The Death of "Conservative Catholicism'

In the August/September 2013 issue of First Things, editor R.R Reno celebrates the end of theological liberalism being a "force in the churches."  The damage in Protestantism has already been done, and the better crop of bishops in Catholicism means that, if nothing else, we won't see a massive rebellion akin to Humanae Vitae again.  Eric Cohen offers a response that, while talking about Judaism, could just as easily be talking about Christianity, and specifically the experiment of First Things to wed Christianity very closely with the great American experiment known as conservatism.

World Youth Day: Theory and Practice

Leonard: I love cheesecake

Sheldon:  No you don't, you're lactose intolerant.

Leonard:  I think its a good idea!

Like so many of my generation, we find a bit of wisdom behind the laughs (and not all of them appropriate) of CBS' The Big Bang Theory.  A few weeks ago someone asked me in the comboxes here what I thought about World Youth Day.  This scene came to my mind when reading that question.  I'm really not a fan of World Youth Day, but I still to this day think its a good idea.  Another way of saying it is that World Youth Day is a terrible idea, and the only thing worse than World Youth Day is no World Youth Day.  This came into my mind when I read the following article at Catholic World Report.

The Return of Peter Miller

Want a good way to figure out if the traditionalist you are talking to has been one before Benedict XVI's pontificate? Ask them if they read Peter Miller's Seattle Catholic. Between 2001 and 2006, SC was a website that served as an all purpose internet hub for traditionalists. Mr. Miller collected links from around the web that trads would find interesting, and linked them without commentary. When Peter Miller gave you a link, your traffic exploded. This was always comforting to young traditionalists such as myself, who at that time were written out of polite Catholic conversation. In 2002 at 20 years old and only starting to discover the Latin Mass, Mr. Miller always "put me over" (to borrow a wrestling phrase) by giving me a couple links every now and then. As Michael Brendan Dougherty (my original blog partner who transferred into really interesting political journalism) put it, a lot of us got our start thanks to Seattle Catholic and their influence. 

 

When you actually wanted commentary, he always had some interesting opinion works that spanned the viewpoint of traditionalist commentary. Most importantly, it allowed viewpoints that went against the prevailing traditionalist ethos. Many believed that traditionalists were all monarchists politically and you had to be a distributist economically. Mr. Miller allowed incredibly intelligent writers to come on and argue otherwise. Some might not have realized it at the time, but he was broadening the traditionalist movement through his actions. Agree on the same faith and our love of the same liturgy, everything outside of dogmatics can and should be debated. That's what I learned from reading the site several times a day. If anything I would argue traditionalists need a modern day Seattle Catholic, if someone was insane enough to do that much work.

 

That's why it is with much fanfare and celebration that Mr. Miller stepped out of his self imposed exile to give a current state of the traditionalist movement promo over at Rorate Caeli. In it he talks a lot about the same themes we have covered lately, mainly about how much has changed in the past 7 years since SC went dark. They are teasing this as the first of many, and I hope that is the case.

Mr. Miller offers a very sobering analysis, emphasizing how far we've come, how far we still have to go, and stressing the importance of individuals, on all sides, doing the right thing and fighting the good fight. That's a call I made in two well received columns at Catholic Lane. Someone with Mr. Miller's influence and auctoritas will hopefully be able to get more to pay attention.

Pope Francis and the "Mission" Thing

"In time, we will understand the mission of Pope Francis."

"Just give it time, and we will see what great things the Holy Spirit has in store for the Pope."

My friends tell me this all the time whenever the discussion centers on Pope Francis. Some of my traditionalist brethren fear he is going to set back the traditionalist cause decades if not outright killing it. Others parse every word, looking for a grand agenda, and when his sweeping reforms will start. All of this happens even though, according to Pope Francis' own words, he hasn't done much of anything since becoming Pope, and he has played his cards incredibly close to his chest on what he was going to do.

Metting Halfway

Something happened during the debate surrounding "radtrad" and "radical traditionalist." No, everyone didn't suddenly convert to the position they disagreed with before.  Instead, I think everyone is regressing to the mean after some initial bumps in the road.

Letting Us Stand Together

The dicussion surrounding my editorial at Catholic Lane generated a lot more discussion than I ever would have hoped or wished for. There have been a lot of varied responses, some more valuable than others. I'd like to call the attention of my audience to one of these responses in particular, by Fr. Dwight Longenecker.

Traditionalist but not "Restorationist"

The outrage meter is about to go past 11 on some blogs tomorow.  During an address to the Latin American Bishops Conferences (if we just got rid of these useless bodies poor Francis would have less an opportunity for scandalizing the consciences of some), the Holy Father talked about certain temptations that hinder the full power of the Gospel.  It really was a speech that offended just about every interest group in the Church, for better or worse.

The Pelagian solution. This basically appears as a form of restorationism. In dealing with the Church’s problems, a purely disciplinary solution is sought, through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful. In Latin America it is usually to be found in small groups, in some new religious congregations, in (exaggerated) tendencies to doctrinal or disciplinary “safety”. Basically it is static, although it is capable of inversion, in a process of regression. It seeks to “recover” the lost past.

There are uncomfortable realities here for all Catholics, not just traditionalists.  When we are presenting the Gospel, are we doing so in ways which are still relevant?  Let's take the manner of Latin for example.  Let's say tomorrow Pope Francis announced he was going to replace the liturgy that we know today with the liturgy of the 1962 missal.... except in English.  Would we take that deal, or would we insist on it being in Latin.  Unless we are fools, we would take the English.  Would it be our perfect ideal?  Maybe not.  Yet it would give us quite a bit of what we want, since it gives the underlying principles we hold dear.  So our focus should be on those principles, no matter what disciplinary fashion they are in.

The question basically becomes:  is full abolition of the Ordinary Form, and a reversion to the Extraordinary Form all that matters?

Finally, I have never wished to "recover" the lost past of events right before the Second Vatican Council.  Vatican II didn't cause Humanae Vitae.  Those leaders were in place well before the Council.  Some anti-traditionalists try to frame this argument "if traditionalism is so awesome, how do you explain the near total apostasy Catholicism experienced after the council?"  The near total apostasy part should never be denied.  Yet we should have no problem saying that our ancestors, heroic as they are, had some blind spots, just as we have our current blind spots that we need the help of God's grace to overcome.  (If they were a tad too legalistic, even most trads today are absolute panzies when it comes to suffering, if you compare our fasting to that of our ancenstors.)

There will never be a perfect Church militant here on earth.  But we can say that our generation needs to drink far deeper of the Gospel, and the principles we advocate are a way of doing that.  Few if any trads would say we simply look for a "discplinary solution", and quite frankly, the Pope should exhibit far more sensitivity when speaking on the subject.  As Archbishop Chaput rightly pointed out, Pope Francis needs to act like he is the Pope of traditionalists as well.

So really my brethren, stop taking every statement from the Pope as a way to tear you down further.  Look at it as a challenge to return to a greater fidelity to our principles.  Those disciplines we advocate so ardently are meant to lead to those principles, which is first and foremost a deeper personal relationship with our Savior.  We have had so much success these past 6 years showing the world these principles.  Let us always look for more chances.

Michael Voris, Dave Armstrong, and Catholic Derp

Over at his blog and Facebook, Dave Armstrong is offering a critique of popular Catholic evangelist Michael Voris, and some of his more stinging criticisms of much of what passes for Catholicism today.  I find myself agreeing overall with what Dave is saying:  Voris is writing checks with his mouth that can't possibly be balanced.  Yet I find the answers he is offering unsatisfactory.  Just to make things clear, I don't think there's necessarily a disagreement, I just want to go off my own way on this, and hopefully provide a better diagnosis.

Gaming and the New Evangelization

I have always said four things drove me in my life:  My faith, my job, baseball, and video games.  On June 1st, I added a wife to that list.  (Moved her to just behind faith of course!)  When you work off-shift jobs like I do (I have worked midnights or afternoons 12 out of the last 13 years), you've got a lot of free time at night, especially when I was a single bachelor.  So in addition to reading, prayer and other activities, gaming was one of my favorite past times.  What follows will be some disjointed thoughts about gaming and my faith.

Missing the Point on Modesty

One of the biggest regrets I had during the "Westian Wars" was that the debate was a bit too wonkish at times. There were endless debates over whether or not continence was a virtue, or just something nice, and both sides went to lenghty explanations from Aquinas to make their point. Don't get me wrong, I love me some wonkery, and those Westians really were freakin wrong. Yet I ask myself almost two years later: did the average person care? How did the stuff being presented help people to grow in holiness, save their souls, follow Church teaching, etc? For lack of a better explanation, my "side" still isn't really good at this.

Applying Jeremiah to the Modern Jeremiad

Have you heard about how America is an evil nation, opposed to God, and destined to be judged?  Or how about how rotten the majority of the Catholic Church is for its lack of fidelity to the Gospel, and how God will judge them for that?  Or maybe you've read and took comfort in the fact that there's nothing we can do to stop these judgments.  Thankfully, we shouldn't worry if you follow the words of today's jeremiads, since when Christ returns, most of the world will be apostate anyway.

They will explain their rationale for speaking boldly by referencing the prophet Jeremiah, frequently viewed as a "prophet of doom" or a prophet of lamentation over the sins of Israel.  I really don't have a problem with this approach per se. I certainly sympathize with it. Evil has to be condemned, sometimes with maximum rhetorical force.  The Gospel is just as much about the dignity and justice of God (and how He ultimately used that dignity to satisfy that justice) as it is about the dignity of the human person.  So when you read this, don't take me as someone who is a liberal squish who is downplaying the need to condemn sin.  Yet I think we need to tell the whole story with our jeremiads, and the best place to look for that story would be the Prophet Jeremiah.  The best place to start is when God formally makes Jeremiah his chosen voice:

On True Holiness

Stop me if you've heard this one before.  (Actually don't, as this is my blog, I make the rules.)  Whenever extolling someone, you hear "he is so holy!"  This is one of the most dangerous statements around.  If one doesn't understand what true holiness is, they are giving a false assessment, and that has the potential to mislead others.  While some might view this a hard assessment, I would object.

The beauty about God is He has no desire to hide all of His works from His creation.  Sure, some things might be clouded a bit in mystery, but he points us the way to something, and faith makes up for what we lack.  So it is with holiness.  We have seen many priests disgrace their priesthood.  The shocked faithful always say "but he was so holy!"  Perhaps we need to do a more in-depth examination of what holiness is.

Our first mistake is to define holiness as something we do.  That is alien to the Biblical world.  Rather, being holy was what we are. In being holy, we are set apart.  Holiness is what we do to represent our being set apart.  Through our bodies, we carry out certain actions, and these actions can be judged as to whether they are in accord with a state of being set apart from the ordinary.  If they are not, and we are all too ordinary (like the world), that being set apart is used in our condemnation.

So in judging holiness, we must look at acts that are set apart from the "normal" ways of the world, or of our nature.  Our nature was corrupted by sin.  As a result, we stopped acting as if we were set apart to give God glory, and acted to the contrary.  Right away this eliminates marks of being holy such as eloquence in speech, or the ability to repeat intellectual propositions that can be turned into talk points.  The mouth can preach orthodoxy with great eloquence.  Yet the heart can also use that mouth to manipulate, even under the appearance of orthodoxy.  When Marc Antony spoke in Julius Caesar, he was assenting to the orthodoxy of the day from the powers that be.  Yet through manipulation, he managed to undermine those very figures.

Likewise, when Satan approaches our Lord in the desert, everything he says is true and orthodox.  He indeed was able to quote scripture with the best of them.  Yet he was using orthodoxy to undermine proper practice, or orthopraxy.  He was tempting Christ towards vanity and arrogance.  If he hooked Christ on those things, he could break Him later on the orthodoxy stuff.

That is why when we are measuring holiness, we must look for those traits and virtues which are not "of this world."  Anyone can speak with eloquence, but true Christian charity is hard to fake.  Authentic Christian faith, hope, and charity cannot come from within.  They can only come from externally.  The world cannot fake these things.

We are given a second tool outside of these main virtues, in that they are measured by how we live our vocation.  In the secular world, our profession defines who we are.  A businessman is concerned with striking the balance of making their business efficient yet still profitable.  To the extent they are both efficient and profitable, we can measure how successful a businessman they are.

God gives each and every human person a vocation, a calling.  Those vocations have certain requirements to them.  A priest is called to a life (if not always a vow) of poverty, chastity, and obedience.  Poverty comes about in not relying on the things of this world, even if we have them.  Chastity (by extension celibacy) is in accordance with the fact that they are living a life in anticipation of the Kingdom of heaven, a sign for all of us of our eventual destination.  Finally, obedience is the recognition that they are priests of something other than themselves, so what they want is not always what is best.

Another vocation exists for the married life which people are called to.  While many might not realize it, they have the same requirements, they just carry them out in a different manner.  The life of poverty calls them to cling to their spouses, the greatest created gift God has given them.  Material possessions should never take the place of primary devotion over their spouse.  In chastity, they are called to realize that they can be with their spouse only, and no other.  To the extent the eyes (and person) set themselves upon another, they are not living chastely.  Finally they submit in obedience to their spouse by realizing that their needs are no longer of paramount importance.  The benefit of their spouse is their business, and more importantly, the benefit of the family as a whole trumps all.  A businessman who increases his own efficiency and profit at the expense of the company he works for will either find himself fired or in jail for fraud.  Likewise a spouse who puts their own needs above that of the company he works for (their family) will place their souls in mortal danger.

Like those authentic virtues, they are incredibly tough to fake when viewed properly.  They are something that must be continually done.  They define who we are.  One may be able to trick themselves into leading a double life.  Yet they will be found out eventually by others, who can examine their actions over a lifetime.  Since they are not living towards their vocation in their double life, they cannot be considered as practicing holiness, even if they do great things.  Indeed, those great things become condemnations.  A husband cannot practice marital chastity for long when he places the needs of himself as paramount.  Eventually, those needs will lead to his own fulfillment.  What does his wife think?  Who cares!  He is looking out for number one.

Likewise, a priest that spends his lifetime building up material possessions will eventually come to be defined by them.  Without that character of poverty, he will not long have a character of chastity or obedience.  In addition to being incredibly hard to fake long-term, they are inseparably linked.

Finally, when we look at holiness from this perspective, one thing comes to mind.  Man is holiness hard!  That is what we should always remember when we see someone stumble.  If we look upon ourselves, we will find that, to greater or lesser degrees, we aren't following that spirit which leads to virtue.  That brings us to humility.

Humility is the hardest of all of these, yet it is also the most necessary.  If poverty, chastity, and obedience lead to faith, hope, and charity, humility is the glue that holds everything together.  Humility is our reminder that if we do this on our own, we will fail.  If we examine our consciences for but one minute each day, this will become blatantly apparent.  Poverty and chastity reach obedience through humility.  If one is not humble, he will have few of those virtues for long.  Eventually the winds of this world will blow obedience away from chastity, or poverty from obedience.  Like everything else here, the glue is something we cannot produce out of ourselves.  It needs to come from somewhere else.  That "somewhere" is a "someone."  That individual is Jesus Christ.  Later we will consider how this is to be so with a few analogies.

A Challenge to the Church of NFP

Every now and then an article is written that doesn't so much as set the trend in the blogosphere but tells in public what many were thinking in private. As a result, serious discussion develops. Very few remember one sentence from Alice Von Hildebrand's takedown of Christopher West. What they do remember was that a lion of Catholicism had finally given some much needed fraternal correction to Mr. West. She said in her eloquence what many had been thinking.


I think Danielle Bean over at Crisis Magazine has done something similar. If nothing else, she causes me to think.

I remember several years ago I was on a first date with a lady. During that date, out of the blue, she asked "do you plan on using Natural Family Planning during your marriage?" From the love of baseball to thermometer reading and charting. This is an experience no (then) 23 year old should go through. In discussing the rather absurd and bizarre situation with a friend, he gave what was probably the best reply I've heard. "Me and my wife are firm believers in Natural Family Planning. I plan on hitting the lotto, then having my family naturally."

Like Ms. Bean, I do not intend to dog on NFP. It has always been permitted by the Church under certain conditions. My problem is with what I call "The Church of NFP", or when I'm in a slightly more polemical mood "NFP or Die."

For these individuals, NFP is not just something couples should consider prudently. To not practice NFP is to show a lack of prudence. In their mind, to not engage in NFP is to abandon "responsible parenthood." That they cannot cite one magisterial document which says every Catholic should practice NFP is irrelevant. They base their understanding on John Paul II's Man and Woman He Created Them. That John Paul II never said such a thing is once again irrelevant. (Like the defenders of the school of thought of Christopher West come to think of it!)

I cannot speak to all of the reasons Ms. Bean gives. I'm a single Catholic male, so I can't speak about "fertility symptoms", breastfeeding and all that jazz. Yet the other points she gave made me think about a lot of things.

First, those who are practicing NFP need to answer one question: Why? The Church is clear that if sufficient reasons are evident, NFP may (not must) be practiced. Yet I think Catholics should ask themselves honestly: is this really done? I would very confidently wager that answer is a negative. When they are considering economic needs, are they considering true subsistence style living, to where it would be near impossible to provide a child with basic necessities, or are they considering that they won't be able to pay a full ride at a four year university and grad school for all their children? Worse yet, are they doing it for their own selfish reasons, as having children will deprive them of worldly benefits? For mental and spiritual reasons, is there a genuine concern, or is there just uncomfortable feeling?

Better yet, are they discussing these matters with an independent third party, who can consider the spiritual reasons for why they are practicing NFP? In other words, how involved is a sound orthodox priest (preferably their spiritual director) in these discussions? People are masters at rationalizing their behavior. Sometimes we need an independent third party to tell us we are doing it wrong. Simply saying you are discussing it with your doctor isn't good enough. They may have the medical knowledge, but they do not have the knowledge of being able to provide spiritual direction. (Very few of them at least.)

If one is doing these things, these words aren't for you. If you've done these things and still arrive at the prudential consideration to employ Natural Family Planning, then such is your choice. All I'm saying is that somewhere along the way, people got the mistaken notion that to not practice NFP at all times was somehow the sign of a sinful Catholic couple.

I'd also like to talk about "responsible" parenting. Somewhere and I have no clue where, "responsible" parenting became about the number of children you have, rather than the quality of how those children were raised. Do you have ten children? Are all of those children raised in the Catholic faith, given access to the sacraments? Is a high emphasis placed upon education? Do you present your children with an environment and opportunity to practice authentic Christian virtues? Congratulations, you are doing "responsible" parenting, even if you live in a small house and the children wear hand me downs. This is just as true if you have even just one child.

On the topic of shame, Ms. Bean is even stronger. I personally do not need to hear about an individual woman's fertility cycle, mucus, etc. The only woman I will need to hear that about is when I'm married, and she is my wife. I've beaten this subject to death in the things I've written in regards to Theology of the Body/Christopher West, so I will be brief. Sharing these details so casually is a violation of the sacredness of the body and the marital embrace.

The final topic I would like to touch on would be a delicious irony, were it not so tragic. In pushing "sex is holy", the church of NFP makes it less holy. The marital embrace is only discussed about on the natural level. If husband and wife come together, there is a "risk" (oh how I hate such talk!) a child would be conceived. Many in the TOB crowd claim their critics focus too much on the pro-creative aspects of the marital embrace, and not the unitive. They rightly point out God created the marital embrace as a way of strengthening the bonds of marriage. Every time husband and wife come together, they are renewing their marital vows in a very special way. done properly, one could say it is a way of making present the grace one receives during the Sacrament of Matrimony. Out of such selfless love (where neither party seeks their own gratification), a new life is created through our participation in God's creative work.

With all the emphasis solely on child-bearing, the church of NFP robs the marital embrace of much of its power. Husband and wife coming together to renew their marital vows for their sanctification is viewed as a "failure" in abstinence. To engage in perfectly normal marital relations is not a failure. While we must always be careful to ponder our intentions (i.e. we must make sure we are not coming together for selfish reasons), it is truly scandalous that the church of NFP makes them think otherwise. Sadly, the author herself even falls into this trap. "Struggling with abstinence" in the married life is suggested as a struggle with purity. Now this may be the case. Yet why should one assume that a wife struggles with purity if she desires to engage in the marital embrace with her husband? Why should a husband be prohibited from renewing his wedding vows with the woman he has pledged to give up everything for? Because a chart says is a terrible reason. They are heeding, in a very special way, the call to become "one flesh." Now there may exist reasons and circumstances where periodic continence is advised. Yet such situations are meant to be temporary.

In the end, I fear we Catholics today have a fear of giving up control. We foolishly think we are in control of every aspect of our lives, including fertility. Yet this is nonsense. God is in control. He may choose to work through our voluntary free will in the marital embrace, but He is still in control. The idea a pregnancy should be viewed as a "surprise" or "unplanned" amongst married couples is shameful. By engaging in the marital embrace, one "planned" the possibility that a child may be born. Now one may wish to take prudent steps, in accordance with nature, to space births for various reasons, but our plans can and will go astray if God thinks the better of it. We shouldn't look at that as a bad thing. God might see the discipline and self control in a couple practicing NFP and go "You know, such restraint is a great quality in a parent, and even better in a child, so I will help them conceive."

How much of this enters the NFP discussion? Check the comments at the site of the article. All are worth reading.

On Homeschooling and Our Sunday Visitor

In the current issue of Our Sunday Visitor (OSV), Michelle Martin wrote what she no doubt felt was a balanced look at homeschooling and its relation to the Catholic Church.  The article has touched off a firestorm on the site and in the blogosphere as a whole.  I believe an objective reading of the article will show that it is not balanced, and that bias harms the work greatly.

1.)  On Balance

When faced with criticism, Greg Erlandson of OSV responded to the criticism on Steve Kellmeyer's blog by stating:

No publisher likes to see calls to boycott his publication, but I appreciate the strong feelings engendered by our news story on the occasional gulf that appears between home school advocates and some in the institutional Church.

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than Mr. Erlandson makes it out to be.  The article was clearly written by someone who looks down on homeschooling, or at least following an editorial position hostile to homeschooling, which has been the OSV viewpoint in the past. 

While there is an "occasional gulf" such a gulf is hardly one-sided.  The response towards homeschooling varies from diocese to diocese, even parish to parish.  Some have widely developed homeschooling networks, and these people are an integral part of the parish.  Some dioceses offer several "homeschooling Masses" a year.  Finally some do indeed act like Bishop Vasquez, to their shame.  The article quotes not one Church authority in favor of homeschooling.  If one goes off the article alone, homeschooling is not "sometimes" opposed by Church authorities.  It is always opposed.  The dioceses where it is allowed, nothing is said about why they allow it, only that they "recognize" it as an option.  As I intend to show, that position is the default Catholic position.

2.)  Insufficient Evidence

In order to defend the idea that homeschooling is contrary to the Catholic faith, proponents of such a view have to give some pretty creative exegsis.  So creative, it would get most students flunked out of a classroom.  We will only deal with one of the "proofs" cited.  Ms. Martin states:

But not all priests and bishops agree. At the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884, the bishops wrote that parents have an obligation to send their children to parochial schools, and some clergy members today say Catholic home-schoolers abrogate that responsibility.

Sadly, she left something out.  Here is the exact text, emhaspsis mine:

Title vi, Of the Education of Catholic Youth, treats of (i) Catholic schools, especially parochial, viz., of their absolute necessity and the obligation of pastors to establish them. Parents must send their children to such schools unless the bishop should judge the reason for sending them elsewhere to be sufficient. Ways and means are also considered for making the parochial schools more efficient. It is desirable that these schools be free. (ii) Every effort must be made to have suitable schools of higher education for Catholic youth.

When one includes the entirety of the statement, one finds it is a lot less sweeping than was originally portrayed.  Even judging solely on this text alone, the "obligation" is not an absolute one.  First and foremost, the Bishop can judge it not neccessary.  The price of the schools and the quality of them also must be taken into consideration.

Yet we cannot judge solely on this one piece of evidence.  The Third Plenary Synod is but a local synod of American Bishops.  Our Catholic faith teaches that such synods are not binding on Bishops, or even the faithful outright.  In the end, the documents of Popes and Councils are far more important than that of a mere regional synod of a (at the time) small Catholic population.

As far as the Popes, not much is said about the nature of Christian education until Pope Pius XI.  (Leo XIII touches on certain facets of education, but not the root itself.)   According to Pius XI, there are three spheres of society, and all three have an importance in education:  the family, civil society, and the Church.  As Divni Illus Magistri makes clear, the first of these is the family.  They possess the right of education from nature itself.  The individual family unit existed before the State, and without the family, there can be no Church.  Yet as families have obligations beyond themselves (to the common good and the Church), there are certain instances where they have a pre-eminence (but never trumping) of the family.

On matters of faith and morals, the family must be in union with the Church.  Whereas the family has the right to educate their own children by nature, the Church has the right to educate souls by Divine Commission.  Yet in keeping with the notion of subsidarity, the Church does not seek to usurp the authority of the parents.  As the Pontiff states:

The fundamental reason for this harmony is that the supernatural order, to which the Church owes her rights, not only does not in the least destroy the natural order, to which pertain the other rights mentioned, but elevates the natural and perfects it, each affording mutual aid to the other, and completing it in a manner proportioned to its respective nature and dignity. The reason is because both come from God, who cannot contradict Himself

To emphasize that he is not kidding, the Pope states:

The family therefore holds directly from the Creator the mission and hence the right to educate the offspring, a right inalienable because inseparably joined to the strict obligation, a right anterior to any right whatever of civil society and of the State, and therefore inviolable on the part of any power on earth.


 That this right is inviolable St. Thomas proves as follows:The child is naturally something of the father . . . so by natural right the child, before reaching the use of reason, is under the father's care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice if the child, before the use of reason, were removed from the care of its parents, or if any disposition were made concerning him against the will of the parents.

And as this duty on the part of the parents continues up to the time when the child is in a position to provide for itself, this same inviolable parental right of education also endures. "Nature intends not merely the generation of the offspring, but also its development and advance to the perfection of man considered as man, that is, to the state of virtue

To end our lengthy quoting of Pope Pius, he discusses the relationship between the Church and the family when talking about education:

We have therefore two facts of supreme importance. As We said in Our discourse cited above: The Church placing at the disposal of families her office of mistress and educator, and the families eager to profit by the offer, and entrusting their children to the Church in hundreds and thousands. These two facts recall and proclaim a striking truth of the greatest significance in the moral and social order. They declare that the mission of education regards before all, above all, primarily the Church and the family, and this by natural and divine law, and that therefore it cannot be slighted, cannot be evaded, cannot be supplanted.

The Second Vatican Council confirms and even elevates this teaching when the Fathers state:

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

And lest anyone say that the parent does not have a choice in where to educate their children (a la Father Peter Stravinskas), the Council states:

Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools.

This is but a sample of Church teaching on the manner.  It really matters little whether or not "all priests or Bishops agree."  What matters is what the Catholic church says.

3.)  Just Flat out Wrong!

Up until now, there have been certain statements which could at least be defendable from an evidentiary standpoint, and a standpoint of Christian charity.  When we pass to the statements of Fr. Stravinskas, we cannot allow them to stand.  For some reason, and we will not speculate, Fr. Stravinskas has a certain loathing of the concept of homeschooling, and this colors anything he writes about the topic of education.

First and foremost, he tells Ms. Martin:

There are several reasons to prefer Catholic schools, Father Stravinskas told Our Sunday Visitor, including that the Church Fathers made clear that catechesis is the job of the whole Church, with the main responsibility resting on the shoulders of the pastor, not the parents.

As we have seen from the evidence, this is wrong.  The Church has a special responsibility beyond that of the family or civil society.  As a "perfect society" she has a strength in her claims the family lacks.  But the right of the Church to educate does not supersede the family.  On the contrary, it strengthens it.  As Pius XI noted, the family chooses to entrust their children to the Church.  The Church cannot and does not seek to act contrary to the rights of the family.

Logically speaking this is flawed as well.  Let us say there is a child in a parish Father Stravinskas is at.  Said child ends up not being educated in the faith.  He never comes to the Catechism classes, never seeks out Father privately, etc.  This child grows up and remains in that parish, but still doesn't seek the education out.  The individual dies in a state of mortal sin, and as a result is in hell.  Father Stravinskas won't be faulted.  Yet if the parents tried to say "well we offered him the chance to go to catechism classes" they will still be held accountable.  They were the child's primary educators.  They can't pass the buck off to someone else.  That this child failed to receive an education would not be a failure of Father's priesthood.  It would however be a failure of the parents in excercising their authority properly.

And Catholic parents who choose to home-school when there is a Catholic school available at least implicitly send the message that they do not trust the Church to educate their children properly, and the children get that message.

When I hear this statement, I am reminded of the rather blunt assesment Archbishop Fulton Sheen gave towards Catholic schools during his time.  He stated that if a child wished to learn the faith, they were better off in a public school.  At least they could fight to get faith, rather than be given modernism under the appearance of faith.  Does Father Stravinskas think Archbishop Sheen was disobeying what the Church said?  It is a simple fact that in many Catholic schools today in America, Catholicism is the last thing you will find.  Nowadays, many of the teachers are laymen, not priests/religious.  This is not neccessarily a bad thing, but it must also be kept in mind.  Sometimes, they aren't even Catholic.  They act in contravention of Church teaching in the classroom. 

What Father Stravinskas sees is a reaction to a situation.  Fix the situation, do not shoot the messenger.  If you want Catholic schools to flourish, work towards re-affirming their Catholic identity, and ensure they teach the Catholic and Apostolic Faith without regret.  One could also do well towards addressing some practical concerns.

If we remember the Baltimore Synod, they wanted Catholic education to be free.  Today, education can cost even in "average" Catholic schools at $6,500 a student, per year.  Let us say you are a family with four children, paying a mortage on a house.  Between those four children, you will be spending at least $26,000 a year on Catholic schools.  Good luck trying to accomplish that if you are middle class, or if the wife is a stay at home mother.  If you have more children, this only becomes more prohibitive.  In a rather perverse incentive, smaller family sizes are encouraged if Father Stravinskas' dictums are to be held.  What about those families blessed to have 8 or 9 children?  The days where most of the instructors were religious members (which helped mitigate cost somewhat) are gone.  Combine that with a weakened economy, and Catholic schooling nowadays becomes unaffordable for those with large families.  How much tuition assistance is Father Stravinskas urging Catholic schools to provide to these kind of people?

While these previous statements were bad enough, they pale in comparison to what he says next:

That leads to a subtle anti-clericalism, he said, because the children learn that priests cannot be counted on to hand on the faith. It shows in what he sees as a dearth of vocations from home-school families. “Why would you want to join the club if its members can’t be trusted to their jobs?” he said.

The "anti-clericalism" is so subtle, it only exists in the mind of Father Stravinskas.  He "sees" a dearth of vocations in his own mind, not reality.  He cites no evidence for this, because there is none.  OSV tried to carry the water for him when one of their members posted the following in the comments section:

For those who wondered about the connection between home schooling and vocations to the priesthood -- interesting question!


I did some digging on the U.S. bishops' website, and found this statistic for all priests being ordained in 2011:

Only 4 percent of ordinands (5 percent of diocesan and no religious ordinands) report being home schooled at some time in their educational background. Among those who were home schooled, the average length of time they were home-schooled was six years

For the full report, go here: http://www.usccb.org/vocations...

When one goes to the report, it doesn't say what they want it to say.  Nowhere does it say that homeschooling leads to less vocations.  It simply says that out of those in the seminaries, 4% are homeschooled.  What is the percentage of Catholics homeschooled at large?  What is the percentage of those who go towards Catholic schooling (out of all those educated) who go onto the seminary?  The report doesn't say, because it isn't interested in that.  The report simply analyzed the backgrounds of those priestly candidates.

One also needs to keep something of context in mind.  The home-schooling boom is rather recent; only within the last 10-15 years has it really taken off.  To see such a small number would not be surprising.  As homeschooling continues to grow, it is only natural you will see ordinations continue to grow.

There may indeed be evidence that homeschooling leads to a lack of vocations.  OSV doesn't even try to provide it.  They simply state it, and expect their audience to believe it, based on the authority of Father Stravinskas.

In the end, that's the problem.  Father Stravinskas is setting himself up as the Magesterium.  His personal opinions are ultimately irrelevant, as are mine.  We have a Church who decides.  What Father Stravinaskas says and the Magsterium says are two different things.  Catholic parochial schools can be a very good thing.  Yet they are one option amongst many a parent can use in educating their child.

If one would want to report on a real problem, I have one for OSV.  Why is Father Stravinskas not being pastoral in trying to outline a variety of resources to help Catholic families fulfill their obligations under Divine and Church law?  Why is he instead trying to force everyone to adopt his personal opinions?  Perhaps Ms. Martin can get on that for us.

Leo XIII: A True "Great" Pope

Much to my delight, Pope Leo XIII has been in the news lately in Catholic circles.  Pope Benedict recently went to the birthplace of Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth.  In the world today, the moniker "the great" is thrown around with every important leader.  I think in the case of Leo XIII, one could say he was a truly "great" Pope. (if not necessarily carrying the moniker The Great, for a pope before him already has that in Pope St. Leo the Great.)

In the 25 years of his pontificate, there was seldom an area he touched that he didn't leave better off.  First, we must note the length of his pontificate.  I truly believe this was proof of God's sense of humor.  After the 35 year reign of his predecessor Blessed Pius IX, the Church was hoping for a "transition" Pope.  There were many who didn't like Pius' very confrontational approach, and were looking to institute a more "progressive" Pope.  Rather than dying quickly, Leo XIII lived to the age of 93, and essentially confirmed in place the magesterium of Pius IX.  What I hope follows is a very general tracing of the aspects of Church life he touched and left forever changed.

Being a convert who loves the Scriptures, the Church as a whole is indebted to Leo.  The serious discipline of Biblical studies in the Catholic Church today traces a lot of their roots back to Leo XIII and his encyclical Providentimus Deus.  He boldly stated things that even many Catholics (to say nothing of Protestants!) are surprised by:

For those whose duty it is to handle Catholic doctrine before the learned or the unlearned will nowhere find more ample matter or more abundant exhortation, whether on the subject of God, the supreme Good and the all-perfect Being, or of the works which display His Glory and His love. Nowhere is there anything more full or more express on the subject of the Savior of the world than is to be found in the whole range of the Bible. As St. Jerome says, "To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ." In its pages His Image stands out, living and breathing; diffusing everywhere around consolation in trouble, encouragement to virtue and attraction to the love of God. And as to the Church, her institutions, her nature, her office, and her gifts, we find in Holy Scripture so many references and so many ready and convincing arguments, that as St. Jerome again most truly says: "A man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scripture is the bulwark of the Church.'' And if we come to morality and discipline, an apostolic man finds in the sacred writings abundant and excellent assistance; most holy precepts, gentle and strong exhortation, splendid examples of every virtue, and finally the promise of eternal reward and the threat of eternal punishment, uttered in terms of solemn import, in God's name and in God's own words.

It was often joked that  seminarian had the Bible, and he had the Summa Theologica, the great work of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas.  In Leo XIII the Angelic Doctor found his most forceful patron.  In Aeterni Patris, a rigorous study of Aquinas became mandatory in not only seminaries, but Catholic lay universities as well.  In the years since, we have seen rapid development of Thomism, including some Thomists who gave us new ways of understanding philosophy such as Dietrich Von Hildreband, and a very young Karol Wojtyła, who would eventually become John Paul II.  These two were giants of the "personalist" school of philosophy, and were deeply influenced by Aquinas.

As well as being a pope of great learning, he was also a pope of exemplary piety.  Being the first pope of the 20th century, he prayed a very public novena for an outpouring of the Spirit (sometimes even referred to as a "New Pentecost") as the new century approached.  I believe the Holy Spirit heard his prayer.  The following 60 years could legitimately be viewed a "golden age" of Catholicism, from the 4 outstanding popes after him (including St. Pius X), the explosion of Catholic scholarship, and prolific writers like G.K Chesteron, J.R.R Tolkien and Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who took the Gospel to large audiences.

He wrote at length promoting devotion to Saint Joseph.  The increase in devotion to the sainted custodian of Our Lord led 60 years later for his name to be inserted into the canon, and generally being viewed as the patron of all workers everywhere.  St. Michael the Archangel also received special devotion in his pontificate, creating the very prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which, somewhat shortened, many Catholics pray every day.

All of these popular devotions however pale in comparison to the amount of time he spent promoting the devotion rightly due to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Many times he has truly been called the "rosary Pope."  He wrote eleven (count it, eleven!) encyclicals on the Rosary.  He clearly spelled out our understanding of Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix, never taking away or adding anything to Christ's sacrifice in terms of merit, but within the context of her being a model as the example of perfect submission to the Divine Redeemer.  The very Marian nature of later popes was heavily influenced by this Pope.

In terms of ecumenism and relationship with the world outside the Church, again great strides were made, but never at the expense of Catholic fidelity.  Diplomatic relations were restored and strengthened almost universally during his pontificate.  He defended the rights of Eastern Catholics from "Latinization", vieweing their traditions as absolutely essential to the universal Church.  Whenever relationships with the Eastern Orthodox are discussed, the impact of Leo XIII is always mentioned.

In matters of Europe, he demonstrated a strong interest in England's Catholic population.  He raised John Henry Newman to the rank of Cardinal and canonized the 50 "English Martyrs."  One could say he also in a sense delivered what would come to be the "killing blow" against Anglicanism, ruling their priestly ordinations invalid in Apostolicae Curae (a once proud Christian tradition since that time has turned itself into a shade of its former self, now known more for compromising Christianity than anything else.)  He was also one of the first Popes to take a keen interest in matters across the Atlantic in the United States of America.  While giving great praise towards the (at the time) young republic, he also warned American Catholics to remain on firm ground in their thinking (condemning the heresy of "Americanism", one of the earlier manifestations of Christian pluralism).

All of these things would already make a very successful pontificate.  For probably one of the most intelligent popes (worldwide he was known as a true master of Latin and an outstanding writer), he was just getting started.  Leo XIII is mostly known for his "social magesterium."  Almost everything about Catholic social teaching underwent a massive development under Leo XIII.  It had been centuries since a Pope engaged the modern world with the tenacity he displayed.  He began a serious defense and study of the sacrament of marriage, a study which needs renewed appreciation today.  He defended and developed the understanding of marriage as the foundation for all society and its understanding even of liberty and equality came from this institution.  He ardently defended the primacy of the parent in the role of educating their children.  He defended the true understanding of liberty, and pointed out the essential Christian character of Western Civilization.

He is best remembered however for his work on socialism.  One could say Leo was the first true modern prophet within the Church condemning socialism.  In all of his political encyclicals, he attacked socialism.  All of these culminated in the most influential of all modern encyclicals, Rerum Novarum.  In this great work (which 4 popes have commemorated with special anniversary encyclicals), he gives the Catholic Churches definitive response to Marxism and the Communist Manifesto.  He rejects socialism as utterly incompatible with Christian thought, and predicts (with almost frightening accuracy) what will happen to countries that embrace socialism.

He then stunned the world by also going after capitalism.  While praising the market, he also warns that it is not the answer for everything, and that a rugged individualism is every bit as dangerous as socialism.  He defends the rights of workers and labor unions, provided they are done with respect to Catholic conscience. Catholic economic thought entered another golden age as a result of this encyclical.  Even today, Catholic scholars invoke the memory of this great Pope in trying to understand economics from a Catholic perspective.

The truth is, I could go on and on for ages extolling the benefits of studying Leo XIII.  I believe I've given a strong outline for why I think he is such a solid pope.  Yet, even with all of these accomplishments, even with so many turning to him for guidance throughout the years, I would say he is a "forgotten" pope in the minds of the average Catholic. They know Pius XII, they know Paul VI, they might be familiar with Pius IX and St. Pius X, they are certainly familiar with John Paul II.  Many of these individuals owe a significant amount to the work of Leo XIII.  As we celebrate the 200th year of his birth, let our devotion and understanding of his work only increase.  While not a canonized saint, I believe there is little doubt where he resides, and that he to this day intercedes with us before the source of wisdom he so eloquently put forth.

The Death of the Catholic Male

When reflecting on society today, Catholics often have a question. What went wrong with our society? Why do we celebrate a culture of hedonism and ultimately a culture of death? John Paul II attempted to answer this question in his general audiences which became The Theology of the Body. In the eyes of the pontiff, humanity began losing its purpose as individuals and as a society because they failed to understanding the meaning of their bodies. That meaning was man (in the sense of the human race) is called to be a “gift” to others. Whether it be our everyday actions or the marital embrace between a husband and wife, we are called to live a life of service to the other, and this meaning is revealed and carried out in the human body.


Since the visible victims of this lack of understanding are typically women, the Holy Father spent a large amount of time writing about “the feminine genius” and what an authentically feminine woman brings to the Church and the world. For one reason or another, John Paul II frequently left off at this point. Whatever the reason, I think the Church, both individuals and the institution, need to carry this step further. Ponder a question. Will a pope in our lifetime ever write about “the masculine genius?” To ask this question is to answer it. Where are the programs to bring more and more men into the Church, not just as priests, but individual Catholics? One could multiply ad infinitium the lists of women’s programs, but seldom men. The really interesting question to ask is why this is so. I believe there is answer.


We have witnessed in society and even many circles of our Church the death of the male and masculinity. This is not to say that masculinity no longer exists. I am saying that in increasing numbers, masculinity is no longer relevant to many. The goal of feminism was never to eradicate masculinity. Such a goal is truly impossible. While you cannot eliminate it, you can marginalize it. On this, give the feminists and the evil one credit: They have succeeded resoundingly.


The virtues that made masculinity what it is have declined. When they are taught, seldom are they taught in ways a man may find applicable to his life I would argue. This needs to change.


The feminist revolution did not just claim women as their victims. They were the visible victims. We can see directly the objectification of women. I submit that their true target and the one they have (so far) had much success against is destroying the masculine. To the modern feminist, it was never about the equality of women, just as the true communist cared little about the “working man.” Women were props in a larger war, a means to an end. The irony of this theory is rich indeed. Under the guise of ending the exploitation of women, they exploited women to even worse ends. What was that end?


That end was a full frontal assault on the very essence of our civilization, on the very meaning of our humanity. The target of that rebellion is the same as it has always been. That target is God. The principal mover was the Evil one, working behind the scenes employing subtleties within subtleties to accomplish his goals. The fact that some good was produced (women can vote, laws exist where a wife is no longer in legal custom the property of her husband, etc) one could say masked a greater purpose, just as the providing of sustenance in the garden of Eden (in itself not wrong) masked a great evil (Satan manipulating man into willfully setting themselves in opposition to God.)


I would argue the results of this manipulation have been even more devastating towards men in society. They are the unseen victims, and typically the unseen suffer greatest. When leaders refuse to stand, chaos ensues. Men, by their very nature, are meant to lead. Their general absence on this field has led to chaos in society. Their very absence is what made the sexual devolution possible. This battle must be joined.


So why aren’t men joining it? This is where I think a lot of popular commentators on TOB get it wrong. They seek to redeem sex, without redeeming the virtues that make that possible. They seek to baptize eros, without baptizing sacrifice. They speak of freedom, but seldom responsibility. Test this theory out. Go to the next TOB talk. While the speaker might be a man, the audience, especially those most enthusiastic, will be women. I have never had a man want to talk about Theology of the Body. I have had scores of female friends wanting to. While part of this comes from a misunderstanding (popularized by those like Christopher West) that everything is all about our relationship to the opposite sex (emphasis on the word sex in their eyes), I think there is something far deeper at work here. That absence is a frank discussion about true masculinity.


This outlook so far could be one of despair. Yet this need not be! Throughout the existence of the people of God, there have been great examples of men doing what men do, and calling us to do the same. We need to look at them and see what they can teach us. I’d like to do that here at Common Sense Catholicism. In addition to the other works, you will see here from time to time commentaries from the Scriptures and everyday life about how to reclaim that which has been lost.

Leadership from a Catholic Perspective, Part II

In the previous piece on this topic, we reflected upon Christ’s call for all leaders to act as servants. We considered why adopting this mentality was important. I also attempted to demonstrate why I feel that not only are the words of Christ true in teaching, they are true in practice. Leaders who act as servants make better leaders. I would like to continue talking about this concept today, specifically on the benefits of a spirit of obedience.


A spirit of obedience is essential to the nature of a servant. By this I do not mean simply doing what one is told when commanded to by a superior. This is obedience in practice, but a mentality of obedience goes far deeper. One could say this mentality of obedience was practiced perfectly by the last person one might expect it to be in the Scriptures: by a pagan:

And when he had entered into Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, 6 and saying, Lord, my servant lies at home sick of the palsy, and is grievously tormented. 7 And Jesus said to him: I will come and heal him. 8 And the centurion, making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. 9 For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goes, and to another Come, and he comes, and to my servant, Do this, and he does it. 10 And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel.

We repeat a version of these words every Sunday at Mass. Yet the first part of the statement is not necessarily what is important. He states something most peculiar about his lot in life, and Christ is marveled by his response. Why is this so?

We first note that the centurion states “I am also a man subject to authority.” He recognizes that no matter how important he may appear, ultimately he is subject to someone higher. This limits what he can and can not do. There are those today who boast of their supposed “independence”, failing to realize that this chain described by the centurion always exists in one’s life. Knowing one’s limits as a human person is the first step of any concept of obedience.

Such a mentality also allows you to devote more focus to those things that are within your limits. This centurion was not developing battle plans for extensive campaigns throughout the region. That was the job of others. His job was to lead the group given to him. He devotes himself entirely to things within his sphere. For we Christians, there are things beyond our control, and they are pointless to try and become involved in. Instead, let us focus on those things within, and focus on them entirely.

The next portion of this statement from the centurion describes his authority. When he says something, it is accomplished. His men do not discuss in a committee. When an order from their legitimate superior is given, they complied. The centurion likewise subjects himself to this order by placing himself under the authority of superiors. When his superiors commanded something, he knew they would be accomplished, by himself and his men. He understands Christ clearly to be his superior, and capable of healing. If Christ would but command it, it would be done. There’s no reason for Christ to trouble himself beyond this. The centurion understands Christ’s power!

Likewise, we Christians of today are called to adopt this mentality. When someone who is of legitimate authority asks of something that is not sinful, we are called to comply. Whether it is our boss, spouse, political representatives, etc, we are called to comply. Even, and especially if we do not like them, this gives us all the more reason to be obedient.

If we understand this concept being obedient, we must comprehend all the more the warning for those who give command. The centurion knew well that a bad plan or command on his part could very well lead not only to the loss of his own life, but the life of all those he was responsible for. Likewise, when a wife offers subjection to her husband, he is charged with a most sacred obligation. Abusing such authority will bring judgment upon him, and danger to she who should be most valuable to him. This is why authority is never to be exercised wantonly.

Let us pray that we may always have the faith of the centurion in accepting God’s will.

Leadership from a Catholic Perspective

"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as the Church is subject to Christ."

One wonders if St. Paul really thought about what he was saying when he uttered these words in his letter to the Church of Ephesus. He spends only a few passing sentences on this teaching throughout his epistle. While some might remember his teachings on grace in the second chapter, people will normally remember Ephesians 5 when they think of St. Paul. The more modern mind uses this statement as an example of St. Paul's archaic and derogatory understanding of women. The traditional norm of "head of the household" and the male being a "leader" is derided as counter-productive, insulting, and misogynist. If there is ever a myth that needs debunking, it is this.

Yet I find the path people take in answering this objection lacking. Indeed, at times I followed this angle. We will typically talk about the nature of Christian leadership by citing such passages as the one in Luke's Gospel, where we hear the following:

And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger: and he that is the leader, as he that serves. For which is greater, he that sits at table or he that serves? Is not he that sits at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serves.

If we leave the argument here, we are doing a disservice. This passage does much to describe the nature of service, and service is an essential element of authentic leadership. Yet we are presented with a far more interesting question if we ponder this further: Why should we be as a servant? How does this build effective leadership?

These words would have been rather foreign to the Apostles. As Christ rightly points out, in their world, the ruler is Dominus, Lord. He exists above the peasantry. Indeed, to approach him at the wrong time warranted death in many areas, no matter the request. (Esther, 4:11) Even in the Roman world, Caesar could never be seen negotiating with a foreign power on an equal level. He always had to be positioned above the other. The very person of Caesar was sacrosanct and (in theory at least) could not be maligned as tribune of the plebians. For Christ to say this is wrong is to fly in the face of all conventional wisdom.

Yet why is his way better? Why is a mentality of service superior to the mentality of being served? A simple understanding of human nature, and of other examples during the time could give us an example.

When one thinks of "service" in the ancient world, one thought of the military. Yet the most effective of ancient military leaders were never those who lorded their authority above their soldiers. Let us consider Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. The former built a unstoppable army that eventually turned Rome into a true empire. The latter conquered most of the known world. Both achieved this through the special relationship they had with their men whom they led. Alexander was known for his almost suicidal bravery in battle, leading charges and rallying his men by example. Caesar, despite his incredible wealth and connections, lived a life of relative austerity amongst his soldiers, eating the same food, sleeping in the same areas, and fighting alongside them in every battle. Both were known to take incredible care of their soldiers, frequently doing random acts of kindness. As a result, they built a loyalty between general and soldier that rarely existed, and allowed them to do great things.

They served by leading alongside their brethren. They were not leading from a distance. They would not submit their men to any situation they themselves would not also go through. This frequently inspires confidence in those being led. They see someone so invested in that cause, that they are willing to place themselves in danger to accomplish it. Far from relying on everyone else, they are willing to contribute to see that it is done. Common sense dictates that people will be more willing to work with someone when said person demonstrates they have a stake in that success.

The second reason is that a leader is made great by the greatness of others. While fortune and circumstance allow flashes of genius, one person cannot do everything. Think of a captain of a sports team. He is never chosen solely on "being the best." Championship teams are not made through pure athletic ability alone. Captains of championship teams must have others shine, and bring them towards the moment where they do what needs to be done for the benefit of all. When they do, not only is success achieved, but honor is given to that captain for leading individuals towards realizing their potential. For the triumphant leader, it is truly an honor to lead such skilled and talented individuals.

How does this apply to the cited passage from St. Paul? Let us consider first the example of Our Lord. He died for our salvation, but why? Some will answer love. Yet why does Christ love? I would say one reason is that He is supremely aware of the great virtue men are capable of when spurred by grace. When we present ourselves to the world, we are ultimately presenting Christ. We are the people that Christ is leading, calling us to walk with him. When we display great faith, hope, and charity, we ultimately bring glory to our Master, who has given us the resources to accomplish these things. Indeed, without these resources and His guidance in using them, such heroic striving towards virtue is impossible.

When He ascended to Heaven, He did not leave his Church alone. Instead he said, in the words of the great hymn Alleluia Sing to Jesus:

Though the cloud from sight received him
When the forty days were o'er
Shall our hearts forget his promise
I am with you evermore?

Christ is truly a Lord who does not leave or forsake his flock. Rather, He remains to this day alongside us. He sends the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. He calls on us to suffer with patience and endurance because he himself suffered and endured. He calls us to love because He has loved. As the writer of the Hebrews so eloquently states:

For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: I will declare your name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise you. And again: I will put my trust in him. And again: Behold I and my children, whom God has given me. Therefore because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner has been partaker of the same: that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil: And might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude. For nowhere does he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he takes hold. Wherefore, it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that wherein he himself has suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them also that are tempted.

When we think of the husband as head of the household and a man as a leader, we must think of these principles. Far from one serving behind him or under him, he serves alongside his spouse. Far from waiting in front for her to catch up; he serves alongside her, as they help each other towards their journey. He demonstrates his commitment to his spouse by making her causes his own.

When he chooses to become head of the household, he does it as a testament to his wife’s great virtue and prowess. When she is renowned as something great, he wishes to always be identified with that greatness in love and virtue. He recognizes that even with his considerable talents, he cannot do much without her. As a result, he is always wanting everyone around him to know of the great contributions she has given him.

This is why we men lead.