Brown Scapular

Today I was enrolled in the Brown Scapular by Father Miguel Marie. I am excited to start my life in this Carmelite devotion. I was enrolled using the long formula, I believe from the "Book of Blessings."

According to http://carmelnet.org/

The Carmelite Scapular is not:

-a magical charm to protect you

-an automatic guarantee of salvation an excuse for not living up to the demands of the Christian life

It is a sign:

-Which has been approved by the Church for over seven
centuries

-Which stands for the decision to follow Jesus like Mary:

-To be open to God and to his will be guided by faith, hope, and love

-To pray at all times to discover God present in all that happens around us.

I encourage you to find out more about the Carmelite Order and their unique spirituality. Their website can be found here. If you are intrested in being enrolled in the Brown Scapular then you should know that you must be enrolled by a Priest only once in your lifetime. If you'd like to purchase a Brown Scapular you can probably find them at your local Catholic Book Store. If you don't have a book store, look online, if you are financially destitute click here for a free Brown Scapular. I can't vouch for that link working as I haven't tested it. God Bless!

18 Questions for Fundamental Christians

The Following is a wonderful response to the widley circulated "18 Questions for 'Saved' Roman Catholics." The piece was written by Gary Hoge and he get's COMPLETE CREDIT for this piece. It can be found on www.catholicoutlook.com and specifically here:

18 Questions

My Fundamental Christian brothers believe they are presenting salvation and the Gospel “the Bible way,” so I’d like to ask them a few questions of my own to see if this is true. First of all, Fundamentalists (and many other Christians, too) claim that the Bible is the “only rule for faith and practice.” Anything outside of the Bible is merely human tradition. I’d like to direct my first set of questions to this doctrine, then ask some more general questions about the gospel, as it’s presented in the Bible:

1. Where in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible?

2. If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong in it, then is the Bible’s “table of contents” merely a human tradition? If not, why not?

3. If the list of Biblical books is not revealed in the Bible itself, what men drew up the list? Why do you trust these men?

4. Is their list infallible? On what authority?

5. If their list is infallible, isn’t this a “rule of faith and practice” outside of the Bible, thus disproving the idea that the Bible itself is the “only rule of faith and practice”?

6. If their list is not infallible, and is merely a human tradition, why do you
trust it? On what authority?

7. Where does the Bible say that it is the “only rule of faith and practice”?

8. If it doesn’t say that, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway, isn’t that an extra-biblical “rule of faith and practice”?

9. In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, the Bible says, “Charge them that are rich in this world . . . that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” In the justification-by-faith-alone scheme, how does one “lay hold on eternal life” by being “rich in good works”?

10. In Galatians 5:19-20, the Bible says, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I
have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” If you live in the manner described above, will you inherit the Kingdom of God? If you live this way, are you sure you will be in heaven immediately after death?

11. In Romans 2:6-7, the Bible says that God “will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.” If good works play no part in our salvation, then why does the Bible say that we receive “eternal life” as a recompense for “patient continuance in well doing”?

12. How do Fundamental Christian churches, which have their own distinct theology, and often boast that they are “separated,” obey God’s command that Christians “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10)?

13. Regarding the Church’s leaders, the Bible says, “Obey your leaders, and submit to them for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account” (Heb. 13:17, NAS). Why were the Protestant Reformers exempt from the biblical command to obey and submit to the Church’s leaders?

14. If we are justified by faith alone, why does the Bible say, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24)?

15. If good works play no role in our ultimate salvation, then why did Jesus say, “[T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29)?

16. If our behavior as Christians has no bearing on our receiving eternal life at the final judgment, then why does the Bible say, “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” (Gal. 6:8)?

17. If baptism is merely an empty symbol, rather than the instrument by which God affects regeneration, then why does the Bible say, “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21)?

18. If baptism is merely an empty symbol, rather than the instrument by which God forgives sins, then why does the Bible say, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and “Be baptized and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16)?

As these questions, and others you can think of, are discussed in detail, you will quickly see that Fundamentalism does not present salvation “the Bible way.” It presents a man-made gospel, formulated in the nineteenth century by men like B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, John Nelson Darby, and Cyrus I. Scofield. Ironically, it is the Catholic Church that continues to teach salvation “the Bible way,” as she has for almost two millenia. It is she who presents the gospel that was formulated by Jesus Christ, and popularized by men like the apostle Paul. And it is she who continues to warn the faithful, in the words of that great apostle, The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

***End Credited Piece***

Dream Vatican Document

I have a dream that one day...some day...there will be a document that comes out of the Vatican that reads *something* like this:

AN ABSOLUTLY FAKE MOTU PROPRIO BANNING THE USE OF 'FLAKEY' LANGUAGE IN HOMILIES

To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and to all the People of God. Thirty years ago many of you began to use terribly insufficient and misleading language in your homilies. This language has done irreparable damage to the state of the souls entrusted to you. I now intend to explain the words and phrases that I have banned. In the interest of being a pastor I will provide you with some possible acceptable alternatives.

1. "Troubles" is banned--replace with Sin if you desire to go above and beyond delineate between Venial and Mortal.

2. "Spiritual Help" is banned--encourage people to seek Confession--not the nebulous 'spiritual help'.

3. "Worship Service" is banned--speak of the awesome Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

4. "Faith Community" is banned--speak of the reality of the Church

5. "Eucharistic Minister"* is banned (unless you are actually a Eucharistic Minister--Bishop or Priest)--there is no substitute for this. Also, immediately suspend the faculties of all of the "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" who may be serving under your supervision.

6. "Supernatural Assistance" is banned--speak of God's Grace.

7. "In the Name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" is banned--in this Church we don't identify People only by what they DO for US rather who they are--use of "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit*" is mandatory. *Holy Ghost also acceptable.

8. "American Church" is banned--you may speak of the Holy Catholic Church in America--you may not speak of an "American Church."

9. "Banquet of Love and Acceptance" is banned--use Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

10. "Mother Creator" is banned--Father Almighty is to be used.

11. "Spirit of Vatican II" is banned--if you ever have an intention of using the "Spirit" of the Council then you are required first to present yourself before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and explain to the Congregation your view of the "spirit"--though in the intrest of time it is my reccomendation that you dispense with your views of the "spirit" of the council and just stick to quoting the documents.

Given on the dream date in the future on the first day of my dream Pontificate.

Book Review: "Mother Angelica"

As I just completed this book I feel compelled to share my thoughts on it so that you may make an informed decision about whether or not to purchase it. I decided when I heard that the book was being published that I would buy a copy-mostly because I am eternally greatful to EWTN for re-sparking my intrest in the Church. I knew some of the major events in Mother Angelica's life and I thought reading the book would give me a bit of an in-depth insight into her life--boy was I wrong. This book was a truly comprehensive, extreamly well researched, impressive compilation of Mother's life. The book spends a large portion on her pre-EWTN activities which gives the reader a unique perspective through which the reader can understand why EWTN and Mothers Poor Clares have evolved into what they are today. Another intresting point is that the book is not a white-wash of Mother's life. It documents her successes, her failures, her temper, and her triumph. Reading it will give you an appreciateion of Mother's unique personality and the personalities of other Church figures--to include: Deacon Steltemeier, Sister Mary David, Sister Mary Raphael, the Sister Servents, Bishop Foley, and yes even Cardinal Mahoney. This book will forever change the way that you "view" EWTN. I couldn't reccoment this book more. Kudos Raymond Arroyo for a job well done.

Now for what others have said:

"Raymond Arroyo invites the reader to join him on the wild ride of the Holy Spirit that transformed Rita Rizzo into Mother Angelica, one of the feistiest and most effective evangelists of our time. It is an invitation not to be declined."-Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor-in-chief of First Things Magazine

"Mother Angelica's personal words to me, her courageous example, and her constant prayers helped inspire my portrayal of Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ". No one could have captured the essence of this modern day saint better than Raymond Arroyo. His narrative gifts and understanding of Mother are clearly evident in this truthful and often candid depiction of one nun's struggle to bring God to the multitudes. Surely this book, and Mother's life will have an incredible enduring legacy." - Jim Caviezel, Actor

VOTF=H.E.R.E.S.Y.

Yes it is now time to look at modern dissent in the Church. Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), is probably the largest umbrella group for dissenters in the Church in the United States. I thought we'd look at VOTF's "Policies and Positions," compare them with VOTF's actions, and do a little analysis. Let's start!

Voice of the Faithful has not developed many policy positions to date, and those we have developed focus on the sexual abuse crisis.

That's quite impressive. An organization that is going on four years old has not developed many policy positions? Hmm...That sounds odd. Why support a group that stands for...nothing to date?

We have said that the Church has a responsibility to respond to survivors in a meaningful, healing way. We have said that bishops and laity in each diocese should engage in a serious and substantive dialogue.

Please....Please someone tell me what this means. This is psycho-babble. What does "bishops and laity...should engage in a serious and substantive dialogue" mean??? Are bishops not "dialoguing" with their flock now?

We have said that the structures of decision-making that gave rise to this crisis - secrecy and deception - should be exposed to the healing power of sunlight and disclosure.

Ahh yes, the mystical healing power of "sunlight and disclosure." I frequently go to confession to experience the healing power of sunlight and disclosure.

These policies make sense. These policies respond to the crisis facing our Church. These policies address the real problems confronting parish priests, bishops, and laity.

What policies make sense? I'm sorry did I miss something? I thought at the begining VOTF already stated they were anti-policy? They said they had a few policies related to the abuse scandal but...all that ammounted to was psycho-babble.

To state more specifically what we do and do not stand for:

Thank you, I'm glad they're getting specific--that means I can get specific too.

Voice of the Faithful is focused on those actions necessary to respond to survivors, to support priests who are living their vows, and to effect structural change that helps ensure this type of abuse never occurs again in the Catholic Church.

Hmm...supporting priests is a good thing, but what do they mean by 'structural change'--oh yeah what they were trying to say is that they want "democracy" as stated in not so many words in their "Open Letter to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI."

We accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

HA! Oh my, this is the funniest thing I've heard this morning. So I suppose challenging the Bishops authority, advocating contraception, demanding "equality in ordinations for women", slandering celibacy, and advocating homosexual priests are all well within the bonds of acceptable behavior while accepting the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

We have taken no position on the many other issues that divide Catholics in 2002.

Oh but they have. VOTF may not state it on their webpage or in their pretty documents; however, it is blatently clear where the orginazition stands in it's support for heterodoxy. All one must do is search for news about them...(from the 'Daily Record)
describing a VOTF meeting:

"Among the proposed changes: a more open and inclusive church, including acceptance of women's ordination and the elimination of clergy's vows of celibacy and greater laity involvement."

We do not advocate the end of priestly celibacy, the exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood, the ordination of women, or any of the other remedies that have been proposed across the spectrum of Catholic thought.

Very tricky...there's a double negative in there...did you catch it? Translation=We Want Gay Priests. The rest of the statement is false as they openly support the end of celibacy while supporting the ordination of women.

We do not endorse any organizations or interest groups.

Except Call to Action and all the other groups that along with VOTF have been banned from many dioceses. And odd---they don't endorse anyone yet they have an extensive "Links" page where readers can browse endlessly through hours of marginal Catholicism and outright heresy!

We do promote a full and open discussion about the root causes of the sexual abuse crisis and the remedies that are needed.

Ok...duh.

We do take the position that the bishops and the Vatican have failed to address the sexual abuse crisis and its consequences adequately.

Of course they would...and they use that to support inserting themselves into an "oversight role" of the Church which is only appropriate if one happens to be a Bishop.

We do take the position that bishops fail in their role as shepherds and teachers when they refuse to engage the laity in a meaningful and substantive discussion of the issues.

I honestly and truly don't know what shifty adgenda they are trying to hide by using the term "meaningful and substantive discussion" but if there is a member of VOTF reading this would you be so kind as to enlighten me?

We do take the position that Pope John Paul II rightly called clergy sexual abuse "crimes," and a "shame and scandal" for the Catholic Church.

Ok

We do believe that cleaning up this culture of deception and scandal is job #1 for the bishops.

What they forgot to mention is that they believe their #1 Job is oversight of the bishops--not just in their practical operation but in their theological teaching.

Voice of the Faithful will stay true to its mission and goals. We will support survivors of clergy sexual abuse. We will support priests in the faithful discharge of their vows. And we will work for structural changes that help ensure that clergy sexual abuse does not occur again in the Catholic Church. Ours will remain a philosophy of "centrism," of providing a voice for all people in the Catholic Church. In this way, we will "Keep the Faith and Change the Church."

Hmm..."Keep the Faith and Change the Church." Didn't that happen before by someone acting to "clean-up" the Church...oh yeah, his name was Martin Luther.

The other very disturbing thing about VOTF, besides being blatently heretical...is that I looked over their writings and I never saw Christ. Their website mentions Him maybe 3 or 4 times...maybe. For an organization which proports to be the voice of the faithful it seems to be much more of a loud voice and not faithful. Maybe they should rename themselves Voice of the Dissenters.

*As always share your thoughts, ask a question, make a comment, or give your suggestion for a topic by clicking the "Email a question or Comment" link on the right or just type the addres into the email yourself: josephjcheney@gmail.com (please include in your email whether or not you'd mind me posting parts of your conversation or if you'd like it to remain a private conversation...though I'd never use your name if I did post.)

Anti-Catholicism--Inter-Christian Strife Part 1

Jack Chick is a name that every Catholic should be familiar with. It is a name which many Catholics in the South are familiar with, not because they asked, but because they had one of his "masterpieces" stuck on their windshield while at Mass. Why do Catholic’s need to be familiar with Anti-Catholic works you ask? Because ignorance is the breeding ground of a failing of faith. Jack Chick is a standard old-style Anti-Catholic. His tracts are speckled with outright lies mixed with confused or convoluted concocted history designed to slam the Catholic Church. Jack Chick’s theology sprouts out of the independent “Jesus” movement of the 1970’s and is fiercely “non-denominational” and “strictly-ad hears” to sola-scriptura and the idea that “once saved-always saved.” Now an exhaustive examination of Mr. Chick’s tracts was done by Catholic Answers and can be found here. Let’s examine the practical end of Jack Chick’s theology:
***Heresy Warning***

Now let's look at the "Nobody else can Save You" section--at glance no Catholic should have a problem with any of Jack Chick's "Four Steps to Salvation." After all, even if we just evaluate prayers at Mass:

1. "Admit you are a sinner"--fulfilled in the Confiteor and the Kyrie

2. "Be wiling to repent from sin"--fulfilled in the Confiteor and the Domine non sum dignus

3."Believe that Jesus Christ Died for you..."--fulfilled in the Credo and Mysterium fìdei

4. "Accept Jesus Christ into your life as your Personal Savior."--fulfilled Par Excellence in the liturgy of the Eucharist.

There are a litany of other times throughout the Mass where Catholics fulfill Jack Chick arbitrary requirements but I listed the most obvious.

Now we look at Mr. Chick's "What to Pray" section. Now, being sola scriptura to the extreme one might ask how he knows that prayer is acceptible to God since A.) it is not explicitly found in the Bible and B.) it trashes Christ's Church (though Chick would never admit to B)

Then we get to the instructions on what to do now:

Catholics shouldn't have any problems with these except part of number 2 and much of number 3...

Chick frames instruction number two (talk to Christ every day through prayer [in your own words]) as if impromptu prayer is the only acceptable prayer. Then there is 3...the first part is right--be baptized and worship (though it is arguable what he believes about this) then we get to the part where he says you must worship in a "church where 'Christ is preached' and the Bible is the final authority." Now books have been written on the subject, but I'll keep this short and say that Mr. Chick has just been caught in a giant theological contradiction. You can look all throughout Sacred Scripture, and see that scripture is valuable for teaching and correction---but nowhere in Scripture does Scripture lay claim to be the "final authority." You will actually find quite the opposite is true.

Now this is the first posts in a series about Anti-Catholicism because the topic is one which I find very interesting. I find Jack Chick is a prime example because he is 1.) Fairly well known and 2.) Deserving of a simple-minded response since his tracts prey on the, shall we say "under-informed" among us.

*As always share your thoughts, ask a question, make a comment, or give your suggestion for a topic by clicking the "Email a question or Comment" link on the right or just type the addres into the email yourself: josephjcheney@gmail.com (please include in your email whether or not you'd mind me posting parts of your conversation or if you'd like it to remain a private conversation...though I'd never use your name if I did post.)

A Review of the Permanent Diaconate

An objective review of the restoration of the Permanent Diaconate

Since we are approaching the fourth decade since the restoration of the permanent Diaconate, I think it is time for an appropriate review of the aspirations, successes and failings of the Diaconate as it is today.

First, a little background--the "permanent Diaconate" faded away after the third century and resurfaced during the Vatican II Council. In the course of the Vatican II discussions that followed, the permanent diaconate was restored by a majority vote of the Council on October 30, 1963. The restoration of the diaconate was promulgated as part of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church which was released on November 21, 1964. Formation of deacons began in 1968 and by 1971 there were 58 permanent deacons ordained in the United States.

The aim of the permanent Diaconate was to restore a "sacred order" of ministers; however, it is important to realize that that order of minister never went away. The Church has always had Deacons, just usually transitional ones (men preparing for the Priesthood). The Church has always recognized the three levels of Holy Orders: Deacon, Priest, and Bishop. Pope Paul VI outlined the permanent Diaconate's "charter" if you will:

General Norms for
Restoring the Permanent Diaconate in the Latin Church Sacrum Diaconatus
Ordinem Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI issued June 18, 1967...

1) To assist the bishop and the priest during liturgical actions in all things which the rituals of the different orders assign to him

2) To administer baptism solemnly and to supply the ceremonies which may have been omitted when conferring it on children or adults

3) To reserve the Eucharist and to distribute it to himself and to others, to bring it as a Viaticum to the dying and to impart to the people benediction with the Blessed Sacrament with the sacred ciborium

4) In the- absence of a priest, to assist at and to bless marriages in the name of the Church by delegation from the bishop or pastor observing the rest of the requirements which are in the Code of Canon Law[8] with Canon 1098 remaining firm and where what is said in regard to the priest is also to be understood in regard to the deacon

5) To administer sacramental and to officiate at funeral and burial services

6) To read the sacred books of Scripture to the faithful and to instruct and exhort the people

7) To preside at the worship and prayers of the people when a priest is not present

8) To direct the liturgy of the word,particularly in the absence of a priest

9) To carry out, in the name of the hierarchy, the duties of charity and of administration as well as works of social assistance.

10) To guide legitimately, in the name of the parish priest and of the bishop, remote Christian communities

11) To promote and sustain the apostolic activities of laymen.

It is absolutely undeniable that the diaconate has been successful in many of these mandates. Deacons fufill a special role and perform a wonderful ministry for people, in many cases, who would have no other connection to the church--the question that remains is whether a permanent diaconate is necessary and what has it done to vocations to the priesthood?

I think the answer to the first question, the necessity of a permanent diaconate, is not a yes or a no. The answer is "not in its current form." Sweeping changes need to be put in place by the local ordinaries so that the diaconate is more effectively used in their dioceses. Why on earth does a parish with a priest and a priest in residence also need a deacon? Wouldn't that deacon serve better the needs of a rural parish? Serving in a place where maybe Mass is only offered once a week--maybe not even that often? Why do some Churches have 2 or 3 permanent deacons and some have none at all? Is the ministry of a deacon needed in some places? Yes. But, unfortunately, those are the places where often there are no deacons.

Now to the issue of assisting vocations to the priesthood-I believe that the permanent diaconate has its share of legitimate vocations; unfortunately, I also believe that the permanent diaconate siphons off-in some cases-what would be additional vocations to the priesthood during the earliest stages of discernment. To a young man who is toying with the idea of a vocation it seems much "easier" to get married and plan on being a deacon down the road than actually discern a vocation to the priesthood now. By this I am in no way suggesting that all deacons are underachievers, rather, I think there needs to be much more emphasis put into the formation of deacons. Standardize the process; make mandatory spiritual direction for all young men from the local ordinary to ensure that some aren't investigating their vocation to the priesthood.

So love your deacons! They do amazing work. Take the "crazy" ones to task by forming a good relationship with your Bishop.

*As always share your thoughts, ask a question, or make a comment by clicking the "Email a question or Comment" link on the right or just type the addres into the email yourself: josephjcheney@gmail.com (please include in your email whether or not you'd mind me posting parts of your conversation or if you'd like it to remain a private conversation...though I'd never use your name if I did post.)

Et Unum, Sanctum, Catholicam...

It was reported recently that Pope Benedict meet with Bishop Fellay, the leader of the Society of St. Pious X (SSPX). Read about it here! For those who don't know the history of the SSPX, I strongly suggest you read about all the factors that lead up to it creation and seperation of the SSPX (One in-depth history is found here--not exaustive and I think contains a few errors, but a wonderful start to understand the SSPX). Many people on both sides argue with factual fallicies. Here is a very very very condenced version of what happened. (Credit goes to Catholic World News)

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, broke from the Vatican in 1988, when the French prelate ordained four new bishops in defiance of a direct order from Rome. Pope John Paul II (bio - news)responded by announcing that the traditionalist group had committed a schismatic act," incurring the penalty of excommunication for Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops (including Bishop Fellay) he had ordained.

Now this meeting gives me great hope. Though it is expected, there seemed to be a very civil discussion, and both Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay conduct the meeting "in a climate of love for the Church and a desire to arrive at perfect communion," and the Vatican director of the vatican press office said that both the Pope and Bishop Fellay hoped 'to make gradual progress in overcoming differences, so that a full agreement could be reached 'in a reasonable time.'" Apparently Bishop Fellay had also planned to request that the "Pontiff to rescind the decrees of excommunication for himself and the other bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988." I hope that this meeting is a stepping stone to form a perfect communion--soon! I will definantly post more on what prompted the split-off of the SSPX's leaders. I understand that there are some member(s) of the SSPX who read my blog and I pray that someday soon I'll be posting about the regularization of the SSPX. I'd like to get your feedback on this one so please click the "Email a Question or Comment" link on the right to send me an email.

(please include in your email whether or not you'd mind me posting parts of your conversation or if you'd like it to remain a private conversation...though I'd never use your name if I did post.)

Catholic Education-How to revive it!

Ah yes, the good old days of nun's cracking hands with rulers , students standing when the nun or priest would enter the room....now flying spit wads, Mrs. Jones is the teacher, and instead of standing when the teacher enters--students fly--out of the room when the bell rings. Where, or rather, why is Catholic Education in shambles? This post will focus on primary and secondary education (K-12). Now there will be generalizations made in this post, so please don't think that I don't know that there are some wonderful Catholic Schools out there...this post is directed at the nominally Catholic schools which, unfortunately seem to be the norm.

First, I'd like to start with an anecdote: My younger brother is a new student at a Catholic High School...I was still on summer break from the University his first days of class so he came home from his first days of class and came to me with his homework questions. I remember he was looking rather troubled over his religion homework so I asked if I could help. Boy did I get more than I bargained for. I took a quick look over the worksheet he was to complete and immediately asked to see his book...my heart sunk...and then started beating wildly as I asked for a highlighter so I could attack his book (I went through it highlighting everything I could find that was wrong or questionable). This book is called "Jesus of History, Christ of Faith" (see the horror for your self) and contained statements like: (not direct quotes)

"We know you may have heard something about Jesus from your pastor, and other things from your parents, but we want you to dispose these assumptions so you can make a truly informed objective opinion about what Jesus means to you and your faith."

"To make a truly objective review of Jesus life, we are going to dispose with the assumptions that the Christian Church has made about Him over 2,000 years and start at the beginning."

"Many Protestant Churches only accept Baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments because they are the only two sacraments that have a biblical basis."

I could go on and on, but in the interest of time...I will not.

Now, I asked to go and talk with his Religion instructor the next day and it was bad. The standard "I'm not here to force faith on the kids of make converts. I'm trying to teach an objective class." The whole time I'm thinking "NO buddy, you are an instructor at a CATHOLIC school--your job is not to be 'objective' as you say, your job is to educate in the light of Faith...period." Unfortunately, charity and tact mandated that I find a different way to put this.

Now I included that anecdote because I think it is indicative of the atmosphere of many Catholic schools today. The problem, in my opinion is a multi-faceted one. First is the problem of why parents send their kids to Catholic schools...it seems that their reasons are not always based mainly on inculcating the Holy Faith in their young ones, rather sending their kids to a "nice, safe, private school." This reasoning has lead more and more Protestants to send their children to Catholic schools, not because they respect Catholic moral teachings, but because in the interest of accommodation and being "non-offensive," Religion is no longer a required course at many Catholic schools....yes, your heard me right, Religion is no longer a required course at many "Catholic" schools. This only adds to the problem of Catholic schools being a preppy-hide out to escape the harshness of the public school system, and not a grounded instruction which forms the next generation of "the faithful."

The second problem is related to the first. The Mass is, at many Catholic schools, is offered infrequently for the students. One must ask why? What could possibly be more important at a Catholic school? I never understood why they didn't compel students to go to daily Mass, now I'm told many schools don't even offered weekly Masses for students--some offer Masses only on "special occasions."

The third problem is the instruction of the Faith. I'm sorry, but, in many cases there is no excuse why the parish priest can't get in and teach the Religion classes--if he is the only priest in a rural area, maybe he could teach a weekly class or bi-weekly class so as to allow him to reach all grade levels. If Father isn't available then get a brother or a nun in there. Having a religious instruct class is wonderful "recruiting" for the religious life.

The fourth and final problem I will focus on for now is that there is little to no standardization in the instruction that a student receives from diocese to diocese. This is what forces the good Catholic publisher's to compete with many of the well funded, pseudo-hippie publishers. I think there will be a revival in Catholic Education in the coming 20 years...and hey, if I'm wrong--there's always home school.

As always I appreciate your email response and questions--not just about this subject--but about anything. Please click the email link on the right to open an email in Outlook. If that dosen't work the email address is josephjcheney@gmail.com

please include in your email whether or not you'd mind me posting parts of your conversation or if you'd like it to remain a private conversation...though I'd never use your name if I did post.