never could for the life of me make out. The only sense I can make of it is that the proletarian work, though obviously more senile and subordinate than the parental, is so far safer and more irresponsible because it is not parental. I can easily believe that there are some people who do prefer working in a factory to working in a family; for there are always some people who prefer slavery to freedom, and who especially prefer being governed to governing someone else. But I think their quarrel with motherhood is not like mine, a quarrel with inhuman conditions, but simply a quarrel with life. Given an attempt to escape from the nature of things, I can well believe that it might lead at last to something like "the nursery school for our children staffed by other mothers and single women of expert training."  [emphasis mine]


Up Next: Assisted Reproductive Technologies

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Monday, June 6, 2011

Open to Life: What is Openness to Life?


We must start the discussion with first things: Life is better than death. If we understand and agree on that one principle, we will see how everything will stem from that.

Being open to life is not always easy. As the saying goes, “God never said it would be easy; He just said it would be worth it.” Having a marriage that is open to children does not mean that you are open to life unless every marital act is open to life. Using contraceptives in any form, at any time, is morally wrong. However, “God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws” (Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI, 11).

We are all called to “be fertile and multiply” (Genesis 1:28 NAB). The Church calls every family to be generous with regard to children. It is only for grave reasons (that must respect the moral law and be prayerfully considered) that we are allowed to limit children for a certain or indefinite period of time (HV 10).

More and more we seem to have a culture of materialism instead of children. Parents are worried about paying for private schools, cars, and college instead of being generous toward children and letting God take care of the rest. In his book The Well and the Shallows, Chesterton says,
He [the child] is also a much more beautiful, wonderful, amusing and astonishing thing than any of the stale stories or jingling jazz tunes turned out by the machines. When men no longer feel that he is so, they have lost the appreciation of primary things, and therefore all sense of proportion about the world. People who prefer the mechanical pleasures, to such a miracle, are jaded and enslaved. They are preferring the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life. They are preferring the last, crooked, indirect, borrowed, repeated and exhausted things of our dying Capitalist civilisation, to the reality which is the only rejuvenation of all civilisation. It is they who are hugging the chains of their old slavery; it is the child who is ready for the new world.
Another common misconception of today is the concept of “readiness” for children. When are we ever truly ready? Will we ever have “enough” money or “enough” time? This is another one of those materialistic considerations. When people think they must have $1,000 saved to buy all the latest and greatest gadgets for baby, we know they have “lost the appreciation of primary things”.

Consequently, our society today considers parents with only three children to have a large family and rudely asks, “Are you done?” Turkeys are done, chores are done, but children? God calls us to be open to life so that He may bless us with another child.

Up Next: What is Natural Family Planning?

For full texts of the documents used, see my Open to Life Series: Introduction

Friday, June 3, 2011

Open to Life: Series Introduction


With all my discussions of truth and Chesterton, I thought I should talk about a very important topic, relevant to married and single people alike – openness to life. This will remain a very reverent discussion.

In my articles I have used many sources. Instead of linking sources on each article, I am going to compile them here and link to this page on each post. Feel free to read the full documents:
Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI
Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI
Evangelium Vitae by Blessed Pope John Paul II
Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict XVI
Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan by USCCB
Married Love and the Gift of Life by USCCB
Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology by USCCB
In Vitro Fertilization: The Human Cost by USCCB
“Contraception and Abortion: The Underlying Link” by Rev. Walter J. Schu, L.C.
“The Contraceptive Revolution and Its Fruits” by John Bruchalski M.D. FACOG
The Well and the Shallows by G.K. Chesterton
Eugenics and Other Evils by G.K. Chesterton
Social Reform versus Birth Control by G.K. Chesterton
The Thing: Why I am a Catholic by G.K. Chesterton
Eugenics and Other Evils Lecture by Dale Ahlquist
Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach by John and Sheila Kippley
“Use of Contraception and Use of Family Planning Services ...” - CDC report

Some of my sources are not available for free. If you are interested, you can purchase them:


Next Post: What is Openness to Life?

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Tolerance

Everyone can have his or her own opinions, beliefs, and preferences. God allows this through free will. That does not mean that all opinions, beliefs, or preferences are True. He allows everyone to “take their own journey” to the path of Truth and freedom, but not everyone is following the right path (Christians and non-Christians alike).

The world speaks of tolerance and preaches acceptance of whatever new ideas, views, beliefs, attitudes, or actions come up. They talk about “my choice”, “my decision”, or “my business” – like truth is relative and we need to tolerate and even support bad decisions. We cannot tolerate them and we should not support them. This is just another heresy that is prosperous in the “developed world”.

Tolerance leads to uncontrolled immorality. When people feel “accepted”, they are more likely to start, continue, or even worsen the behavior. We accepted teenagers having sex by passing out condoms at school and now seventy percent of nineteen year-olds1 have engaged in this behavior. We accepted sex before marriage and now 79% percent of all teenage births are to unmarried women compared to only 13% in 19502. The sad thing is the article where I found this statistic has the secular and distorted view of them. The writer considered it a good trend that the teen birthrate has fallen from 82% in 1950 to 49% today but did not add in the correlation about the unwed mothers. The reason the birthrate has fallen in teens is because very few teens marry today and those that do usually do not have children right away and because contraceptive use and abortion has skyrocketed when compared to 1950 (when the pill had not been created and abortion was still illegal). The whole world is devaluing marriage. People have also accepted homosexuality beginning in the 1970s and now they have even gone so far as to support and protect their right to marry! We now tolerate divorce, which has only lead to frivolous marriage – I will talk more about this in a series this summer.

The world supported and even fought for “birth control” – and I will talk about where that led in my coming series. They also supported and fought for women leaving the home so they could feel free to be a wage slave.

The world thinks that tolerance is progressive. They think we are more civilized now that we tolerate everyone than when the Catholic missionaries went out preaching the good news to evangelize the world. But all this tolerance has only led us down the path to where we are today – a world full of problems. The only way to get back is to stop tolerating immortality. As Chesterton said, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."



1 Facts on American Teens’ Sexual and Reproductive Health
2 Teen Pregnancy: Trends and Lessons Learned

Monday, May 30, 2011

Distributism: A Synopsis

I talked about why capitalism (and socialism) is bad, so what is the solution? It is a little-know idea, encouraged by many Popes as Catholic social justice and promoted by Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, called Distributism. Pope Leo XIII first expressed the idea in his encyclical Rerum Novarum. What he articulated was the connection between property and justice for the poor.

In Distributism, every family is a property owner. As Chesterton says, “three acres and a cow” is all a family needs. When families are self-sustaining or small business owners, they do not rely on the “Big Shops” for cheap prices and even cheaper labor. They can grow their own food, make their own clothes, and they do not worry about capital and wages.

As small business owners, they set reasonable prices on their goods instead of gouging the consumer in order to make a profit, and manufacture quality goods when the emphasis is taken off mass production.

What about goods and services that individuals cannot offer, such as automobiles? Then families assemble guilds where each person is self-employed and owns their own tools and machinery. As entrepreneurs, they are free to make their own decisions instead of being slave to the capitalist.

However, governments cannot force distributism on society. A change to the system must come from within the family. It is more like a change of heart, not a change of law. The good news is that you can start living like a distributist today. Here is a Twelve-Step Program to get you on your way.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The Regulation of Education

Comparison of compulsory education in America from its establishment to today:
1852 ~ 1900
Today
Compulsory Education LawsThe first compulsory education law was adopted in Massachusetts in 1852. No other state followed for 15 years.As of 1918, all 50 states now have laws requiring compulsory education.
"Reasons" Behind the LawsTo level disparity between poor and wealthy, to “Americanize” immigrants, to improve the situation for children following the outlaw of child labor.“Education is far too important to be entrusted to the common man.”
Compulsory Age Laws (Minimum)Most states did not require attendance until age 8, but Ohio and South Dakota did not require attendance until age 10. And only one state (New Hampshire) required attendance of 6 year olds.Today, 28 states require attendance of 6-year-olds, and Arkansas, D.C., Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia require compulsory attendance of children as young as 5!
Compulsory Age Laws (Maximum)In 1887, only Washington (state) required attendance of 18 year olds.Today, 14 states require attendance of 18 year olds.
Length of the School YearIn 1887, the average school term was only 130 days.The average school term is now 180 days.

Education is very important … to a point. When parents cannot even make decisions about what should and should not be taught to their children and what ages said children will be taught, the state has overexerted its power. As Chesterton says in his book The Well and the Shallows, “The State did not own men so entirely, even when it could send them to the stake, as it sometimes does now where it can send them to the elementary school.”

Emphasis needs to and should always be on subsidiarity. As Pope Pius XI says, in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do." Since the family can educate (as proven for millennia in human history and today through homeschoolers), then the government is “gravely wrong” for taking away that right from the families.

Almost every week I read an article about the shocking things the schools are now teaching, or allowing or disallowing. Just yesterday I was reading about the boys who were not allowed to go to their prom after taping a “… will you go to prom with me …” sign to the front doors of the school! A few months ago, I read multiple articles about how schools in Texas (without parental consent or vote) were now going to teach Islamic culture and religion. (But not Christianity which is True, believed by more citizens, older – as a form of history, and originates from the same region. See “Contempt for Christianity” for more.)

In his Illustrated London News column on September 7, 1929, Chesterton says, “The purpose of Compulsory Education is to deprive the common people of their commonsense.” If that doesn’t prompt you to change your ideas about public schools, consider what the Home School Legal Defense Association states in its September/October 2000 issue of Court Report,
“Is it merely a coincidence that the two countries [Germany and Japan] whose educational system we have most admired gave rise to totalitarian states in the 20th century, bent on world domination? Looking into the dying embers of two world wars should remind us that the utopian impulse that lures men to entrust control of the individual—including compulsory attendance and state control of education—to the wisdom of the state, sets the stage for corrupt and domineering governments. And, as experience should have taught us, this can lead to horrible results. Although today’s proponents of compulsory attendance will argue that their purpose is benign, when the power to control education is concentrated in the hands of a few, it can easily be turned toward objectives which are not all benign.”

Even homeschoolers are not completely free of the government’s hand. Eighty percent of states have laws requiring homeschoolers to at least notify officials of their intention to homeschool. Many states have laws stating exactly what subjects you must teach your children. (You should see the list of required subjects for North Dakota!) Looking at the table below, it is easy to see how much control has been taken away from the families. Twenty-seven of fifty-one states (includes the District of Columbia) require parents to submit either test scores or a professional evaluation of the student.

Description
# of States
States with high regulationRequires parents to send notification, achievement test scores and/or professional evaluation, plus other requirements (e.g. curriculum approval by the state, teacher qualification of parents, or home visits by state officials)
6
States with moderate regulationRequires parents to send notification, test scores, and/or professional evaluation of student progress
21
States with low regulationRequires parental notification only
14
States requiring no noticeNo requirement for parents to initiate any contact
10

Monday, May 23, 2011

Contempt for Christianity

I think Stanford Nutting (a character from G.K. Chesterton: Apostle of Common Sense) says it best in his thoughts on Christmas: “We don’t use the “C” word in the Nutting household. Christmas we don’t say. It’s too judgmental. It’s too exclusive. We need to be inclusive. That’s why we need to exclude Christmas, and so we say, ‘Merry Kwanza-Rama-Hanukkah-dan.’” You should watch the whole thing. It is hilarious, and it gets the point across very clearly.

We are no longer “allowed” to say “Merry Christmas”, because it is too exclusive. But we can say “Happy Hanukkah” or “Happy Kwanza” or “Happy Ramadan”. The problem with this country is not its lack of tolerance of other religions, but its hypocrisy through persecution of Christianity. It is only the Christian religion that is not tolerated in America (and other countries around the world). And yet America claims to be an open-minded, welcoming, free society.

How much persecution have Christians and especially Catholics suffered in this past century alone? A show from EWTN penned it as the bloodiest century for Catholics. Here are some numbers to give you an idea:

* Approximately one million Catholics were martyred in the twentieth century.

* Millions of Catholics were killed in WWII. Many people hold the false idea that Catholics were not persecuted for their religion during the war, only Jews. This is a lie. In Poland alone, – a country specifically targeted by the Nazis – the same amount of Catholics (over three million) were killed in death camps as Jews (approximately three million).

* 108 Martyrs of WWII – The Nazis martyred 108 clergy, other religious and lay Catholics in Poland. Pope John Paul II recognized these people in 1999 for their sacrifice.

* Wikipedia has 46 articles about wars and other persecutions of Catholics in the 20th Century.

But the most important thing fact is that Catholic persecution has been going on since Jesus’ death. The fact that most people today feel (or even “learned”) that Catholics “started” the Crusades out of intolerance or that the Church is against science prove that the persecution is deeply ingrained in our culture. You cannot read an article or a book about the Crusades that does not blame the Church and throw pity on the Muslims. Or one about science that accuses the Church of suppressing discoveries.

The Crusades were not started by the Catholics in order to “wipe out” Islam. It was provoked by the Muslims and was an effort to take back the land that the Muslims already stole from them. For more information on this, you should watch The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization on EWTN.

As far as the Catholic Church being against science, all I can do is laugh, and tell you that Catholic priests and monks have made thousands of significant scientific advances and discoveries over the last two thousand years. Copernicus was a priest and was the first one to come up with the heliocentric idea (and was not “punished”). Galileo was punished because he called the theory “a law of science” before it had been proven as such and continued to teach it in that manner. You can also find more information on this on the show The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization on EWTN.

The only way we can change people’s minds and hearts is by example. Show them who Catholics really are and what they really believe. And by speaking out against atrocities when they happen.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Why Not Capitalism?

Chesterton wrote, “It may be incredible that one creed is the truth and the others are relatively false. At the same time, it is not only incredible, but intolerable, to believe that there is no truth in or out of the creeds, and all are equally false. For then nobody can ever set anything right, if everybody is equally wrong.”

Chesterton also said, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” Neither capitalism nor socialism can ever create an ideal society, and actually, capitalism will eventually create socialism, because the government will need to put restraints on Big Business and will eventually feel that Big Government can do a better job itself. Think “national health care” which was just rammed down our throats without our consent. Dale Ahlquist, in his post “A Prophetic Look at National Health Care”, says, “When health care started becoming too expensive, the solution was supposed to be health insurance. But insurance quickly made health care even more expensive. On the one hand, the medical industry stopped worrying about being affordable; on the other, a new layer of private bureaucracy and overhead was added that also needed to be paid for.”

Hillaire Belloc once said that capitalism is a “Servile State” which is “a state of society in which certain fully free citizens can compel, by positive law, the other inhabitants of that society to produce wealth for them.” And Chesterton (in The Outline of Sanity) says capitalism is “the economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.” He also states that what we call Capitalism ought to be called Proletarianism – the practice of workers, especially industrial wage earners, not possessing capital or property and selling their labor to survive. With capitalism, we are all just wage slaves. Businesses become so big that they control the market (e.g. Walmart), and we must work for them because they have swallowed up all the competition.

I will leave you with this Chesterton thought, “the point is not that some people have capital, but that most people only have wages because they do not have capital.”

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Woman at Home

Chesterton wrote in his book What’s Wrong with the World, “Now it is the great mark of our modernity that people are always proposing substitutes for these old things; and these substitutes always answer one purpose where the old thing answered ten.”

When a woman leaves the home to “focus on her career”, she leaves a laundry list of responsibilities, and a household hung out to dry. Who will watch the children? Who will cook the meals? Who will wash the clothes? Who will teach the children? And who will clean the house? The woman’s importance in the home is infinitely more valuable than any modern feminist could conceive.

Within the past century, services such as: daycares, preschools, “one-box meals”, frozen dinners, laundry services, dry cleaners, and maid services were made accessible to the lower and middle classes, because women decided they needed emancipation from domesticity. The need for these many “conveniences” only proves that married women with a career cannot “have it all”. They cannot be the “perfect wife and mother” if they are also an employee.

A person must decide their vocation at the brink of adulthood, and he or she has three choices: priesthood/religious life, marriage, or celibate single life. Within these vocations, people can choose occupations as well, but the vocation always supersedes the occupation. Aa a priest, a man cannot be a good shepherd to two thousand, or even to twenty, when he must raise up five at home. It follows that a woman who chooses marriage (and therefore motherhood) cannot work outside the home and still properly maintain the house and raise the children.

The selfish, individualistic ideas of our culture have caused many (if not all) of the current problems: irresponsibility, divorce, smaller families, an increase of women and children living in poverty, a dependence on the government for necessities, and disregard for human life. We need to get back to a family-centered culture instead of an individual-centered one.

Monday, May 16, 2011

What is "A Bird on Her Nest"?

My new blog title is from Chesterton’s debate with George Bernard Shaw. Shaw claimed that women needed freedom from the home, like being birds in a cage. Chesterton rebutted that woman is already free when she is in the home – like a bird on a nest. When she goes out in the world, she becomes a slave. As Chesterton once said, “Twenty million young women rose to their feet with the cry, ‘We will not be dictated to’: and proceeded to become stenographers.”

As for my subtitle, “defending the joyous drudgery of a housewife’s life”, I will let Chesterton’s words speak for themselves. In his book, What’s Wrong with the World, Chesterton writes:
“When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”

Friday, May 13, 2011

How Do You Know Truth is True?

I came across this “test” on the “G.K. Chesterton: The Apostle of Common Sense” TV show with Dale Ahlquist.
1. Truth is consistent – Lies, false philosophies, and errors will eventually show holes. The Truth is reliable and dependable.

2. Truth does not change – Truth does not depend on the year or even the century. Truth is valid at all times. Truth survives fads and fashions.

3. Truth is distinctive – Truth emphasizes what is important, not what is unimportant. Chesterton said, “Art, like morality consists of drawing the line somewhere.”

4. Truth is complete – Anything less than the Truth is a heresy. A heresy is a half-truth, a lie, which is only interested in itself instead of the whole Truth.

5. Truth is good – A lie does no one any good, and is mostly self-destructive. The Truth is always good, even if you cannot see it right away.
So, now you know. There may be other ways to tell if Truth is true, but these will start you out with a basic “test”.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

True Freedom

Freedom is fully realized by choosing properly between good and evil.” (Theology of the Body for Beginners, Christopher West, p. 23) Freedom is not doing whatever you feel like without regard for others or even yourself. That is licentiousness. Action can only be called truly free if it remains within moral and logical bounds. Two examples will explain this better: I am free to draw a circle, but I am not free to call it a square. “We are free to do whatever we want with our bodies but we are not free to determine whether or not what we do is good or evil.” (ToB for Beginners, p. 23)

Many people today feel they can do whatever they want. They think because God gave them free will, they are free to live their lives however they choose; there is no right or wrong way to do something. Well, if that were true, then according to Chesterton, Christianity must be false because: “You cannot evade the issue of God … defending [Christianity means] talking about anything or everything. … Nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.” (For the whole quote, see my Intro to Chesterton post.)

Since God gave us free will we have a responsibility, as Christians, to live our lives as examples and to show others what it means to be truly free. When you choose “properly between good and evil”, you are happy. And others will notice that. Hopefully, by your example you will encourage others to live like you.

Monday, May 9, 2011

An Introduction to Chesterton


Artwork courtesy of the
American Chesterton Society
I thought, since I told you my ideas were inspired by the man, it would be important to give some background on Gilbert Keith Chesterton before I proceed.

He was alive from 1874 to 1936 and lived in England. As Dale Ahlquist, president of the American Chesterton Society puts it, “He said something about everything and he said it better than everybody else.”

He wrote one hundred books, contributed to two hundred more, hundreds of poems, five plays, five novels, and around two hundred short stories, including the popular detective stories about Father Brown. Though, as Chesterton proclaims, he was not a writer. He was a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including thirty years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News and thirteen years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.

Chesterton has been called the “Apostle of Common Sense”, because he wrote about, he defended the common man and common sense. He wrote about the Truth. He has also been called a complete thinker, because he didn’t defend half-truths. He defended the whole Truth. Because he wrote about everything, Ahlquist says reading Chesterton is a “complete education” in itself.

Even though he did not actually convert until 1922, Chesterton defended the Catholic Church, Her beliefs, and the Truth throughout his whole life and in everything he wrote. One of the most important things he said was in an article he wrote for the Daily News on December 12, 1903:
You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true - then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.
In other words, Truth is not relative. You cannot tolerate another’s position on the basis of “everybody has their own views/opinions”. Since Christianity is true, there is only one Truth and it encompasses the whole world. This Truth is not just bound to “religion” and “religious things”. It covers every aspect of life: how you live, how you take care of your home, how you educate your children, how you care for your family, how you provide for your family, and everything else you can think of!

Sunday, May 8, 2011

An Update (Not) Worth Reading

I know it's been a long time since I've written anything. Let me assure you, I have not been too busy. I was putting it off because I wanted to save all of my previous blog posts to my computer before I started writing anymore so that I could have a "backup" without adding more posts to back up! Now that I have that finished, I am actually going to try to write again. I have some topics floating around in my head:
  • Women in the Home
  • Divorce
  • Education
  • Eugenics
  • Food & Health (eating naturally... not "nutritiously")
  • Truth
All of them inspired by Chesterton. We'll see how many of them make it onto "paper". If you have never read Chesterton, you should. Robert randomly picked up a book by him up at the library one day in Quincy and we will both forever be grateful for that working of God. He is a wonderful 20th-century philosopher, theologian, and prophet who literally wrote about everything. Hope you look forward to reading these truth-inspired ideas as much as I look forward to sharing them with you!