Anyone else follow the Russian spy poisoning case last week? It fascinates me, but only in a harnessed way. I entertain two assumptions:
1. There's a lot of James Bond stuff that Joe Public never hears about. How much? I have no idea. I'm part of Joe Public, and even if I held part of the Bond information, I couldn't tell you (I'd be killed).
2. There's a type of spy decorum, even among enemy nations: when something in Covert-land takes place, it's addressed in Covert-land, not in the press.
So when I hear about something that takes place in Covert-land, I'm suspicious. Why is this one item hitting the press? Last weekend, the British Home Secretary told the press that the police were looking into the poisoning. The press also obtained a copy of the poisoned man's written allegation that he had been poisoned by Putin.
If my two assumptions are correct, we shouldn't be hearing about this stuff, unless (i) Britain has reasons for smearing Putin, or (ii) there was a breakdown in Covert-land and information got out that wasn't supposed to and now the Home Secretary and other British officials are trying to deal with it the best they can.
I assume there's significant information we're not receiving. I don't have an objection to the arrangement. In these perilous times of terrorism, we don't have the luxury of having a fully-informed press, no matter how much the press wants us to believe that it does keep us informed.
But even though I don't object to the lack of information, it makes me wonder: how can a person form a valid opinion? We never know whether we're getting 2% of the information or 98% of it, and whether 10% or 90% of the information is a lie or otherwise bogus. How does a person form an opinion, knowing that the information he's relying upon is unreliable? Trash (the information) in, trash (your opinion) out.
And it's not just spy games.
Everyone calls this the "Information Age," but I prefer to call it the "Bleeding Information Age."
Information bleeds from everywhere: a hundred million websites; hundreds of thousands of new books every year; 10,000 newspapers; network television; cable television; AM, FM, and satellite radio. The signal trait of the Information Age, one commentator has properly pointed out, is that the data endlessly proliferates.
We can't possibly absorb it all, and the stuff we read or hear could be inaccurate.
And here's the exacerbating rub: We're unworthy information processors.
Not only can a person not absorb all the facts, but no person can master metaphysics, the mysteries of science, world history, and the myriad of other disciplines a person would need in order to process the enormous volume of facts effectively. This has always been the case, but we never realized it. Thanks to the Internet and the Bleeding Information Age, though, I think a few people are beginning to see our innate limitations when it comes to forming opinions.
So what's a person to do?
He needs to find an authority to follow. Not blindly, mind you (after all, we have some information and the power of logic, so we can question), but every person needs some sort of authority he can trust.
I know this conflicts with Americans' deep-seated individualism. In redneck terms, "Nobody is gonna learn me nuthin'." I can respect the redneck if he adopts a resulting attitude of complete skepticism: "I can't know, therefore, I won't believe," but for him to form a firm opinion on something? That's ridiculous.
Of course how reliable an authority we need depends on the importance of the subject at hand. That is why the state regulates and licenses physicians, while anyone can hang out a shingle as a “fashion expert.” But what about really important stuff? Like whether a particular medical treatment is not merely effective, but morally right, and whether there is even a difference between the two. If a person wants to form an opinion - to reason, to think, to reach conclusions with a possibility of being right - he needs a reliable authority, one he can trust to give valid information and/or premises that he can work from. Without that valid authority, he's just flailing away in an ocean of facts, half-facts, ideas, and half-baked ideas. So what will be your authority? Drudge? The Daily Kos? Ann Coulter? The Washington Post? The John Birch Society? Larry King? The government? Fox News? Yahoo? Wikipedia? You might say, "I'll adopt a handful of authorities and use their mix of facts and analyses to reach my opinions." But that ultimately doesn't work either. You will still need an ultimate authority when your little authorities clash. And if they're "little authorities" that you're not trusting fully, why are you trusting them at all?
In areas where she deems herself fit to teach, I trust the Church. For me, that's the only authority worth trusting because it's the only institution that can make a historically valid claim to legitimacy, and I believe she cares about my well-being. If anyone thinks the United States government, the United Nations, the broadcast networks, or the New York Times can cogently make those claims, he's fooling himself.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:59 am
I heartily agree with Eric’s premise about having an ultimate authority, and his conclusion that this authority is the Catholic Church. I am struggling, however, with what to do when different parts of the Church seem to disagree over something that is very important to me. Specifically, I am referring to the “safe environment” programs that have been mandated by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB). I have four kids, ages 6 to 14, who attend a local Catholic School, and after researching this issue, I have very serious doubts as to whether these programs are truly helpful, or whether they are in fact simply an effort by the USCCB to cover their backs in the wake of the priest sex abuse scandals of recent years. Without going into a deep discussion of what my research has uncovered, my basic observation is that these programs go against everything the Vatican has taught about the subject, particularly when you look at the document “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality.”
What are we to do in a case like this? I want to be obedient to my local bishop, but yet I truly believe they are wrong in pushing these programs on our children. There exists an option for parents to opt their children out of the program, but beyond the question that raises (If these programs are such a good thing, why would there even be such an option?), how can we possibly think that our children would not somehow still get the information from their peers who have gone through the program? My wife is so upset about this matter, that she is seriously considering taking our kids out of the Catholic School and home schooling them - although even that is not a guarantee, since these programs are being mandated in CCD classes as well.
I would sincerely appreciate any well-reasoned feedback or advice on this subject. (I should also mention that my wife and I volunteered to be on the implementation committee, and in the course of discussion, it became apparent that neither our school principal nor our pastor are very happy about having to offer this program, either.)
November 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
I don’t trust Eric Scheske or his opinions.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
PC Moser,
Basically you have to let the people in charge make the decisions. If the local pastor and the school principle don’t like the program they can go to the bishop and see if they can work it out. If you and a bunch of other parents throw your opinions in there it can make a differance.
Lastly, there is always the option of changing schools. There is home school, private school, and public school. Personally I prefer to have the faith not taught than taught badly. I can teach them the facts at home. We go through the compendium at our dinner table. I just don’t want them to build trust relationships with teachers and have those teacher disrespect or misrepresent the faith. It is easier for me to explain why a public or protestant school gets it wrong than why a Catholic one embarasses itself.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I would go further and say the media gets most stories wrong. I know when they report on the church they are frequently way off. Those stories I can verify because I have independent sources. So if the media often fails the test when I can test their data why should I trust their information when I can’t test it?
We don’t live in an information age. We live in a data age. Information is data in context. Often the context is wrong so we don’t have information just data. Even information is hardly valuable. Information analyzed produces intelligence. Dare we dream. Very few sources give you that. Catholic Exchange is actually pretty good on church related matters.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
pcmoser,
I am embedded in exactly the same problem.
You are absolutely correct in your research and assumptions about these programs. In fact, when in Boston for their yearly conference, the Catholic Medical Association condemned these “safe environment” programs as well. You can purchase the entire task force report. It is 85 pages supporting their research into these programs and how they are not only ineffective…but just as you would gather from “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality”, they can also be damaging. Here is a quote (that I credit directly to them), “In summary, the child-empowerment prevention programs in use today are not effective at preventing sexual abuse, are not consistent with the science of child development, and are not consistent with principles of the Catholic faith.”
If that doesn’t say it clearly, I don’t know what will.
The problem really lies in “Article 12″ of the mandated Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People because it requires the education and training of children to prevent sexual abuse, ….. BUT…it also mandates that the education and training of children “be in accord with Catholic moral principles”…and there aren’t many of those out there.
BUT THERE ARE SOME.
You can effect a change. I contacted one of the doctors that presented their request to the bishops that these programs be dropped. I asked his advice about how to get our individual bishops to make the change. He said, “Pray very much and write your bishop directly.”
Minnesota fought this problem, and won: Catholic Parents Online
They now use a CATHOLIC program developed in Pennsylvania: Their Safe Environment Program (click on “religious education” and scroll down)
You said it yourself. Neither the principals nor the school priests want this either. But you have to understand that they are generally not in the position to fight this…or they look as if they do not care about the safety of the children. The priests, in particular, feel very confused, and they are being pressed to “be in obedience” to their bishops…(our diocese sent such a letter to all the non-compliant parishes and schools).
For me? I have a parent-team. We have been given permission to infuse Catholicism into this program. We are currently working on it. It is painful, to say the least that we even have to do this. but there is foolishness abounding. I’m also working on contacting our bishop directly, to ask to make my presentation to him so that he can hopefully allow better programs to cover their “Article 12″ requirement.
OK…I just posted my proposal that we used to be given such permission. But it is a spiritually and emotionally tiring task - but one that is well worth the effort.
Prayer.
Sacrifice.
Action.
Don’t leave one out, and you will have done what is right.
If you have any other questions, let me know, and I’ll get my email address to you.
– Loretta
November 29th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
We took our children out of Catholic schools so they could get a Catholic education.
We home-schooled for a year, but with seven and one more on the way, we have them in public school now. They are no geniuses, but academically they are kicking butt there.
Much of what they were getting was not in accordance to the teachings of the Church, but since it was coming from a Catholic school, our children had no way of knowing it was not what the Church teaches. Most teachers were either not Catholic or not living according to the Church (read: cohabitating, promoting contraception, homosexuality, and/or abortion) Most parents lazily expect the school to catechize and they do little faith formation at home.
We had to fight less in public schools and the children now know they are getting the government line. Parents know they have to do the majority of the faith formation of their children.
We’d rather teach our children to defend their faith in a government school than have them lose it in a Catholic school.
Shame on the “Catholic” school administrators. Shame on the pastors and bishops. Shame on the lazy parents. I honestly think many do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Why anyone would want to teach in a Catholic school if they don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches is beyond me.
I think Eric has a point above.
If they’d be willing to be Catholic, we’d be happy to come back. All evidence indicates most are only willing to water down, not beef up the Catholic content of school.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I agree with Eric’s conclusions. However, my understanding is that one must obey the Church when she teaches authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. Not everything that comes from an ordained’s pen or mouth is binding. (”Protecting God’s Children “is a pure cover your bum program) We are a UNIVERSAL church not just the US Bishops or the Bishop of thus and such.
Our Sunday Visitor has gone so far as to publish a pamphlet in English (and Spanish of course) that is entitled “What the Church Teaches About Immigration” this pamphlet states that “it is not the “illegal’s” fault. The system is broken.” The bishops loose all credibility with me when they start pronouncing as binding teachings which aren’t! Why don’t they expound on issues over which they are the authority like contraception, divorce and remarriage, fornication, and piety and regular mass attendance not to mention going to confession at LEAST once a year.
If I didn’t love Mother Church, the scandal of the current batch of American bishops would drive me to worship God some other way, like at the beach or beneath the heavens in the mountains rather than belong to this church currently led by a bunch of self serving politicians called Bishops.
I pray for these men and with all due respect submit this statement.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
As an addendum to the above comments, I homeschool 8 of my ten children for the reasons listed in the above posts regarding so-called Catholic schools. Oh yeah! And God has worked a funny trick in my soul too….I will truly miss the company of my kids as they age up and out of Holy Family Academy.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
…
November 29th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
elkabrikir,
I commend you for homeschooling! In all honesty, that would be my solution, too…except for that husband thing. He is opposed to it 100%. We went through a serious discernment process, and I was unable to convince him otherwise.
Here in Massachusetts, the “government line” includes the “rights for gays to marry.” I knew that choosing Catholic school was not going to teach my children Catholicism. They learn that from mom and dad. I was just hoping not to be contradicted. So far, pretty good - except for this crummy program - which I do not see (completely) as the school’s fault since it was mandated on them. Should they boot it out in “disobedience”? I think so. I don’t even think it is disobedience when the “authority” requires you to do something against your moral conscience. But I’m willing to try to fight FOR THE SCHOOL’s sake to get this program tamed down - and try to get it eliminated as soon as possible.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
I have been reading Wrenn and Whitehead’s book on the Catechisnm’s acceptance among those who teach the faith, and those who teach those teachers, named Flawed Expectations. The news they convey about Catholic faith education is not good, at all. As you know, I rag on the bishops, and this book without getting hard on bishops makes it plain that they, and especially American ordinaries, depend on the wrong persons to get the jobs done in faith education.
As a point in the behalf of bishops generally, they provided the initial thrust, the writing and the editting for the Catechism. However, American bishops dropped te ball on the English-language translation, mainly done by some pastor out of Georgia. It had to be revised extensively by a bishop from Tanzania to be fit as the English translation of the accepted and promulgated French-language original. This delayed the actual printing of the English version for over another whole year from when it was anticipated.
Some of the same reasons for rejecting the initial English translation continue to plague American Catholic faith education even today. The Vatican and the bishops seemed to trust that with the accurate catechism available, catechesis would become more ‘truthful’. Didn’t happen - not by a long shot.
BTW, the original writing was done in French rather than Latin, since the various authors were better able to converse and write to each other in more ‘colloquial’ terms in French.
And, homeschooler or not, get and use the Catechism for reference. It is the one book I am always in. I also use the USCCB online edition for its search abilities, too.
I remain your obedient servant, but God’s first,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @mail.catholicexchange.com or …yahoo.com)
PS: of a query for zephyr424 - can you explain why . . .