bearing blog

More on "spiritual poverty."

Melanie picked up my ball in the last post and ran with it:

Especially in the online world it can be so hard to see others’ humanity, to risk being flamed at by approaching what seems like a scoff as if it were an invitation to a dialogue, to risk seeming like a fool for enagaging a “troll” instead of dismissing him with scornful words. And in Catholic comment boxes you also risk being chided by your fellow Catholics for engaging with such angry hurtful people. “Don’t feed the trolls,” they warn you. But perhaps that’s exactly what we are called to do? To feed them? Couldn’t it be that the troll who regularly hangs out at Catholic sites someone who is hungering for the truth but afraid of rejection so is preemptively rejecting those who he feels have already shut him out?

Mind blown by the sudden new meaning of the term "to feed trolls."

You still have a responsibility not to feed the troll on the property of the person who has the "don't feed trolls" rule, i.e., in their comment box.  But you could invite them to your own blog or you could contact them off-blog.  And you could certainly engage respectfully (and skillfully) in a manner designed to be peaceful, all light and no heat.

Having started down that line of thinking, how there is a need for the spiritually impoverished to be fed, especially online I began to imagine that some individuals might have the vocation of doing just that. Then as I talked it over with Dom he said, it couldn’t be individuals. It would have to be people living in community. And as we talked I began to envision a new sort of religious community: the Missionaries to the Digital Continent. A cloistered contemplative order who live the Benedictine motto ora et labora whose days are ordered around the monastic hours and Eucharistic adoration and who are dedicated to bringing Christ to all the darkest corners of the internet. 

Aw, man, you beat me to it.  I've been thinking of this for a long time but haven't written about it here.  Instead I wrote it in Dorian Speed's Facebook comments.  This is what I wrote after she went on her rant about that Vatican website using Comic Sans:

Dorian, I think you're just the person to take this idea and run with it (when you are done with Electingthepope.net of course): The Church needs a new religious order of blogging and HTML-savvy monks and nuns. We need to set up a cloister with high-speed Internet connection and excellent tech support. In between praying the Liturgy of the Hours, attending daily Mass, and working in the refectory and gardens, they'll do pro bono web design for struggling Comic-Sans-using parishes and church organizations everywhere. They'll also surf the Internet looking for combox discussions into which to inject a note of charity and wisdom. Also they will pray for trolls.

and in another comment, an afterthought:

We can put the adoration chapel in a Faraday cage so they don't get distracted from what really matters.

Anyway, not to get too distracted about it: 

Melanie suggests organizing the effort to be "spiritually poor" around the seven traditional Spiritual Works of Mercy.  (You can find these enumerated here.) Since we're talking about an analogy anyway, let me list the seven Corporal Works of Mercy first:

• To feed the hungry;
• To give drink to the thirsty;
• To clothe the naked;
• To harbour the harbourless;
• To visit the sick;
• To ransom the captive;
• To bury the dead.

The seven Spiritual Works of Mercy are

• To instruct the ignorant;
• To counsel the doubtful;
• To admonish sinners;
• To bear wrongs patiently;
• To forgive offences willingly;
• To comfort the afflicted;
• To pray for the living and the dead.

Just as the charism of the Franciscans was to perform works of mercy from a position of being intentionally corporally poor, we are envisioning a charism of performing works of mercy from a position of being intentionally spiritually poor.  

The intentional corporal poverty was a means of demonstrating (among other things) that none of us can pat ourselves on the back for acheiving our material riches, because so much of it was out of our control and all of it, our physical life itself, is a gift.  We may have had a hand in taking and shaping God's good gifts to our profit, in making good decisions along the way (we do believe in free will after all, and that God lets us participate in the development of our own futures) but in the end we owe it all to God.  "No shroud has pockets" indeed.

So the intentional spiritual poverty would be a means of demonstrating (among other things) that none of us can pat ourselves on the back for achieving whatever spiritual riches we have.  The intellect with which we absorb the deep theological musings of the doctors of the Church, and craft arguments to defend her teachings?  Gift from God.  The desire we have to come closer to God?  A gift.  The gift of emotions, of sorrow at the Passion, of joy at the Resurrection?  A gift.  True contrition?  Gift.  Gratitude to God for all his good gifts?  A gift in and of itself.

I am not sure how to demonstrate it outwardly except, as I said, by a radical non-judgmentalism of the person.  Even the most objectively horrible people must be reached out to with love and compassion and a recognition of "there but for the grace of God go I."   

It strikes me that, if the contemplative wing of this order be called to Internet surfing and commenting, that the active wing be called to prison ministry.

Jarring, yet intriguing, juxtaposition of the morning.

Grading papers as foot-washing, courtesy of Jamie (alias Dr. Most-Gladly).

+ + +

Thought on this one: Why do I always seem to encounter the insights that might have helped me make sense of and/or endure some difficult task, long after I have put that task long behind me, probably for good? I had to do some grading of papers as a TA a few times, and I did it back then with the expectation of a working life spent doing things like grading papers, among other things.

But I haven't put grading behind entirely, right, what with the whole homeschooling thing? Still doing it?

Not even close. Grading your own child's papers, or the papers of a friend's child whom you know well, is NOT the same because the intimacy of critiquing lacks the discomfort, that sensation of boundary-crossing. I am supposed to help my child grow up, navigate the requirements of adulthood, which here are communicating like a thinking person in a thinking world, and sending the correct social signals. I am authorized by human sociobiology itself to perform such tasks for my children (and, I believe, for the other children in other family groups close to me). Bathing your own child, however grimy, isn't even close to foot-washing. Hey, mothers, if you've done time in the volunteer nursery -- isn't there a REALLY SIGNIFICANT difference between changing your own child's diaper and changing someone else's child's diaper? Admit it. Your own kid's poop doesn't stink quite as badly.

The essence of foot-washing is that it violates a boundary we would all prefer not to violate. It knocks down an imaginary wall that we put there for our own protection against a number of uncomfortable truths: the sort of truths that are common to human beings. There is something in it that reminds me of the confessional (as it should). There is something in it that reminds me of Snowden's terrible secret in Catch-22.

I wonder if Jamie might find some irony in the discomfort of critiquing existing alongside the imposter syndrome -- the collection of all such critiquing is the way imposter syndrome is communicated from teacher to student, in a sort of intellectual laying-on-of-hands. (Personally, I would be a little bit concerned for a budding academic who entirely lacked that sense of uncomfortable self-awareness. It's a useful faculty, if it can be channelled.)

It might be a little funny to think of such a thing in the banality of grading papers, but I think there is a lot to be said for the comparison. Someone did it for you, and now you're to turn around and do it for others. It's thoroughly uncomfortable for everyone involved, but it has to be gotten through and everyone is the better for it, even when nobody's very well-practiced at the task. It requires the will overcoming the reluctance that persists, for a good natural reason, in our nature. And the will has its own reasons -- not wholly natural ones -- why it is good and right that it should prevail.

Middle-aged.

A couple of days ago BBC News published an article about a recent survey (in the UK, so) that determined that "middle age" begins at age 55:

Never mind the ridiculous language about "research suggests" and "pinpointing," here is the lede:

Middle age starts much later than previously thought - at the age of 55, research suggests.

And Britons do not see themselves as elderly until they are nudging 70, the survey of 1,000 UK adults aged 50-plus for the Love to Learn online learning website says.

Previous studies have pinpointed the start of middle age as early as 36.

The research suggests that as the population ages, new cut-off points are being drawn.

Whatever.  Let's not take this too seriously, but use it as a jumping-off point.

This isn't the first time I've mocked the inflation of "MIDDLE-AGED."   I have been known, for instance, to go around casually calling myself "middle-aged" in order to upset old people.  Basically, as I do for much of the degeneracy in society, I blame the Boomers, who are using their numbers to abuse the language so they don't have to call themselves "old" yet.  What, do you think you are going to live to be 110?

I know, unfair.  These are Brits.  Being a "Boomer" probably means something entirely different to them.  What about Americans?  When does middle age begin for us?  I went googling around and found an interview with Patricia Cohen, the American author of In Our Prime:  The Invention of Middle Age, who was asked:  When does middle age begin?

That’s the first question that everyone asks.

Forty has long been the traditional turning point in adulthood in the West. The New American dictionary defines middle age as “the period between youth and adulthood, generally 40 to 60,” while the U.S. Census Bureau define middle age as 45 to 64.

Extensive surveys reveal that the definition frequently depends on a respondent’s age, sex, class and ethnicity. Those with more schooling tend to mark its onset later, as do those who are older; men think it begins earlier than women. Men between 25 and 34 say middle age commences at 40 and ends at 56, for example, while women between 65 and 74 say it starts at 48 and lasts until 62.

As life expectancy has increased (by more than three decades in the 20th century), people have stretched the ribbon of middle age like a rubber band, extending it into their seventies. In 2009, a survey asked people between 50 and 64 when midlife ended. Most chose age 71.

Middle age is like a Never Never Land -- a place that you never want to enter and never want to leave.

I think we are a little safer in the United States against all that inflation because of the persistence of the "black balloons on your 40th birthday" meme.  The greeting card industry will also help us here.

I tease about the "living till 110" thing, but "middle age" obviously doesn't go by life-expectancy number-crunching alone.   The life expectancy for American men is (as of 2006) 75, for women 81, so let's call it 78.  

• We could suggest that middle age begins halfway through the life expectancy, I suppose -- that gets you to age 39 -- which might be about right -- but it doesn't tell you much about the end.   
• Or we could suggest that "middle age" is the "middle third" of the lifespan -- but that makes it 26 to 52... nope.  You're not middle-aged at 27 unless you are an exceptionally crotchety person.
• Mark suggested it may describe the middle third of adulthood.  Okay then... subtract off the first 18 years and divide the remaining 60 by three, and you get 38 to 58.  This is definitely more promising, but something about the upper end is unsatisfying to me.

"[N]early one in five" of the Brits thought middle age didn't begin until after age 60 (!) but about the same number thought middle age was a "state of mind."  This terminology -- it's all in your head! -- I also find unsatisfying.  Partly because I suspect -- can't prove it, but suspect -- that this is the doing of the "You're only as old as you feel!" people, whose fault is all this "when I'm an old lady I shall wear purple and wear a red hat" business.  

One reason I think this is silly, is, well,

(photo from here)

But another reason I think this is silly is the obvious implication that it's important to think like a young person your whole life, and do your damnedest to feel like a young person (in your heart, dear) as long as you possibly can, and, well... You know what?  There's only so much plastic surgery you can get, and how much pretense you can put on.

The fact is, you're going to die sooner or later, you might as well accept it.   Being old is, in part, getting ready for death, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.  You don't have to go gently into that good night, but you do have to go, and it's possible to do it gracefully instead of, um, the opposite of gracefully.  

+ + +

A better definition of middle age, I think, comes from rites of passage and stages of life.  The only thing inherent in its name is its "middle-ness" -- it is between something -- by implication "youth" and "old age," but I think it's something else.

As a mother I'm inclined to think that middle age begins somewhere associated with the child-raising years -- some would say, "When the kids are out of the house!" but I'm reluctant to say so, because with people having kids later that can be quite late indeed.    Unless you want to put your foot down and say that middle age begins at menopause (and that's not an unreasonable place to put it, for women) you could be having babies in middle age, and have them not out of the house until you are old.  

That's not really fair to the people who don't have children, though -- to mark middle age entirely by child-raising.  I would like to give it a more generally applicable spin.

Right now, at 38, in what I think is my early middle age (unless you buy the menopause thing, in which case I'm not there yet) I think the start of it has something to do with confidence.  They are the years when you realize that this is the life you are leading, and (hopefully) by now you are comfortable in it and have developed some skill in it.  

When people fight against believing they are in middle age, I think they are fighting against the idea that the "anything is possible" time is over.   I think it's kind of nice to get past the "anything is possible" time, myself, because the vast array of possibilities are so paralyzing.  I am happy that I have roots now.  I feel that I am hitting my stride as the matriarch of a family.  

I want to believe that this is the start of middle age, in part because -- if it is -- I am off to a seriously great start.  

Postsecondary education: Darwin weighs in, and I explain the pitfalls I'm trying to avoid.

_{(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)}

+ + +

Check out Darwin's take at DarwinCatholic.  I'll probably have comments later in an update, but I have to go read a bedtime story.

.....LATER.....

Every once in a while, a critic will say of some hawkish Senator, "Well, is he going to send his kids off to war?"

This rhetorical device annoys me, because in this country, no one sends his own kids off to war.  Adults (and sometimes older teens) decide for themselves whether or not to enlist in the U. S. armed forces and to accept the possibility of combat.     "Sending someone off to war" is the purview of the DOD, not of parents.

When we imagine helicopter parents, we are generally not thinking of Black Hawks.

A better question would be, "Well, is he going to teach his own kids to value the contributions of the U. S. military and to consider it as a potential calling or career?  Is he going to communicate to his kids that the choice to serve in one of the branches of the U. S. military is an honorable one, that to take on the risks of combat is brave and selfless, and that he would be proud to call a sailor, soldier, or officer Son or Daughter?"

But somehow the critics never phrase it that way.

+ + +

As Mark and I have been writing our pieces on postsecondary education questions, I find myself imagining an imaginary reader challenging us,

"Well, if college is such a bad deal for America, and if there are as they say too many college students, are Mark and Bearing going to keep their kids out of college?  Are they going to send them to trade schools instead, or send them off to one of the other alternatives Bearing mentioned?"

And of course we can't keep our kids out of college, even if we wanted to, because eventually they'll be adults.  We can't send them to trade schools either. (Although we could offer to pay for one and not the other).

But a better set of questions might be:

Are we going to encourage our children to take a broad view of "post-secondary education" that includes alternatives to college?

Are we going to encourage our children to view all kinds of productive human labor as honorable and their practitioners worthy of respect? 

Are we going to give them a chance to work with their hands during childhood as well as with their minds?

Are we going to encourage our children to consider the costs as well as the benefits of the different educational paths open to them?

Are we going to encourage our children to delay spending money on education until they have a plan for how to establish themselves, and eventually a family, in favorable financial conditions?

Are we going to encourage them to have a backup plan, or an escape hatch, in case their first plan unexpectedly becomes untenable?

Are we going to try to communicate to them that our approval and love is not contingent upon the "status" of their chosen profession?

Are we going to try to raise them to strive for excellence, and not limit "excellence" to mean only academic achievement or prestige?

+ + +

As Darwin points out, it's pretty likely that each of our children will have the inclination and the necessary preparation to attend a four-year college right out of high school.  Mark and I both graduated from college, and I hold an advanced degree; we directly supervise their education and are inclined ourselves to make that education a college-preparatory one; we have some funds to support post-secondary education, including college; in short, we come from a "college culture."  

But we want to avoid the pitfall of assuming that four-year college will be the default choice, or even the best choice, for each of our children.  

In his post, Darwin has identified some bad outcomes of this assumption.  

(1)  Many people start college who are not actually able to finish, and these people "end up with debt and lost time, but don't have appreciably higher income and lower unemployment than those with only high school [diplomas]."  

I add to that:   it's not just "lost time" -- lost time in the workforce represents lost wages, lost savings, lost interest on those savings, lost experience that could have been leveraged into higher income now.  It's not just that they failed to gain economic benefits.  They really lost an economic good.

(2) Those who graduate but who were in the bottom quintile of academic ability also end up with debt and lost time (and lost wages, lost savings, lost interest, lost experience....) but are unemployed at rates similar to those with only high school diplomas.   These people also really lost an economic good.  You might well argue that as a group they would have been economically better off if they had dropped out (like the group in point one), also known as "knowing when to quit," because they would have sunk less of their time and money into an endeavor which wasn't paying off.

(3) "Borrowing tens of thousands of dollars is a bad way to avoid making decisions." Darwin is referring to graduate school, not undergrad, but I think the point stands for undergraduate education as well, because many people go to college after high school only because they have to do something while they figure out what they want to do with their lives, and college is the default option.  How many people start their college career with their major "undecided?"  How smart can that be?  Wouldn't it be better to do something that made money instead of  cost money while you are trying to decide what to do when you finally grow up?

+ + +

And here are some more pitfalls:

(4) If you assume that four-year college is the best choice, then you won't devote much time to learning about other kinds of careers and training paths.  If you are ignorant of these, you may miss something that would have been a perfect fit for your personality and talents.

(5) Assuming that four-year college is the default choice, especially insisting that it is the only acceptable choice as many families do, communicates that people who choose different paths are less worthy.  Darwin implicitly identifies this when he points out that people make "unspoken assumptions" about those who don't have college degrees.  It's true that we have to teach our children to navigate a world that makes value judgments about people based on their occupations and education level, but we don't have to contribute to it.

(6) Assuming that four-year-college immediately follows high school -- the so-called "traditional student model"  -- is to reject a number of viable paths in which alternative education precedes  or leads into a bachelor's degree from a traditional institution.

For instance, Darwin writes that "urging [kids] to skip the college degree they want and get a certification in some skill like plumbing or welding instead is probably not a good idea."  Well -- who says it has to be "instead?"  A welding certificate could be the means to earn a high hourly wage with which to "work your way through school."  It could be the backup plan so you know you'll always have a skill to fall back on if that English degree doesn't work out. (Most students don't graduate on time anyway -- why not spend one year getting a certificate and four years getting a degree, instead of five years getting a degree?) Or it could be the first half of an associates degree in welding, which itself could lead to a bachelor's degree in welding engineering from a traditional four-year university.

 

UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS:  " I just wish I had felt like there were other options for a nice upper middle class girl."

 

Post secondary education questions: Alternatives to college.

_{(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)}

+ + +

This might be a good time to switch gears and consider what a young person, high school diploma in hand, might do other than enroll immediately in a four-year university.

I'm going to start a list. Help me finish it in the comments.

Alternatives to College (or at least to "college right away")

Learn a trade. This can be done through local unions (in my area, for example, the St. Paul electricians' union has a five-year on-the-job apprenticeship program) or postsecondary trade schools and institutes. Some programs take less than a year, while others culminate in associates degrees, still others can lead into specific bachelors programs, and others are multiyear apprenticeship-journeyman-master sequences. Acquiring a valuable skill could boost your hourly wages enough to let you work your way through traditional college afterward.

Start a business. It takes initiative and research, and sometimes several failures precede success, but it's open to anyone.

Join a national or community service initiative, either public or private. On the public side, for instance, Americorps is still around; private organizations such as religious denominations may have service programs too; and there may be something in your community.

Join the military. Technical or professional training is often paid for by the government, and there's job security and benefits; the level and length of commitment varies.

Work hard and save money for a while. Instead of going straight to university, spend a year or two in the workforce, wherever a job can be found. Acquire an appreciation for the value of money and time; learn about an industry or business from the bottom up; see your own community through the eyes of a responsible adult.

Self-education. If you happen to have a source of funds, consider whether part of it could be put towards supporting yourself while you pursue a non-traditional means of broadening your horizons -- travel? Community-based language learning? Self-guided study? Fine arts? Some kind of internship?

Local government and politics. Run for office, or work in the office of a local official, or throw your lot in with a candidate, or with an organized political group or party.

Take a health year.  Break an addiction -- or just some bad habits.  Run a marathon -- or just get off the couch.  Set a year-end goal, plus some medium- and short-term ones, and arrange your life to support them.  Invest in a longer and better-quality life.

 

Any more ideas?

Postsecondary education questions: The humanist's education.

_{(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)}

+ + +

This post is a counterpart to one from a couple of days ago entitled "The provider's education." In that post, I listed elements from the necessary content of education that I judged to be directly and practically relevant to the act of providing for oneself and for one's family.

But of course, providing for a family is only part of the human vocation. It is also our vocation to acquire a correct philosophy of persons and of truth. We are enjoined to "attain to reality itself as knowable," to acquire wisdom that "gently attracts...to a quest and love for what is true and good," to "humanize he discoveries made by man," to "assimilate the wisdom of the nations," to "contemplate and appreciate the divine plan."

So education (whether parents inculcate it or whether the individual seeks it on his own initiative) must not consist merely of training in tasks. Skills and knowledge that serve truth and goodness have value for their own sake, or rather because they serve truth and goodness, and not just for their economic value. Necessary education has a humanist element, not just a provider element.

(Let me pause here to acknowledge again that being a provider is part of being humanist, and being humanist is part of being a provider. The two do not separate neatly, if only because one thing that providers necessarily provide is others' education, including the humanist and cultural content; and if the provider does not receive that humanist and cultural content, the provider cannot provide it.)

So here is a carefully chosen subset of the items from my list that I deem most relevant to developing a perspective centered on human values. At the end of the list I will discuss conclusions.

Note: I deliberately left catechetics out of this list. I am putting it into a third category which I will cover separately.

Elements of humanities education that THE FAMILY is expected to inculcate and teach, or to delegate to trusted others

The family teaches that the material and instinctual dimensions are subordinate to interior and spiritual ones.

The family must teach developing adolescents proper forms of human culture.

The family must train children to discover that they have a rich and complex psychology.

The family must train children to discover that they are endowed with a particular personality with its own strengths and weaknesses.

The family installs esteem for all authentic human values in interpersonal and social relationships.

The family must nurse an understanding of the whole human person in which the values of intellect, will, conscience, and fraternity are preeminent.

The family must take great care about civic and political formation of youth so that all citizens can play their part in the life of the political community.

The family must train the children to express calm and objective judgments which will guide them in the choice or rejection of media that is available.

The family must begin the formation of the child's conscience, awakening the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law.

Elements of the humanities that THE INDIVIDUAL is expected to develop in himself

Each person must cultivate the skills of interiority: reflection, self-examination, introspection.

Each person must form his conscience to judge particular choices, approving good and denouncing evil.

An individual forms his character based on the esteem for authentic values instilled by his parents.

An individual learns control and right use of one's inclinations based on the esteem for authentic human values instilled by the parents.

Each man has the duty to retain an understanding of the whole human person in which the values of intellect, will, conscience, and fraternity are preeminent.

A Christian is encouraged to strive to understand the ways of thinking and judging of other men of their time.

A layperson is encouraged to receive a sufficient formation in theology.

A Christian must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions.

A person must respect citizens who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods.

+ + +

College education is not the only way to provide this kind of education, but university-level courses in the humanities are certainly one way that some of these skills and philosophies could be acquired and developed.

"Striving to understand the ways of thinking and judging of [people other than Christians]" is a particular strength of universities of our age, for example.

On the other hand, it might be difficult to obtain a "sufficient formation in theology" solely through university courses at U. S. public universities -- though not impossible -- and even at many private religious universities.

Furthermore, when selecting a university course of study, one would do well to be cautious about ways that the individuals charged with teaching, instructor selection, and curriculum development might actively work against these humanist purposes.

Some teachers wish to present evil as good, and good as evil; if they are skilled presenters, they endanger the appropriate development of conscience, which is a lifelong development. Some teachers disparage certain opinions as illegitimate, when the difference of opinion belongs to the realm of legitimate disagreement. Without getting into what constitutes an "authentic human value," let's postulate that some teachers may promote inauthentic or inhuman values. Without getting into what constitutes "proper forms of human culture," let's postulate that some teachers may teach improper forms. Some teachers will promote disrespect for certain citizens. Some teachers may promote a poor and simple view of human psychology. Some teachers may disparage intellect, or deny free will and conscience, or mock fraternity.

It is not necessarily bad to be exposed to the reality that many people have a rotten understanding of human values. It is good to consider incorrect points of view in order to learn to engage with them.

But it is no small matter to put oneself voluntarily under the authority of such people.

And it is no small risk to do so before developing a firm foundation in the skills of recognizing good for good and evil for evil.

+ + +

There is also the matter of retaining perspective in one's whole course of study. Simply because there are fewer humanities courses in a practical course of study such as business, engineering, or the hard sciences, there are less opportunities to encounter teachers who promote improper culture, disparage intellect, and so forth. The teachers are too busy teaching practical skills to say very much at all about values, culture, and ethics, either good or bad.

But that does not mean that such a practical education can be completely empty of human values. Professionals need to learn the ethics of their profession, and integrate those ethics into their esteem for human values. They need to remain centered in the notion of their work as a means of service of the common good, and for that they need a proper understanding of what is good. They need to retain a perspective which values human beings as persons and not as objects to be used.

When selecting a practical course of study, then, one should prefer a course that includes ethical practice among the required classes and that allows for elective courses that support and develop authentic human values.

+ + +

Finally, let's observe that this humanist education does not require a university-level education at all. Most of these values can be inculcated by parents in the family setting, or in a classically liberal high school program. An adult can develop them in himself in conversation with other people, perhaps through civic organizations or voluntary associations; by identifying mentors in his profession who can assist him in authentic development; and through judicious choice of cultural experiences and personal reading.

 

Post-secondary education questions: The necessary content of education -- who provides it?

_{(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)}

+ + +

Today I revisited the post in which I enumerated the necessary content of education.   I wrote,

I think I'm particularly interested in teasing apart education within the family and self-education.  That is, the education that parents owe their children, and the education that people have a duty to seek for themselves.  Both are mentioned in the documents, but it isn't always clear where one starts and the other ends -- in some cases the process must be begun by the parents and completed by the grown young person (or even continuing throughout life).  

That is, I wanted to clarify the distinction between what the family (or teachers to whom they delegate the task) should teach the individual, and what the individual was responsible for developing in himself.  

But when I wrote it, I organized the list of attributes mostly thematically:  education must put subjects in proper perspective, education must teach discrimination between good and bad influences, education should include sexuality education in the context of self-giving, etc.

I've now been through that post yet again, point by point, occasionally double-checking against the source documents.  I tried to sort out what aspects of education -- what knowledge, what skills -- the church recommends the family provide, and what aspects the individual must obtain for himself.   

Here's my assessment, re-organized.  The repetitiveness in some places comes from my dissecting multi-clause sentences into simple ones in order to enumerate each point separately.

Remember that "the family" includes other teachers to which the family delegates certain topics.

 

Knowledge, attitudes, and skills that  THE FAMILY  is expected to inculcate and teach

That true happiness is found in God alone, the source of every good. 

That the human being is a person, not an object of trade.  

The family teaches children the correct order of things. 

The family teaches that the material and instinctual dimensions are subordinate to interior and spiritual ones. 

The family teaches children freedom with regard to material goods, and  that man is more precious for what he is than for what he has, by a simple and austere lifestyle. 

The family should teach by example how to care and take responsibility for the young, the old, the sick, the handicapped, and the poor. 

The family must teach children a sense of true justice, which leads to respect for the personal dignity of persons. 

The family must teach children a sense of true love, understood as sincere solicitude and disinterested service. 

The family must provide for children an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery.   

The family must introduce children to personal dialogue with God.  

The family must teach children to know God, to worship, and to love their neighbor.  

The family must teach children the Gospel. 

The family must teach children to avoid compromising and degrading influences.  

The family must teach developing adolescents proper forms of human culture.  

The family should educate children to have a mature sense of responsibility with which they can follow their vocation.

The family should educate children so that they can choose their state of life.

The family must educate children for life in such a way that each one may fully perform his or her role according to the vocation received from God. 

The family should educate children so that, if they marry, they can by means of that education establish their own family in moral conditions which tend to promote or facilitate the establishment of that family. 

 The family should educate children so that, if they marry, they can by means of that education establish their family in social conditions which tend to promote or facilitate the establishment of that family. 

The family should educate children so that, if they marry, they can by means of that education establish their family in economic conditions which tend to promote or facilitate the establishment of that family.  

The family must begin remote preparation for marriage. 

The family must train children to discover that they have  a rich and complex psychology. 

The family must train children to discover that they are endowed with a particular personality with its own strengths and weaknesses. 

The family instills esteem for all authentic human values in interpersonal and in social relationships. 

The family must nurse an understanding of the whole human person in which the values of intellect, will, conscience, and fraternity are preeminent.  

The family must take great care about civic and political formation of youth so that all citizens can play their part in the life of the political community.  

The family must train the children to express calm and objective judgments which will guide them in the choice or rejection of media that is available. 

The family is called to give children a sex education that is built on the premise that love is self-giving.

The family that discerns the signs of God's call will devote special attention and care to education in virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of that self-giving that constitutes the meaning of human sexuality.

The family is called to give children a truly and fully personal, clear, and delicate sex education.

The family must guide attentively the child's sex education.  

The family must educate the child for chastity.

The family must teach the children to know and respect the moral norms of human sexuality.

The family must show that marriage is a true vocation and mission, without excluding the possibility of priestly or religious life.

The family builds the proximate preparation for the sacraments of Christian marriage* upon the foundation laid in the remote preparation for marriage.

The family should, at the right moment, integrate the religious formation of young people with a preparation for life as a couple.

The family will teach, in that proximate preparation, that marriage is an interpersonal relationship of a man and a woman that has to be continually developed.

The family will encourage, in that proximate preparation, the study of the nature of conjugal sexuality.

The family will encourage in that proximate preparation the study of the nature of responsible parenthood, with the essential medical and biological knowledge connected with it.

The family will acquaint a person, in that proximate preparation, with correct methods for the education of children.

The family, in proximate preparation, will assist individuals in gaining the basic requisites for well-ordered family life, such as stable work, sufficient financial resources, sensible administration, notions of housekeeping.

The family, in proximate preparation, will prepare young people for the family apostolate, for collaboration with other families, and membership in groups set up for the human and Christian benefit of the family.

The family must begin the formation of the child's conscience, awakening the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law.

+ + + 

That is as good a place as any for a segue into the parts of his education that the individual has to take on.  This is because the development of conscience, though begun by the parents and the teachers to which they delegate the task, is a lifelong process.  

Many other parts of education necessarily build on latent competency that the parents must have introduced, but the individual is himself or herself responsible for acquiring that education.

 

Knowledge, attitudes, and skills that the individual is expected or encouraged to cultivate in himself -- building on the foundation laid by his parents

Each person must cultivate the skills of interiority:  reflection, self-examination, introspection.

Each person must form his conscience to enjoin him to do good and to avoid evil.

Each person must form his conscience to judge particular choices, approving good and denouncing evil.

Each person must form his conscience to bear witness to the authority of truth in reference to God.

Each person must form his conscience to welcome the commandments.

An individual develops his authentic maturity by building on the virtue of chastity.

An individual becomes capable of respecting and fostering the nuptial meaning of the body by building on the virtue of chastity.

An individual grows responsibly in human sexuality by building on the moral norms that are taught by the parents.

An individual forms his character -- based on the esteem for authentic human values instilled by the parents.

An individual learns control and right use of one's inclinations -- based on the esteem for authentic human values instilled by the parents.

An individual develops the manner of regarding and meeting people of the opposite sex -- based on the esteem for authentic human values instilled by the parents.

Young people gain sensible administration and notions of housekeeping -- by building on their proximate preparation for marriage.

Each man has the duty to retain an understanding of the whole human person in which the values of intellect, will, conscience, and fraternity are preeminent.

A person is encouraged to continue his education through the proper use of leisure, including through spontaneous study and activity, through tourism, and through sports.

A Christian is encouraged to strive to understand the ways of thinking and judging of other men of their time.

A Christian is encouraged to blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine.

A layperson is encouraged to receive a sufficient formation in theology.

A citizen must cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism, but without being narrow-minded.

A Christian must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions.

A Christian must respect citizens who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods.

Those who are suited or can become suited should prepare themselves for politics.

Some laypersons are encouraged to devote themselves professionally to theology.

 

I hope this re-presentation has clarified the respective responsibilities.  It still might be useful to revisit ideas of developed competency, latent competency, and expertise, as I developed them in a previous post.

________

A note on what is meant by "proximate" preparation for marriage and why parents are responsible:  

Janet Smith writes, "Proximate preparation takes place as one moves into adulthood and begins to think about choosing a life partner.  This might include some education in abstinence or sexuality in the schools."  Adolescent age  is implied; therefore, even if the preparation takes place in schools, parents are ultimately responsible.  The term for pre-Cana formation, Engaged Encounter weekends, etc., is "immediate" preparation for the sacrament.   

Postsecondary education questions: 3 ways of being able, 3 ways of being unable..

_{(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)}

+ + +

Robert A. Heinlein once famously enumerated a set of necessary life skills:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort  the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

Let's take this -- Heinlein's syllabus* -- at face value for the sake of argument, and assume he is correct:  this list itemizes the necessary content of education that prepares for the vocation of "human being."

What does it mean... "to be able to" do the things on this list?

It isn't obvious.  I can think of several possibilities.  Let's consider to what extent I am able to perform some of the listed tasks.

+ + +

Immediately, scanning down the list, I light upon "solving equations."  I can solve equations.   I can solve linear-algebraic systems, all sorts of algebraic equations, ordinary and partial differential equations, tensor equations -- not every kind in the world, but a pretty significant chunk.  I can balance chemical equations too, even the tricky redox ones.  I'd be confident walking into an undergraduate mathematics class and delivering an equation-solving lecture, provided I had a little time to brush up on the specifics.  

We can call that level of skill expertise.  I'm happy to possess it when it comes to solving equations.  Also changing diapers.

But this would be overkill for everything.  Heinlein's pretty clear that expertise in the listed tasks is not what he's going for (the very next sentence is "Specialization is for insects"), so let's consider some things that I'm not actually an expert in.

For example, I would never want to teach an undergraduate class in it, but I can program a computer.  I would put it on my resume without compunction.  I learned BASIC and LOGO as a child, took undergraduate courses in programming, and sat in on graduate seminars in computational fluid dynamics.  I'm competent in only one rather old-fashioned language (f77), but my PhD thesis contains many lines of code in it, plus some other people's code that I grafted on.  So, yes, not an expert, but I am able to program a computer.  I could do it to some extent this afternoon, if called upon.  (Hello, world.)

Let's call that level of skill developed competency.

+ + +

In an entirely different sense, I "am able to" set a bone.  The sense is different because... I've never done that before.  I've never watched it done before.  I've never read a set of instructions that tell how to do it.  I've never learned it as part of my job, or as part of a course of study.  I've never sat down and worked out a theory of bonesetting.  If I had to do it in an emergency today, I would likely mess it up badly.

But...

 I'm confident, with reason, that if I decided to learn, I could and I would.  I see value in knowing how.  I have a working knowledge of anatomy, and the ability to learn quickly, and I have administered other kinds of first aid.  I have a firm belief that people ought to know how to take care of themselves and their dependents in an emergency.   I have a book on my shelf about backcountry wilderness medicine.  I could get my hands on more books, maybe even find some instructional videos, and I'm confident I could pass a course in wilderness first aid or maybe EMT training.  

I don't have expertise, or even developed competency in bonesetting.

What I have is a  latent competency.  I value the skill; I have enough background knowledge that I could map out a path to acquire it; I have confidence that I could develop the competency if I chose.

+ + +

Does that mean I can check off everything on Heinlein's syllabus?  If latent competency counts, isn't everybody able to do everything?

I don't think so.  Heinlein says, for instance, that a human being should be able to "conn a ship."  I don't even know what that means.  I have to go look it up.

[pause]

Okay, I guessed that it meant "to commandeer," but I am told that "to conn" means "to direct the steering of; to navigate, as a boat."  

Let me state categorically that I am nowhere close to being able to conn a ship.  I do not even have latent competency at ship-conning.  I don't much like messing about in boats, I have next to no experience with watercraft of any kind, I have very little experience directing anyone over the age of 14 to do anything, and frankly the whole idea frightens me.

It isn't that I don't see the value in conning a ship.  But should I ever find myself at sea, on a vessel whose crew has been stricken by norovirus or pirates or zombies such that some passenger must bravely step up to direct the steering, I'd rather take my chances on some OTHER unknown person being at the wheel.  I'll be sitting in a lifeboat, thank you.  With a PFD.  And someone else who doesn't mind conning a lifeboat.

This, folks, is a kind of incompetence.  

But let's be more specific:  It's prioritized incompetence.  

 Basically, I'm an incompetent ship-conner because I judge it so incredibly unlikely that the knowledge will ever prove useful, and the path to acquiring the knowledge so incredibly convoluted, that I quite reasonably prefer to spend my effort learning other things instead.

In other words, despite accepting Heinlein's syllabus for the sake of argument,  I don't actually agree with Heinlein that ship-conning is a necessary component of my education.  I think it's a kind of specialization, not a basic human skill. 

 + + + 

There's another sort of incompetence that I'd like to highlight, although I will have to appeal to an imaginary person (Mr. Straw-Mann) in order to describe it.  Suppose Mr. Straw-Mann is a confirmed pacifist, opposed to all sorts of violence.  When it comes to self-defense, Mr. S-M always turns the other cheek, and has since he was a child.  

Mr. Straw-Mann is not able to fight efficiently, nor to plan an invasion.   He will not acquire this skill because he disdains it.  His incompetence at efficient fighting is a point of pride.   If the Heinlein Academy requires this skill for graduation, he'll drop out as a matter of conscience.

This would be willful incompetence.

+ + +

Finally, for the sake of completeness, let's postulate a person who, by reason of physical or mental inability, can never develop one or more of the competencies on Heinlein's list.  A quadriplegic cannot pitch manure, at least not the way most of us envision it.  A person with severe language disability cannot write a sonnet.   We could call it natural incompetence; or we could call it simply disability, since that has a gentler connotation.

+ + +

So we have three ways of being able:

• expertise
• developed competency
• latent competency

And three ways of being unable:

• prioritized incompetence
• willful incompetence
• disability.

If we can talk about these different levels of competency, we can more precisely pin down the necessary content of an education, and the necessary preparation for life.

_____________________________________

*I probably should name the syllabus, not after Heinlein, but after his fictional character who, I am told, enumerates it.  But I have not developed the competency to get through a Heinlein book without rolling my eyes out of my sockets, so I'm going to stick with what I knew before looking for the link, i.e., that "Heinlein wrote it."

Vocations and altar servers.

One somewhat-controversial topic in liturgical circles is whether altar servers ought to be all boys, or boys and girls.

Serving at the altar used to be a no-girls-allowed thing until fairly recently. (Girls still can't serve at Masses in the extraordinary form.) Even now, bishops are permitted to restrict altar-serving to males in their own dioceses, and where bishops have permitted girls to serve in this way, pastors are permitted to restrict it to males in their own parishes.

Unsurprisingly, some folks would rather live in a parish with children of both genders serving at the altar, and some folks would rather it be only boys. I suppose the arguments on the side of girl altar servers are pretty obvious: Rome permits it, so there is nothing inherently wrong about it; men and women are equal before the Lord, and even if men and women properly play different roles it is rather complicated to explain that to children; girls who want to serve should be able to, etc. Arguments against it have to do with the reality that the priesthood is open only to men, that vocations to the priesthood are nurtured in altar service, and that more boys serve when altar serving is restricted to boys.

I attend a parish in which only boys are altar servers (though adult men and women both assist as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, and sometimes assist with serving). Anecdotally, the notion that more boys serve when girls are excluded is supported here: We have upwards of a dozen servers at each ordinary Mass, and 75 is not unheard of.

I think I prefer the boys-only tradition, as long as it is accompanied by careful catechesis, because it is more supportive of our male-only priesthood -- it echoes the reasoning, and it brings more boys into close contact with the Eucharist, and it is a seed for vocations. I think the dearth of altar servers today (typically only one to three at many parishes) is an unintended consequence of opening the role to girls. (Who would have expected that fewer children would serve if twice as many became eligible?) But I don't fault pastors and bishops for choosing to permit girls to serve, now that permission is available. Rome permits it, and that means the decision is theirs to make.

I wonder if perhaps a more fruitful attitude would help both boys and girls who serve at the altar. Pope Benedict recently gave remarks to a pilgrimage audience of French altar servers, both boys and girls:

Pope Benedict told the young people they were blessed to be "particularly close to Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. You have the enormous privilege of being close to the altar, close to the Lord."

The pope prayed that being an altar server would help the young people deepen their friendship with Christ and enthusiastically share God's love with their friends and families.

"And, if one day you feel called to follow the path to the priesthood or religious life, respond generously," he told the youngsters.

 

Luckily for you, I can read French, so I can give you the whole quote from the Vatican website. Here is my translation:

It is with affection that I greet the dear altar servers, come from France for their national pilgrimage to Rome, as well as Monsignor Breton, the other bishops who are here and the chaperones of this important group.

Dear young people, the service that you faithfully carry out permits you to be particularly close to Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. You have the enormous privilege to be near the altar, near the Lord. Be conscious of the importance of this service for the Church and for yourselves. Let it be for you the opportunity to grow a friendship, a personal relationship with Jesus. Don't be afraid to transmit with enthusiasm to those around you the joy that you receive from his presence! Let your entire life be resplendent with the happiness that comes from this nearness to the Lord Jesus! And if one day you hear the call to follow him on the way of priesthood or the religious life, respond to him with generosity!

To all of you I wish a good pilgrimage to the tombs of the Apostles Peter and Paul!

I generally accept that one of the purposes of having young boys serve at the altar was to nurture vocations to the priesthood, and that's why I generally support the decisions of pastors to restrict altar service to males (though, as I tried to express, I am not hostile to the pastoral decision to permit girls to serve at the altar). I know there are plenty of traditionally-minded Catholics who feel similarly to me, that boys-only altar service will better serve the Church's need for priesthood vocations.

But Pope Benedict's remarks make me wonder if we who feel this way haven't perhaps lost some of our focus on vocations in general. After all, vocations to the priesthood are not more noble than other vocations to religious life (or than marriage, for that matter). Perhaps part of the lack of reverence and lack of appreciation of the importance of altar service is not really caused by the admission of girls, though perhaps that change might have triggered events that revealed more symptoms of the problem. Maybe the problem is that we aren't looking on altar service as a place where religious vocations of all types are planted and grow.

At least in our parish, where the connection between vocation to the priesthood and service at the altar is preached explicitly, and where the pastor has made it clear that he is deliberately reinforcing the connection by restricting altar service to boys, families willingly and joyfully encourage (or require) their sons to serve at the altar and hope that from among these boys new priests will step forward.

But why not, in a parish where girls are permitted to serve, still try to make a connection between service at the altar and vocations to the priesthood, or to consecrated virginity, or to contemplative religious life, or to active religious life as a sister or brother? Why couldn't it be, in such a parish, that families willingly encourage sons and daughters to serve, and express hope that from among these boys and girls that new priests, brothers, sisters, vowed lives of service to the Lord, will emerge?

I admit that I have never really seen such a connection made explicitly, except in the parish I attend now. I have always attributed it to the boys-only policy. But maybe the real reason is something deeper than which of two permitted pastoral choices the pastor has made.

 

Postsecondary education questions: A summary sort of post, before moving on.

(This post is part of the series on postsecondary education.)

+ + +

In this post I came to a conclusion about parents' responsibilities toward helping adult children finish their education:

 Parents have a certain minimum education and preparation that they owe their kids; if they don't manage to do it by the time the kids are adults, the kids have a right to ask for more help; but adults who are continuing to receive help from their parents to continue their education, rightly continue to be subject to their parents as they were when they were minors.

A lot of what the Church documents go into has to do with religious development and character development, but economics is part of it too.  I think these (both from Familiaris Consortio) are the key economic features of a minimum education for a child who may marry :

• it will enable them to "establish their family in favorable...economic conditions." (53)  
• it  "will... acquaint [them] with correct methods for the education of children, and will assist them in gaining the basic requisites for well-ordered family life, such as stable work, sufficient financial resources, sensible administration, notions of housekeeping" (66)

(I propose to stick, for now, with the case of a child who likely will plan to support a family.   We'll get to other vocations eventually.)

I also wrote that (morally rather than legally speaking) a child is emancipated 

• when he is accessing what he needs to know
• and is doing what he needs to do
• to fulfill the duties of his vocation,
• and has embarked on independent life.

We can combine these definitions of "necessary education" and "emancipation" to arrive at something like this (economically speaking) for a child who may marry:  

Parents must teach the child, or delegate that teaching to another, so that he knows what he needs to know and can do what he needs to do to establish his family in favorable economic conditions.  That education must assist him in gaining stable work and sufficient financial resources for supporting a family.  It must also assist him in learning to run a household and acquaint him with correct methods of educating children.

I think everyone agrees that parents owe their minor children an adequate education.  If all the adequate choices cost money, and the parents can reasonably afford it, then they might reasonably conclude they have a duty to pony up for elementary-school or high-school tuition.   

Given that, parents might reasonably conclude that they also have a duty to contribute materially to a child's postsecondary education -- if that postsecondary education will complete the "minimum" education that a child needs.  That is, if it will teach him adequate knowledge and skills to establish his family in favorable conditions, to gain stable work, to gain sufficient financial resources, to run a household, and to educate his children.

Here's what's coming up:

  - On the theoretical side, I have a post in the works on what it means to have "adequate" skills and knowledge.  Not a list of necessary skills and knowledge, but the meaning of "adequate."

  - On the cost-benefit side, Mark is working on a guest post (okay, right now it is in the form of several spreadsheets) about the lifetime economic differences between hypothetical sibling pairs, one of whom gets a 4-year college degree, one of whom does not.  I got a preview of the data last night.  I think you'll find it very, er, educational.  

The point of working these things out, both on the theoretical and the practical side, is not that it is foolish or wrong to choose (or to fund) a less-lucrative path if it will make you happier; the point is to make your choices (a) within the bounds of duty to your family and (b) with your eyes open to the range of consequences.