No more

We held our Remembrance Day service at school yesterday.  It's always well prepared and carried out by our students, staff, and dignitaries, under strong and good leadership (thanks Andrea).  This year though, it seemed a little different to me.  I think it's because each year Remembrance Day gets a little more politicized.  This year we had a politician speak about how everything had changed on Oct. 22, and that now they were remembering our soldiers currently in conflict and those, like Cpl. Nathan Cirillo who have been killed recently in the line of duty.  I'm not so sure everything has changed, but it certainly did get me thinking about Canada's role in the world right now.

It was thinking about this role that struck me.  Every year the cadets at our school serve in uniform at the Remembrance Day service, something I think is pretty common.  I love seeing them because the sorts of kids who are cadets aren't always the ones who do the best in school, or have the strongest social skills, or best academic skills.  I love to see the kids who struggle the most in this role because the instant they put on their uniforms they universally act sharp, disciplined, solemn, and with incredible dignity.  The rest of the school looks to them as both leaders and honored servants in those moments.  When you talk to them about their cadet service, they will again, almost universally, talk about about the service of freedom and protecting those in Canada and the vulnerable abroad.  So what really struck me, and has stuck with me this year, is that some of those cadets will most likely go on to full time service when they graduate.  They will join the Canadian Armed Forces, and quite possibly go abroad to places like the Middle East and fight.  They may die in that service, and there is a very good chance that if they go, and come home, they will come home broken down by PTSD and physical injury.  These children before me, full of dignity and promise, proud and sharp in their uniforms.  That future.

If we follow Christian history back far enough, there was a time when the Roman Empire actually faced a bit of an existential threat, because because soldiers were converting to Christianity, and for the first few hundred years of the existence of the Church, the zeal of many followers was so strong that they wouldn't harm another.  They wouldn't work to separate the weeds (parable of the weeds, Mt. 13) lest they uproot the wheat.  Now we live in a world where 'collateral damage' (largely a legacy of civilian bombing in WWII) means a Christian serving may use a drone or manned airstrike to attack a village, kill a couple of bad guys, and hopefully not too many women and children.

So as I think about the future of the proud students in uniform, I can't help but wonder, how do you love your enemy when you are looking at them through the scope of a rifle, or on an IR camera from the sky.  Can we pray for our enemies faster than the bullets and bombs fly towards them?  Can the little children come to Christ when they are starved, crippled, and displaced by wars, or when guns are put in their hands?

In the end I don't know enough of the truth to know if Canada should be at war now, but I do know enough to know what Remembrance Day is for.  We remember the sacrifice of our soldiers in the past, with the hope and goal that we don't have to sacrifice any more in the future.  We remember the horrific price paid:  Over 100,000 Canadians dead in conflicts around the world, 30,000,000 soldiers and 55,000,000 civilians in WWII (that's right, even without the Holocaust, almost twice as many civilians were killed as soldiers), uncountable people displaced, injured, and traumatized by both past and modern wars.  We remember because we don't want to re-make past mistakes.  We remember because the generals of WWII were so traumatized by WWI that they were willing to make decisions to burn down entire cities in the hopes it might shorten the war by a few days or weeks.

We Remember because it would be better if the Highway of Heroes didn't have to be lined by heartbroken citizens mourning the loss of another young life ever again.

I guess full on Pacifism is a bit simplistic and naive for the complex world we live in, where there are people who would do us and the innocent harm, but I also know that in Christ there is peace, and I pray that we don't have to add any more names to the roll call on remembrance day.

I pray I never have to remember one of the children I served as a teacher, because they died in the hope that they were serving all of us as a soldier.



1 hand made, ceramic poppy for every British soldier who died in WWI, 880,000 of them.


1 white poppy as a prayer that we don't have to add more red ones to the field.

Why?

So of course there's been tonnes of media buzz on Pope Francis' latest public comments and of course there was a frenzy after the documents came out from the Synod on the family.  I've chosen to stay out of it a little bit, because there are so many opinions and interpretations flying around.  I've read everything from accusations that the Pope is watering down our faith and celebrations that the conservatives won the day in the end, all the way over to pieces pining hopefully that this is a first step in completely redefining everything the church teaches about marriage and family.  It seems like in the end a lot of people are willing to make Pope Francis into whomever they want him to be.  If someone has an ax to grind and longs for the good old days then the Pope is their target.  If someone wants change then the Pope is their poster child.  It actually really amazes me how much people can read in to and interpret some relatively simple teachings like be loving and merciful.

Of course through all of this I thought a lot about my own opinion on all of it, and decided not to share it here, for the simple reason that I am not an expert of theology on the level of the folks who are debating this issue, and anything I give will be a) simply my opinion and b) at risk of me theologizing it.  I'm not staying out of that side of things out of fear that someone won't like it/me because of it, because truthfully, the nature of opinion is that there is always someone who disagrees, and in our polarized world, there will be people who judge/hate you because of it.

To be honest, I'm really tired of all the commentary.  I spend a little too much time in forums discussing news, and it amazes me how much how many people have to say, with so little knowledge of the church.  Not that these don't present worthy debates, but after a while the truth seems to get shrouded in complicated philosophies, theology, and arguments.  We justify why we believe what we do through academic apologetics and theology.  There's nothing wrong with this, it's an important part of our faith, but it can also act as a bit of a mental road block to the simpler truth that exists.

That simple truth is why I'm Catholic (and proud of it Fr. Christino!)  Recently Pope Francis has cautioned against 'lukewarm' faith, and being a wishy washy, worldly Christian.  I totally get that because in the worldly realm of defending opinions and debating history and philosophy, we can get ourselves into a place where our faith comes solely from our intellect.  Again, I'm not saying the intellect isn't a huge and important part of it, it's a gift we have for a reason and the moment we stop thinking critically about what we believe we start down a road of self-assured complacency.  When we go too far down that road we get to a point where we try to mold the church to fit our worldview, rather than letting it form us (much like the rampant media speculation and opinion sharing around Pope Francis and the Synod).  What I am saying is that it isn't the centre of the picture.  It's not the core of our faith.  It's not the why of believing what we do.

So it all comes down to one thing for me.  Why am I Catholic?  Why do I trust the Synod?  Why is my worldview and opinion not what I want to share today?  Why can I go toe to toe with a Catholic I totally disagree with, and still offer peace?  Because when Christ handed the keys to Heaven to Peter, and founded the Church, he promised to be with us always.  In Matthew 16 Christ tells Peter that he is the rock on which the Church is built, and that evil will not prevail against it, and after the resurrection in Matthew 28 he tells the apostles to go out and spread the Good News, and promises to be with them (the Church) always.  I'm Catholic because I believe that promise.  I trust the Synod because I believe that promise.  I'm not overly concerned with media interpretations of Pope Francis because I believe that promise.

It's that simple to me.  I still value debate and the academic side of the faith, and I still think we need to watch and guard the church, to be honest when we sin, and to openly correct when we make mistakes.  But above all that, I trust that the Church is guided by God, and no matter if or how we stray, there is always guidance back.  I believe that in a day in age when there are no right answers to some of the questions we face, and when our law and our call to share God's infinite mercy seem at odds with each other, that the Church will be guided, however long the process, to answers and actions that are right, and blessed with saints who have to the courage to challenge the humanity of it to turn back when we are astray.

Love is patient, even if the media isn't

I usually try to wait a little for a commotion to die down before jumping in and writing about it, if for no other reason than to let my own though processes go through their own natural critical cycle, but in the last couple of days a topic has exploded in the media and it's one I've already got some pretty solidly formed thoughts on.  Of course I'm speaking about the wide range of media coverage on the apparent revelation that the Catholic Church is cool with science, and specifically with theories governing the origins of the universe, and of life itself.  I say apparent because it's not really a revelation.  That's been official church teaching for decades, and aside from a couple of notable hiccups that have more to do with politics than science, the Church has more or less always been a driving force in the generation of knowledge, both scientific and philosophical.

But  that's not the point of this post, just the context.  Yeah, the media freaked out about something they've ignored for ages, and yeah, it just goes to show that pop media has a weird obsession with Pope Francis, and yeah, it's one of those things that gets annoying for those of us who've been saying the same thing for ages whenever we get lumped in with young Earth creationists.  And it's us Catholics' reaction to it all that's the point of my post.  It was inspired by a little meme that popped up today, relatively innocuous, but it points at the issue I'm slowly and verbosely getting to.

Source:  Catholic Memes

Now, I'm a science teacher, in a Catholic system, who used to be a youth minister, so I get it... like, I really get it.  I've had to justify teaching evolution more often than your average Catholic.  I get how we can get to a point where we feel like the mood this particular meme sets up (snarky, smarter than though, sarcastic, exasperated).  I think though, we need to step back and look at how we are with people outside the faith.  For a non-Catholic, if someone of the Church converses from the stance highlighted in the meme here, how do you think that's going to go?  Is it going to soften their heart?  Is it going to make them think, 'hey, that Catholic a'int so bad'?  Is it going to build a stronger relationship with them?  I doubt it.  It's likely going to make them think 'wow, that person is annoying and self-righteous'.  

Not that I'm not like that my fair share (and a few others' fair shares) of the time.  In fact, what got me thinking about our response to the media's butchering of Church teachings was an argument I was having in an online forum where I was taking too much pride in how smart I was about it all.

What we miss when we end up participating in a conversation the way our Slowpoke friend above is, is an open door, and to be frank, we need those a lot these days.  When someone we know posts something about how much they love that Francis guy, or how they are a lapsed Catholic but gee whiz, that new Pope gives them hope, there is an invitation there.  There is a direct invitation to talk about our faith.  As much as St. Francis has been (falsely by the way) quoted as saying something along the lines of 'preach the Gospel always, use words when necessary', words are necessary much of the time, and it's pretty rare we get such an amazing invitation to use them without instantly closing a door.  It's one of the few times people outside the Church aren't starting from a defensive position.  So if we jump into a snarky, sarcastic corner, we are slamming that door shut, and re-affirming what a critic already thinks about the Church and her members.  

Again, I understand, the only media people seem to see on Christianity most of the time around here has to do with creationists protesting the teaching of science, and stuff like that, and we get really sick of being lumped into that, and having a debate that's about as productive and two sided as a climate change debate, where we vehemently defend our position to a world who's not listening to us anyway.  But for this brief, glorious moment, the world is actually listening to what the Church has to say.  It doesn't matter that we've been saying it for years.  What matters is that we have an opportunity to not only be ourselves, loving and patient, but to be seen for who we really are.  Let us be the sort of Catholics who are happy to patiently share what we know about the issue, and honest about what we don't know about it too.  I'm going to repeat that last part for emphasis.  We have an opportunity to be seen by a world that is often hostile to us, to be seen for who we really are, at least in this one facet of our faith.  

It would be a shame if what they saw was a sarcastic know it all, rather than a loving, patient, knowledgeable brother or sister.  

Stop liking what I don't like: The theologized opinion

If you can handle a bit of profanity, try Googling "Opinions are like" and let the auto suggest fill in the rest.  It's actually pretty funny because the most famous quote by Harry Callahan (I won't repeat it, you all know it) isn't the one that pops up for me, but lots of folks seem to have adapted it to fit their favourite body part!

In any case, this post is a bit of a rant about something that has bugged me for a long time, but only recent I've seemed to explicitly notice.  That's what I call the theologized opinion.  You've probably experienced it.  It's when someone forms an opinion about something, it might be important or it might be trivial, and then adapts, invents, and shoehorns a theology around it for the sake of arguing that any other opinion is wrong, and thus anyone else who holds a different opinion is wrong.  As a long time music minister I'm well familiar with the theologized opinion, as pretty much everyone in existence has an opinion about music, and when you are called to lead music at Mass, they'll be sure to tell you! 

 In my experience theologized opinions are most frequently encountered on matters that are somewhat external to the most important things, but somehow tied to them.  For example, whether guitars should be allowed at church (I've heard long winded theological arguments that a nylon string guitar should be allowed, but a steel string not allowed), the merits of syncopation and 6/8 timing (seriously, I've heard serious theological arguments that syncopation has no place in church and that 6/8 time can only be used for the closing hymn... sorry Steve Angrisano, I guess you'll have to re-write all of your music!), and the exact rules about what can and can't be worn in Church (usually following a statement along the lines of "I'm not saying we should judge anyone who is different than this ideal, but..."  Lance over at Pious Posers just wrote a good piece on this topic, check it out).  Of course, I've heard them about much more serious issues as well, the media on all sides is displaying no shortage of them in the wake of the documents that have come out since the beginning of the Synod on the Family.  I won't comment on those lest I fall into the same territory.

My favourite recent example comes from Michio Kaku's book 'Hyperspace'.  Did you know that at one point in history there was a very specific theological reason that sacred art was fully 2D and flat (those scenes where everyone looks fully two dimensional and there is no perspective in the image)?  It was because it was conveying the message that God is above all.  That in and of itself is kind of a neat idea, but there were people who theologized that version of art to the point that if they saw something like DaVinci's last supper they'd be horribly offended that it was painted with a 3D perspective that puts the viewer into the painting rather than looking upon it from a holier perspective!

Now I'm not saying that opinions and theology are mutually exclusive (sorry, math/logic term, I'm teaching probability right now).  We have theological guidelines about things like how to prepare ourselves for Mass, liturgical music, and of course on the most serious issues like the Family.  What I'm getting at is that us religious folks have a temptation to be right about everything, and we use our religion as a blunt tool to make it so.  Here's how I see the relationship.  An opinion formed from theology has it in the centre.  The opinion radiates out from it.  It's almost less of an opinion and more of a universally logical conclusion.  The theologized opinion is where the opinion came first, and is wrapped up in the theology.  In other words, we try to mold the teachings of our faith to fit our agenda.  It's something we all do... I certainly do and have.  I like to be right and I like to win arguments.  It's prideful, and it lacks humility.  

Here's why it bothers me.  It waters down the important stuff, and it invalidates our theology.  If my opinion on something (like say what music should be at Mass) can supersede the truths we seek or profess, then the truth is taking a backseat.  It becomes a reason why someone else can just negate the theology along with the opinion because they disagree.  The second reason is I've never seen a theologized opinion used for anything but a personal agenda.  If I can find a theology for why contemporary music of any sort has no place at Mass, and I have a position with a bit of power, I can make sure that any Mass I attend has music I prefer.  Ultimately, I don't like it because it's dishonest.  It's being a pharisee.  It's using our religion as a weapon rather than an instrument of love and mercy, and in my opinion, no theology offered, using religion as a weapon doesn't lead us down roads that take us closer to God.

P.S. - Shout out to Colm Leyne...  You might be a Jerk for Jesus if all your opinions are theologized and you're all to happy to 'share' them with anyone who will (or won't) listen!

Overwhelming Welcome

Karen and I had the pleasure of going to a Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy at St. Stephen Protomartyr in Calgary today.  I've been to Byzantine Rite liturgies in the past, but it was Karen's first time, so I was a bit nervous for the experience (I had very high hope she'd love it as much as I do!).  We met our friend Sharon and her sons in the parking lot.

By the time we made it to the pew we had several new friends!

Sharon went to chat with the Fr. Bo, who was celebrating the liturgy.  He wanted to meet us and so we met him in the offices.  We couldn't help but smile at how joyful and sincerely happy to see us he was.  The greeters came over to us and started a conversation, as they recognized we were outsiders in the community.  On the way to our seats, right at the front, others greeted us.

The beauty of the building itself was also very welcoming.  It was an amazing blend of the simple and inviting, warm wood tones and unobtrusive stained glass, and the beautiful, with about 6 large, and awe inspiring icons in symmetry across the sanctuary.

Children were super welcome.  Fr. Bo made it absolutely known in every action, the way he talked, and the homily he gave that the kids were fully part of the community, and they returned the welcome with sincere and bold interaction with him when he'd ask questions during his homily.

After the Divine Liturgy we were waiting around for a little bit to meet someone, and we ended up meeting a lot of folks we weren't looking for.  A highlight was when a young parishioner made eye contact from across the room as though she recognized us (she did, but as visitors).  When she came over to our likely confused glances she was visibly happy to make our acquaintance.  We stayed for coffee and met some more parishioners (if you know me, you know I'm not good at that sort of thing... I felt totally comfortable there).

One of the biggest things I noticed is that no one ever treated us as guests or visitors, so much as new members of the family.  In fact when introduced by one of the greeters to other folks (the greeter knew we were Roman Catholic, from out of town, and really just on a field trip to a different rite of the Divine Liturgy) he simply said that we were new there.  Not just in town for the day, not visiting, just new.  We were already as fully welcome as everyone who call the parish their home.

In the end there's not a lot of point to this post except to say that I wish everyone of faith, myself included, could be that welcoming to the stranger, and have arms that open to the other.  I'm certainly not the most welcoming person far too much of the time, and I'm definitely shy, not bold, in the way I approach people.  Sometimes we as a Church get caught up in being right, correct, proper, moral, etc., and we forget that none of that matters if we don't have welcoming relationships.  If I'm an unpleasant, judgmental, or rudely blunt in the name of being right, then how can I show someone that my faith is a deep source of joy, or that all are welcome, or that God is Love.  Why would they listen to me?  Even if they did, would they believe my faith is about love and joy when my face, my words, and my actions aren't a reflection of those things?  God forgive us all for the times we deny someone their rightful place at the table, and inspire us all to be joyful and welcoming.

catholic Education and the Flaw of -isms

No, I didn't forget to capitalize the c in catholic in the title, and that's because I'm not referring to Catholic (as in the religion), but rather catholicism as the concept of being universal.  Feel free to substitute katholikos if it makes it easier for you to separate them.

This post is thanks to Lance from Pious Posers, who posted a couple comments on education today and inspired me to write about something that's been on my mind for a while.

It's no secret education is a bit of an ideological battleground, and that makes it troublesome for those of us who practice it.

It's troublesome for a new teacher who has been indoctrinated into the idea that a teacher shouldn't be a 'sage on the stage' but rather a 'guide on the side' (Freireism and constructivism) but struggles to figure out exactly how to get kids to learn enough material, fast enough to cover curriculum, and how to asses that kind of work.

It's troublesome when education is discussed in public and the focus seems to centre around education existing for the purpose of our economic growth and preparing students for the workforce (Neo-Liberalism).

It's troublesome when an administrator has to deal with the fact that every child has a right to be in a regular classroom all the time, but they may not have the resources to take proper care of that child's learning needs (inclusivism)

It's troublesome when parents or grandparents reminisce about the good old days, and how drills and memorization worked just fine for them and today's kids aren't learning because we don't do enough rote practice (Taylorism), or that kids just need more consequences (like 0's) and that punishing negative behaviours more strictly will fix the problems with today's generation (Skinnerism or behaviourism).

It's troublesome when an education professor teachers their students that the only meaningful way to learn is in the natural context the knowledge is a part of (ecopedagogism... seriously, that's the name for that!).

It's troublesome when we have various pieces of conflicting evidence from functional MRIs indicating how children 'really learn'.  (Cognitive developmentism)

I could go on.

The problem with this battleground of 'isms' is that none of them addresses every need.  Inclusivism addresses the dignity of the individual over the finite resources of a modern school.  Constructivism looks at the natural curiosity of a student over the life experience and knowledge of a teacher, or the standardized curriculum they teach in.  Behaviourism focuses in on simple cause and effect relationships, where the effects may not actually exist that way.

My proposal here is that we adopt a more catholic approach to the way we educate.  The reality of education is that it is heavily dependent on context.  Who are the students?  Who is the teacher?  What system are they in?  What actually works?  I have some students I can threaten with 0s and they will perform, others respond to real world connections, others still to story telling and direct teaching.  If we get caught up too much in an ideology we lose sight of the fact that students are truly universal.  To use a bit of Vulcan philosophy (sorry) education must deal with the IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combination) on a daily basis, and so in light of that, the only 'ism' that can really be effective in teaching is catholicism, because it's the only approach that can draw on the tools of every way of educating as they are needed.  As the old adage goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like a nail.

So directly for you Lance, don't kill off your 'sage on the stage', he's a wise person with a lot to offer his students, and you'll figure out when being the guide is effective as you gain experience!

My Response to my Ice Bucket Nomination

My awesome wife Karen nominated me for the ALS ice bucket challenge.  This blog post is going to serve as one third of my response (I will of course douse myself in ice water, but being a nerd, I feel as though I need to add a little sciencey pizazz to it and it may take a short period of time to prepare!)

I'm responding via blog because of two others' words.  The first widely read criticism of the challenge written by Scott Gilmore for Maclean's Magazine.  I'm responding to Scott because of his three considerations when donating to charity.  Scott says that we must consider the following:

1)  Where is the greatest need?
2)  Where will my dollars have the greatest influence?
3)  What is the most urgent problem?

Aside from the fact that 1 and 3 are basically the same question, I think Scott misses a point.  Not that the considerations aren't important, but they are purely from a pragmatic and statistical point of view.  Here's the problem...  charity is a human system.  Human systems can't be isolated into one or two variables.  It doesn't work that way.  For example, how do you define greatest need?  For a family struggling to make sense of ALS as it slowly takes away a loved one, there is likely no greater need.  If my friend or loved one is suffering from a rare disease should I not support their cause with my whole heart simply because it's not the greatest need?  Last I checked we weren't Vulcans.

To illustrate my point in a different way without rambling too much, I'm going to highlight a charity that by Scott's limited analyses, would not serve any need.  My wife used to be a wish granter for the Make a Wish Foundation.  By all medical and scientific accounts, they are a useless charity.  There is no link between wishes granted and kids getting better, they don't cure diseases, they don't extend lives.  They simply give a bit of joy to a child and a family who is having more than anyone should ever experience in terms of heartache and challenges.  I had the honor of attending a celebration put on by the Hyatt hotel chain for a wish recipient that they were sending to a special village that Disney built just for such kids and their families.  What I witnessed was a community coming together to support, uplift, and bring joy to others for no other reason than to share joy with them.  The witness of that event and the work Karen did opened my heart to them as well and we used our wedding as a venue to raise a donation to them, which by Mr. Gilmore's criteria, didn't do anything that was necessary.

The problem with taking a human system like charity and trying to reduce it so much is that it dehumanizes it.  Not that looking at massive epidemics like HIV/AIDS, or working on diseases like cancer or heart disease which claim so many lives, isn't necessary.  Not even that things like that shouldn't be our focus.  What the armchair social critics are missing though, is that we give more when we have a human connection.  Charity is about human connections.  That's why we give to causes that harm us more closely, or that our firends are connected to.

Mr. Gilmore also used the terms narcissism and slacktivism.  Quite frankly he's looking at the whole viral movement and missing the best part of it.  The acts of charity that our friends, loved ones etc. are challenging us to by getting us to pay attention to them for 30 seconds while we get to revel in their momentary discomfort are inspiring our own acts of charity.  In his own blog, Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame points out that 50% - 70% of the money that goes into something like this is typically money that would have already been donated to another cause.  But hold on... that means that up to 50% of the $94 million (reported 11 hours ago by the Boston Globe) is new charity money.  That's going to be in the neighbourhood of $50 million charity dollars generated by this so called narcissistic slacktivism.  We witnessed the same at our wedding.  One guest making a show of a large donation in return for forcing us to kiss (we did that instead of clinking glasses) inspired others among our family and friends, and some of the money that would have been spent at the bar went to bring a child a little piece of a wish that brought them joy amidst their suffering.  If 50 million new charity dollars is what a few small acts inspiring a few other small acts cascading around the world can do over a couple of weeks in the age of social media, imagine what would happen if we looked at every act of charity, whether it fits our personal connections and charitable inklings or not, and let it inspire us to our own act of charity, and let it inspire others too.  I don't care how cynical or critical you are (and I'm right up there with the best of them) that's an amazing thought.

To show what this can look like, I'm inspired by my life long friend Jennifer, who posted a much more succinct message on Facebook highlighting the need for regular, planned giving, to a charity that is personal to her in response to her ALS challenge.  Jenn, your message inspired me.  I will be earmarking a portion of my budget that would normally go to non-charitable things like shiny pieces for my motorcycle, and donating it to charities monthly for the next year.  My first in the spirit of medical research which is what started all of this, will be to the JPII Medical Research Institute, which is a secular organization dedicated to ethical and cost effective research for treatments and cures of various diseases.   That's the second third of my response to the challenge (The third will be when I figure out how to science up dumping ice water on my head)

My three nominations for the challenge are

1)  Writer Scott Gilmore to find some charitable cause that he cares about and meets his criteria, and donate something to them that he otherwise would not have spent on charity

2)  Col. Chris Hadfiled because he's awesome and I want to see him doused in cold water

3)  Anyone who has responded in any way to the challenge, positively or negatively, to find an extra act of charity, a gift of time, talent, or treasure, that will take any accusations of slacktivism and kick them out the window, and inspire more generosity.