The Progression of Reason on Homosexuality

The following is a short essay I threw together for one my classes, the theme being the role our government has and should play in the case of so called "gay marriage". There was much more content that I wanted to add to this, but the limit of the paper prevented me from doing so. I hope you enjoy.

The Progression of Reason on Homosexuality

To map out the role in which our Government has played in the battle for gay-rights, is to see a concerning marked transformation. I want to start by defining what one of the roles of government is. One important purpose of a governing body is to promote the common good by enforcing the rule of law. Laws are coined by rationally deliberating on issues that are desirous to people; they are rarely conceived by flippant passion. The law regarding the prohibition of homosexuality can be traced back thousands of years across many cultures and that law has been singularly and definitive prohibited from time remember. Have we been mistaken all this time of the pernicious nature of sodomy?

We begin by looking at Thomas Jefferson, in his Bill of Proportioning Crimes and Punishment; his views on the matter are thus: “Whosever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with a man or woman shall be punished…” It is no mystery that our country has maligned homosexuality from its conception, but the progression of this position is pertinent to understanding its constitutionality in regard to “gay Marriage” (Bill 64). When the 14^th Amendment was passed, all but five of the states in the Union had criminal sodomy laws, 24 states to this day continue to have these laws. There are records from the late nineteenth century up to 1995 of criminal persecution of individuals who participated in sodomy numbering over 200 (Reilly 71). From this, we see little change in the position of our justice system, because they understood something about the nature of marriage and subsequently sexual relations and their purpose. James Wilson’s views on family typify those of our founders, which are thus: “It is the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as for its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, the family must precede every institution of government, which is wise and good.”

Next we come to Bowers v. Hardwick, one of the more recent cases that pertain to sodomy, in which Justice Burger, upholding the constitutionality of an Alabama sodomy law, references William Blackstone, a Judge in England who wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 119). This reference echoes orthodox views of sodomy as a “crime against nature”. This is another clear example of a Justice in recent times (1986) staying the course on traditional sodomy laws. I just want to make it clear, that we have here the Supreme Court upholding the sodomy laws of a state, the justification of which not being based on any statements in the constitution, but on rational common knowledge of the destructive nature of the act.

At this point I want to focus a bit on what exactly are the dangers of sodomy. To do this, we must first consider teleological characteristics of things. Everything has a purpose and when a thing is fulfilling its purpose, you could say that it is acting according to its nature; it is performing an act that is in accordance with its function. Now let’s move to the illustration of the body. An ear’s purpose is for hearing; you may be able to do other things with your ear, e.g. pierce it and place an earring on it, but its main function is hearing. Ornamentation would be a secondary function of the ear, but you can continue to hear noises with it in place. Next you may decide to put a knife in the ear, but this would be damaging despite your intended purpose. As you see, there is a hierarchy of functions, but its main end is for listening. The sexual organs are no different. Genitalia are use for procreation primarily and secondarily micturition. When you start using objects for their unintended purpose, risky consequences may ensue. What are some specific health risks of anal sex? Anal Cancer is one of them, which the risk of acquiring is 4000 percent more than heterosexuals (Daling et al). Next you have HIV, the CDC states that male to male sex results in an increase of acquiring HIV by 44 times. Likewise, 61 percent of people who acquired new onset HIV are gay men. The numbers for syphilis cases among both men and women were in the 70 percent ranges. Now keep in mind too, gay men only make up 2 percent of the entire adult population. These are staggering numbers that cannot be ignored; yet don’t seem to have the attention of current legislatures. There are numerous more confirmed statistics from solid sources including those pro gay, who present startling data of the health risks of gay sex and this does not include the data regarding mental disorders of both the individuals and the children raised by them. These figures indicate a direct correlation of this behavior to mortal diseases.

Getting back on track we come to Lawrence V. Texas. Here we finally see the beginning of the transition in thought, starting with Justice Kennedy. Here, Kennedy deems the restriction of sodomy unconstitutional (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 119). He states that liberty consists of “autonomy of self.” This translated essentially means self rule, which according to Aristotle is the freedom to choose the good habitually and thus forming a virtuous person. I don’t think this is what Kennedy meant; maybe his idea was the freedom to choose the bad regardless of the consequences and without interference of the state. Either way, we know from the research that such activity is grave; therefore, if he meant the autonomy to choose the benign, he is obviously misinformed. He also states: “The fact that the governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” We finally come to it. Sodomy is here rationalized as a congenial act, whose actions cannot be sanctioned by a state. Sodomy is now on par (according to the Court) with heterosexual intercourse. The question remains however: what, aside from immorality would be reasons for vindicating the longstanding sodomy laws; the court does not seem to know. The answer to this is as we mentioned above: is to protect sex, with its natural procreative end which is its primary purpose.  The continuation of this ignorance can be followed by reviewing contraceptive rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstaedt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International, in which implied constitutional rights of privacy are invoked from the Bill of Rights and used as immunity for offenders of Natural Law (Davidson et al. 826).

The catalyst for this change in mentality surely had to have had some sources. One of these sources, I presume to be the scientific breakthroughs made in Psychiatry. Up until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defined Homosexuality as a mental disorder. The removal of this disease from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the APA, (the authoritative manual of mental disorders) ushered in a new found bill of health for all homosexuals. Studies have concluded them sane. Wait a minute; what studies? Oh that’s right, there are none. Come to find out, the editing of this manual was a result of the relentless pressure from outside Homosexual groups at APA meetings and the conflict of interests of Dr. John P. Spiegel, president-elect of the APA and other homosexual psychiatrists groups working inside the APA (81 Words). The change in the DSM wasn’t based on a single scientific study whatsoever. It was the result of oppression by gay activists, the cause of which is not denied by many homosexuals. The new status of homosexuality no longer being a disease follows that it no longer needs to be cured (Davidson 852). With this established, gays can claim that they are “born this way”; therefore, bestowing on them the right of being called a social class, worthy of civil rights.

Lastly, we will look at the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). There are four cases that demonstrate the progressive resistance of the BSA against accepting openly gay Scouts, whose rulings were in favor of BSA core values (Reilly 177). However, these cases were not the only front which gay rights advocates were targeting. They were aiming at a chink in the armor that is vulnerable to many organizations; that is, their financial support.  Pressure was put on many of the big contributors to the BSA, who themselves pulled funding, which in turn was effective in compelling the BSA to cave in.

By chronologically breaking down the history of rulings of the courts, you see an apparent shift in perspective from reason to rationalization. The process of change has taken three faces: first staunch adherence to orthodoxy, then tolerance and finally imposing sodomy as a good. If this “diversity” is not embraced, you will be targeted for discrimination and potentially incriminated against. We see examples of this more and more frequently. Shop owners are being fined for not serving gays, employers and employees are being fired for speaking out, and Religious are being attacked for their traditional views; it seems roles are reversing as this continues to progress.

The framers of the constitution understood that with a republic, a certain responsibility is placed on its citizens; a responsibility of personal virtue. “We the People”, what sort of people are envisaged by the framers when this was written. Montesquieu taught that “there are three essential forms of government, each of which calls for the shaping of a distinct characteristic in those governed: under despotism the characteristic of fear, under monarchies the disposition of honor, but under a republic what is called for is nothing less than the cultivation of virtue.” The framers of the constitution had great respect for is citizens because they understood the endurance of a nation was in their hands. The attempt of separating the verdict of immoral from an act that is inherently disordered is by definition unjust. Therefore, a government which is charged to uphold justice is obliged to uphold the rule of law; which is an ordinance of reason.

Work Cited

“Bill 64.” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia. Monticello, 2012. Web. 5 Aug. 2014.

            <http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/bill-64>.

Daling, J.R., et al. “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer.”

Journal of the American Medical Association. 14 (1982): 247. Print.

Davidson, James, et al. Experience History: Interpreting America’s Past. Vol.2. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.

O’Connor, Karen, Larry J. Sabato, and Alixandra B. Yanus. American Government: Roots and

Reform. 12^th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2014. Print.

Reilly, Robert R. Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing

Everything. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. Print.

“81 words: The Inside Story of Psychiatric and Homosexuality (Part 1 of 2).” All in the Mind.

Australian Broadcasting Corp. Natl. Radio. 4 Aug. 2007. Transcript. ABC. Web. 1 Aug.

2014. <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/81-words-the-inside-story-of-psychiatry-and/3246684#transcript>.

Low Voter Turnout in Amerca.

The following is a discussion forum topic from my Political Science class. The topic is voter turn-out in America and we are to opine how and why it is as such. I did not go into great detail as to the moral obligation to vote as Catholics, but this does provide a framework to the idea of our responsibilities as people operating in a society. I hope later to develop this topic with more Catholic flare. Thank you and I hope you enjoy.

"If Americans live in such a great democracy, why do they vote at rates which are among the lowest in the democratic world? Why do other democracies have higher voter turnout? Is the problem psychological? Cultural? Institutional? Assuming that low voter turnout in the U.S. is a problem (an assumption you may wish to challenge), how would you attempt to increase voter turnout? Be specific." (forum topic)

 

The text says that one of the major reason why people do not show up at the polls, is that “they just don’t have the time”. This is an indication of the ignorance of the gravity of this exercise. As humans, we are faced with three problems knowledge, conduct and governance. I will not explicate on the first two for brevity, but the problem of governance is seemingly within our power to influence. Fundamentally, if we have the means of guiding the outcome of elections, we have the capacity to conform the makeup of those passing legislation. I bet if you ask anyone if it mattered who was elected to President, they would without question have a strong opinion on the matter; in fact, I’m reminded of the saying “it is not polite to speak of Religion and Politics” as evidence of this assumption. Why is it not polite, because people are passionate about their politico-philosophies and arguments may ensue. This begs the question: if we are so passionate about our beliefs, why not act on them; lack of motivation perhaps?

What is it that motivates us? Loss and pain is a great motivator for some; money and power for others. Every individual has their own distinct impetus to stimulate them to action. I myself feel very strongly about life. I have a large family and understand the importance of families in society, how they benefit both the society and the individual. Therefore, my awareness of this, urges me to vote and to protect the institution of the family and everything it represents.

This good, as I said, is not simply something that I want; it is something that is integral to the health of the society. Aristotle’s idea that man is by nature a rational and political animal, whose basic unit of society is the family, implies a responsibility that must be realized. We are all born into families, some may be broken, but the traditional family is the ideal paradigm that is the cardinal social unit making up larger units that are necessary for societal groups to flourish. This idea is a component of the larger good in which man has an obligation to pursue; it is a good that is common to all, i.e. a common good. All that being said, it would be against our nature to act against this responsibility.  

So then, what does it mean to be absent at the ballot box? Without question it is a dereliction of duty not to exercise the right and privilege that has been afforded to us. It essentially is a question of right and wrong – a question of ethics. A simple concrete example of this applied ethics would be to vote against an anti-Semite whose goal is the eradication of the Jewish race. You would be morally responsible in this fantastic and regrettably historical example to abstain from taking efforts to prevent their election. Now, not all appointments are of this gravity, but some are and do necessitate action. When these matters are neglected, the fruits of our labor – or lack thereof, are quite clearly seen. Our recompense is leaders who are want of virtue; who lead us down rocky paths.

Why then do we not vote? I say ignorance, both of our purpose in society and the consequences of being delinquent in our obligations. This also begs the question: does it even benefit us to have the ignorant voting? This idea would be hard to gauge, is morally questionable and would deserve thorough treatment in a subsequent work.

As Americans, I believe we have become fat; that is complacent in our privileged lifestyles - comfortable in our security and prosperity; honestly though, America is the only country in which its poor are obese. Most Americans don’t have an experiential knowledge of misfortune and suffering; yet, all one has to do is turn on the boob tube and see the strife taking place in other nations. The Middle East is a conflagration of disorder and conflict, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Israel and Gaza barrage each other daily with ordinance, Iraq is being revolutionized by Islamic fanatic terrorist groups, and the list goes on. Again, if you were to ask anyone in those regions if they were going to vote in the upcoming elections, (if there was one in which they could vote) they may think you crazy or just stupid. Americans have not been faced with these types of scenarios at the same rate and intensity as other nations; therefore, our experiences of them are merely chimerical.

Poor voter turnout in America is a problem of apathy, the eminence of which is not fully grasped. Is the problem of voter turnout psychological, cultural, institutional or due to ignorance? Yes, all of the above. If the incomprehensible debt that our nation has accrued, the rationalization of gay “Marriage” and the sanctioned killing of babies and our elderly are not enough to motivate  Americans to vote, it may seem we are in a darker place than I originally imagined. The only solution to this problem is a piece of pie and coffee; I would vote for that I think.  On a serious note, the text gives an indication of what helps voter turnout, voter turnout... “it is higher among citizens who are white, older, more educated, have higher income, belong to civic organizations, and attend religious services more frequently.”(American Government Roots and Reform Pg.387). Looking back at the three problems humans deal with: Education, Conduct and Governance, we see that education is integral to discovering our true end; without it, we suffer; with it we thrive. “The root of education is bitter, but the fruit is sweet” Aristotle
 

 

 

Whats Your Perspective?

As a father of a large Catholic family, there is always an underlying anxiety about the financial goings on in the household. There always seems to be something that has not been budgeted for, some unexpected expense or desire that one may need or want. This can become a serious problem for many families. It breeds a tension in the household and a topic for argument. There are a couple of solutions to this issue:  The first is to be more flexible in your budget and the second is a change in perspective. There are presented here a couple of problems. The first is financial discipline and the second is an improper focus on what is good.

                In regard to the fiscal responsibility, there are numerous methods of keeping better track of spending and book-keeping. My goal is not to focus much on this aspect, because by finding the solution to the second, the prior problem becomes easier to handle. The second problem or question, “What should be our outlook in regard to money and having enough of it?” is an important one, because I find no matter how often I read or hear in a sermon the idea of “spiritual poverty”, I seem over time, to frequently become distracted and soon forget the ever important concept of spiritual poverty. Spiritual poverty is an idea of dependence on God for everything. I have also heard it presented, regardless of the quantity of money you poses, you should always seek the lesser in degree and fewer in quantity of everything you acquire. This topic would not be complete unless we reference our Lord in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom.”

I believe we can all agree that most people stress about money; it always come down to the idea or belief that we just don’t have enough of it. I want to pose another question to you:  What would you do if you were very wealthy? I know the term wealthy is relative, but I mean, what if you had an amount equal to say… Bill Gates?  What would you do with that money that you could not do now? Take some time to really think about it. In my answers, I mentioned a few things about travel, giving to the poor, and of course a few selfish interests. Next, take those things or activities and scale them down a bit and ask yourself, is there a way I can have these things, but in a modest manner? I bet you would find that most of the things you mentioned can be done at a degree much more simple than before. Lastly, take those items after you had given them a touch of humility and tell me, are they any less meaningful after you have pared them down?

When we have more and do more, it isn’t hard to start expecting that we need to maintain that degree of living. Let us take a new car for example. If I were to go out and buy a new passenger van that my wife and I have been wanting, there are obviously a number of things that come with that new vehicle: a car payment, more insurance, gas expenses etc.  In a few years time, that car would have many miles accumulated and because we had purchased a new one, we are spoiled to that comfort. Consequently, when the time comes to replace that one, a precedence has been set. We have just developed a standard of living that may or may not be realistic or wise. Another example like this is a new electronic device. With this you have: the cost of the device, the monthly expense for Internet and also any accessories to protect it. In a year’s time that device has become slow and out of date and must now be replaced with a new and possibly more expensive version. This concept is applicable to all things in life, whether they are fancy new clothes, shoes, tools, etc; the list is infinite. You can easily see that with increased goods and increased quality, our standards increase and can become idolatrous if not checked; we become slaves to our goods in a sense. I bet we can all remember a time when we got in a little over our heads financially; I can remember more than just a few. This is why it is important to teach our children at a very young age the concepts of mortification and spiritual poverty. Practically speaking, if your child has some money and wants to purchase something, try to convince them to either do without it or choose the lesser option as a mortification. The concept will stick with them and much fruit will be born from this exercise.

Epicurus, a philosopher in the fourth century B.C. is known for his idea on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. This is where we get the term epicurean; which is one who seeks the finer things in life.  By reading this you may think that he sought after luxuriant things and lived the high life, this is actually not at all what he taught. His concept of pleasure wasn’t exactly what you think. By pleasure, he means the good and simple things; not some hedonistic approach to life. This term's meaning has been twisted over the centuries. He advocated a life that was simple and moderate; not too focused on any particular thing, especially food, sex or politics. As you can see, this idea goes pretty far back. It is easy to sometimes think that all our Christian ideas are novel; novel in the sense that they started in Christianity. I have recently been impressed to learn that many jewels of wisdom have been gleaned from the early philosophers and have been adopted by our beloved Faith.

To put a bow on this, I go back to the idea of perspective. What do I perceive to be good for me? What will produce the least amount of anxiety for my life? If we, as often as we can remember consider the teaching of poverty of spirit and seeking the simple and good, we will be able to eliminate a great deal of anxiety and stress about money in our lives. My recommendation to you is to get together with a friend, eat a sandwich, drink some home-brew and maybe go for a walk.  This is a modest replacement for going out to a nice restaurant, spending money on food you don’t need and time dealing with people you normally wouldn’t have to. Use your imagination; I’m in the process of redeveloping mine.

Pax

"Basic Idea" of the Protestant Reformation

I am currently taking a course in Political Science that is currently talking about the original colonization in the New World. As I was reading some of the notes from the Pearson company to supplement the text I read a statement that was not entirely accurate and I felt it merited a critique. I posted this response on the course discussion forum to promote some dialogue. This is the gist of the post:

The statement,"The Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that individuals should be able to talk to God without going through a priest.", which is found in the notes, is inaccurate.
The Catholic church has never taught that a priest is required for a Christian to "talk to God". It does teach and encourage all Catholic Christians to pray directly to God about and for everything. However, the Church does have a Magisterium/College of Bishops who deliberate on issues of faith and morals and safeguards the Catholic Faith from unorthodox and unqualified interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. The "basic idea" of protestantism is rejection of authority, stemming from abuses i.e. selling of indulgences. This rejection of authority, lead to disunity, a branching off of Luther and his followers, which resulted in further sects branching off eventually causing 33,000 different protestant denominations, most of which claim to be Christs true Church.
This original statement is a common misunderstanding of the concept of apostolic authority. The basic idea was based on rejection and opposition of the magisterial authority due to abuses by the Church at the time. The subsequent objections of specific traditions and Dogmas of the Catholic faith, were only a result of this fundamental opposition of authority by Luther.
The common protestant objection of a mediator between God and Man in relation to certain Liturgical Sacraments i.e. confession, didn't develop until later. With this in mind, it doesn't follow and seems ironic that a group of people opposed to mediation would revert to system of government that utilizes representatives to mediate for them as its new model of governance.
A critique would not be complete without a solution, therefore I suggest changing the statement to something more accurate; something like, "The Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church's ability to define Christian practice."(http://www.history.com/topics/reformation).


I am not opposed to an indirect democracy, but I felt it pertinent to point out the inconsistency of the type of government chosen by a primarily Protestant America who claims to be opposed to the idea of mediators (presented in the text notes from the Pearson Co.) and then proceed to form a governance based on this concept. I know there is more to this and I may be comparing apples to oranges; however, they are not completely disassociated since our governments are founded my Natural Law, which of course has its origination in God.

Our Homeschooling Program

Last week I posted on why home-schooling is one of the better choices for Catholic families and today I wanted to get a little more in depth with what this looks like practically. When we first started homes schooling, I have to admit it was a challenge to decide how we were going to apply this. There were many different companies to choose from with many different methods. There are also some big names in home schooling curriculum that have a ton of products that can get pretty expensive. Cost was also a major factor for us, due to being a single income household with 4 kids at the time. That narrows things down a bit, however we also wanted to make sure we were providing most effective product for our children.

I started with the home-schooling group at our parish. The mothers there were very informative and helpful in demonstrating options for us. It seems most people stuck with the big companies, specifically Seton and Mother of Divine Grace. There may be other large companies who offer programs, but these were the names that kept popping up. I would absolutely suggest anyone who is starting out with home-schooling to join the local h.s. groups to get good advice and recommendations. A lot of times, the families are experienced and can really make the transition easier.
At the time we started, I absolutely knew what I didn't want, and that was the common public school method/curriculum; we all know how poor public schools are in educating children in America. On the other hand, I have mixed thoughts on this. I also believe that many public school teachers do the best they can with what they have. Many time the fault lies on the parents and sometimes on the children themselves. The point being, there are many circumstances that play into how well a child is educated and I don't want to point the finger solely at public school.
Based on what I have experienced myself in public school and the inside information I received from my spouse(who at the time was teaching in a public school), that both the environment and the method public schools taught was ineffective. Therefore, picking a home-schooling curriculum that resembled public school seemed asinine. The interesting thing is, a lot of Catholic programs, curriculum and time lines are completely identical to public schools. This seems completely erroneous to think you will get better results with your children, when your giving them the same product that society is giving them. So whats the answer? The answer is a method that is proven by our Catholic Tradition and that is the Classical Method.
The Classical method is exactly what the names implies and that is the Classics. Children today are no longer steeped in the time tested and proven works of the great thinkers of time past. The same people who's works have lasted for hundreds of years and are still presented in good Catholic universities and sparingly in public ones. These works present Ideas, not random facts that kids must memorize for a standardized test. Ideas, but also morals. When a child reads the Grimm's and Anderson's fairy tales, they gain knowledge of right and wrong. The image of love between a man and woman are etched in their little brains and their vocabulary flourishes; that is if the proper translation is read to them. I mention proper translations, because we don't want the hard words removed from these beautiful stories. How else will they be able to properly articulate their own ideas if they haven't the tools to do so? Of coarse after the grammar stage of learning they will advance from the fairly tales to more mature level of literature, but not until the imagination has been properly nourished. Many of us today are suffering from a disease of underdeveloped imaginations.
Unless your blind, you may not have noticed, that schools are moving in a direction that is almost completely of the Natural Sciences. Technology and Science are inundating the course catalogs of schools. Science is a wonderful thing and nobody can argue the great advancements we have made. But when you sacrifice Christian culture for the next gadget, what you get is a society that is no longer concerned with Natural Law, Virtue and ultimately Holiness. So, a classical education is paramount in fostering both a strong intellect, but also a moral compass, which this world so desperately needs today.
Lets look now at how this is applied to the student at home. We do a hybrid curriculum which consists of both Mother of Divine grace and The Classical Christian Homeschooling method touched on in his books The Death of Christian Culture and The Restoration of Christian Culture. His books are not a homeschooling guide, but do provide a springboard to the idea of what should be taught. He also provides a list of  the "1000 Good Books" that children should read to prepare themselves for the "Great Books" of Adler. The Mother of D.G. catalog is simply found by googling them. We purchase their syllabi and pick and choose what we want to use out of them.
My children are all under the age of 7, so we have not yet ventured from the grammar stage, but one thing I will say, is that you should NEVER stress as to how far ahead or behind your child is in comparison to what some curriculum says your child needs to be at. Every child is different and pushing them when they are not ready to advance does more harm than good. Here is an excerpt from Senior that describes the problem with "advanced placement'' and pushing our children to move too quickly.
"A Chinese once criticized American education by saying, "You are always pulling on the flower to make it grow faster."  and At Princeton, under Dean Root, the students in the four-year college normally took five courses per year; the exceptionally bright ones were permitted to take four, on the grounds that for them it was really worthwhile to go slow. An education is not an annoying impediment to research or business, but a good in itself, indispensable to the development of the qualified person."
Do not worry about meeting some sort of imaginary deadline with your child. The slower the better and I would be willing to bet that he or she will be exactly where they need to be come time for college.
Lastly, I would highly recommend you just pick up a good book, hopefully one from seniors list and just read it to your children. Keep doing this until they can take off on their own, and then gently guide them toward sainthood. Remember, our goal is to raise Saints, not for them necessarily to become scholars. However, with Gods grace and our obedience, they may become both. 

The Bookshelf "The Medal of St. Benedict" Gueranger

So my most recent book binding project is "The Medal of St. Benedict". This was an interesting bind, because I used chromium tanned leather. This leather is primarily used in clothing and furniture. Normal book binding leather is tanned with natural ingredients and is called vegetable tanned. The difference is primarily in the feel and how the leather reacts to tooling and titling. I put a label on the spine made from veg. tanned leather for this very reason. 

The papers I used on this piece are again my own design. It is a pebbled marbling with a Spanish wave effect. The text block was sewn on bands and then rounded and backed in the traditional fashion. 

For the headbands, I used the same marbled paper wrapped on a piece of mizuhiki cord. I like this method, because its easy and it looks good. Its definitely not as strong and elegant as a sewn band, but its nice. 

Thats it for this one, but I did want to mention, I finished reading "The Life of St. Lydwine of Schiedam" and it was very good. I got a lot of spiritual fruit from it and I hope to start writing reviews on the books I bind and read, instead of just showcasing my bindings. 

Pax Tecum

Should Catholics Choose to Home-school?

Recently my wife and I were faced with a question that was brought up by another Catholic mother, whether sending your children to a school from a different faith was sinful in the eyes of the Church. My first response to this was more precautionary due to the obvious occasion of hearing error and scandal. I did a little digging into this topic and found a number of teaching both from the CCC and also a sermon by Fr. Chad Ripperger, which are a major source for my material today.

I have compiled a list of quotations from the Catechism and lets just dive in and see what we can come up with.

2221 The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. "The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute." The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.
I gather from this, that having children is only part of the equation for Catholic parents. It says that it is "almost impossible to provide adequate substitute" for the education of the children. This is a powerful statement I mean just look a the wording here: right, duty, its primordial and inalienable. 
2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the "material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones." Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them: He who loves his son will not spare the rod. . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him.Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Again, we see here some strong statements of the responsibility we have toward education our children. I especially like the last quotations from scripture on corporeal punishment. I may do a post soon on this subject. 
2229 As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.

This one is interesting. It says we have a right to choose which school corresponds to our convictions. So, if you choose to send your children to public private or faith based schools, we have that right. But I think the key point is choosing a school that "best help(s) them in their task as Christian educators". This school is obviously a faith based school; specifically a Catholic one since we are obliged to educate our children in the Catholic Faith. Now we have already read above that there is no substitute for the parents as educators, therefore the school of the Home, is from what I gather from the text, the best choice thus far. 

1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

This last quote from the catechism in a way convicts me. We are responsible for handing down moral, spiritual and supernatural life to our children. This is such a big deal, that people too often don't even concern themselves about. I believe that some children can be taught at younger ages what is right and wrong by lecture, but I would assume that most children learn by example and imitation. When you are home with your family do you strive to live a supernatural moral and spiritual life. I know statistically most people dont. I realize most of this type of education happens on the fly, while living out our daily lives, but since this is repeatedly stressed in the catechism I feel we should be putting a lot more effort into the moral and general education of our kids. I mean sitting down when you get home from work and going threw a catechism, doing apologetics Q&A with them, read a spiritual book to them etc. I don't think a laissez faire attitude is sufficient for the most important subject in a child's life.  

Another interesting thing of note, that I am sure most people have noticed, is the somewhat disappearance of the Humanities from the common curriculum. The moral truths found in literature are indispensable for the moral compass of children.  It provides hope and knowledge of good vs evil. Chesterton said it best like this "Fairly tales do not tell children that dragons exist, they already know that, they teach children that dragons can be killed." No longer do we see Greek and Latin offered in our schools, which is a foundation for the English and other Latin languages. This I feel is very important, not just because it is the ordinary language of the Roman Catholic Church, but because it is language of the great classics that again are no longer studied in our schools. Everything seems to be migrating to the Natural Sciences. There is an endless list of classes in colleges now that pertain to some technical field or another. I making plans for graduate school in the next year or two and have been looking at programs offered by local public colleges and have found very little in the area of Humanities. I get free tuition from a Texas public school due to my military service, so I am working on finding a halfway decent program; it hasn't been easy. Needless to say you can start your children out right in homeschool by teaching the classical languages at an early age, while reading them the 1000 good books. I will do a post on this program soon. 

I want to touch a bit on some of the things Fr. Ripperger says before this gets excessively verbose. 

The link to the article is thus: Parentis. It doesnt take long to read this, but being a typical Ripperger piece, it is a bit heady, so dont just blast through it. 

Fr. R. touches on a number of aspect of the role of parents and their right as well as duty to educate their little ones. He starts by presenting the problem of thr traditional parent obligation to send their children to Catholic School as per Vatican 2 and the apparent dissidence of these schools and their teaching of heresy. This of coarse is not blatant, but by looking at the fruits thereof, we obviously see poorly educated young Catholics coming out of them.  From this, we can glean that todays Catholic Schools need to be thoroughly examined before you allow them to attend, especially if you want them to remain Catholic. 

Next he goes on to explain a bit on Natural Rights and gives a good example from St. Thomas Aquinas "the good of each thing is that it comes upon its end: moreover, its evil is that it turns aside from its due end." The end of the conjugal act is two-fold, viz, the begetting of children and their proper education". The later half of this quote is from Fr. R. , which is from the CCC. I believe this is another good definition of our Natural Rights as parents. 
"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"

Vatican II, Declaration on Christian Education
This quote Fr. provides, seems to be his source from the documents of Vatican II that justify the rights as parents. Again this wording is very similar to that we see in the CCC.
Now there are circumstances where parents are not able to provide for the education of their children for various reasons. In these circumstances Fr. believes that the Catholic School is better suited for this than CCD classes, in that it provides a comprehensive Catholic atmosphere that can be bounced back to the similar atmosphere in the home, and thus the child is constantly surrounded by a Catholic Culture which will serve him if any questions or concerns may arise.
If a child attends a public school, which is obviously the least desirous of methods, there is an apparent lapse in that fertile and nurturing Catholic Culture, which is oh so valuable in todays secular society with its infectious lies and temptations.
The last section of Fr's. Article he lays out a history of the educational system and how state schools developed into the ordinary means of education. He states that it was primarily for those parents who were not educated and were not able to read. In circumstances like these, it seems public school is the obviouse choice. However today, though there are many who are illiterate in our society, the numbers are nowhere near where they where 150 years ago I would guess, thus reopening home-school as the more efficacious option available to parents.
I believe that the state has overstepped its bounds by requiring families to send their children to state schools in some regions. I am reminded of the phrase, "If you give them an inch, they will take the mile". This seems to be the case with education. Families entrusted education to the state and they think it belongs to them. On the contrary, this obligation is ours according to Natural Law, not a civil law.
In summary, we see that the end and purpose of the parents is to procreate and educate our children. This duty is both a blessing and an obligation, one that is founded in love and reason and is best achieved in the womb of the truly Catholic home. In it, a child will find love, consistency and a perfect image of unity between the family and the Body of Christ. Nowhere can a child truly understand the theological truths and the virtues necessary for saintly living, then in a Catholic home.
I think the best way to end this, is with Fr. Ripperger's own words,
"Home schooling, therefore, has as its foundation the natural law itself. For it was the
intention of God from the very beginning that parents should be the primary educators of their
children. Consequently, parents who home school fulfil the will of their Creator in a most excellent
fashion, for they not only provide the end which God intended when gifting them with children the necessary moral and natural education, but they also employ the best means to that end. Consequently, home schooling should never see the need to justify its existence since parents who
do so are fulfilling the Will of their Creator."

Pax Tecum