WE'VE MOVED

The new site is officially up and running! We'll still be making adjustments along the way, but overall, we here at Our Hearts Unhindered are content enough to move from one location to the next. To move with us, click here.
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Why you should not home school your kids

Home schooling has become a trend for numerous reasons.  One of the reasons is quality of education.  Some studies have shown that home schooled children are generally above average against their public school peers.  Some of these public school peers have the potential to be bullies or sell your kids drugs, so you want to keep them home and let them have more control over who they mingle with, subject to your approval.  And speaking of your approval, you approve the texts and the reading and the instructors and the experience of religion.  Not to mention you can sleep in and go to bed at a reasonable time.  And, if you so choose – and many do – you can utilize the same classes and programs offered to all the other kids.  You can send your kids to the public school for P.E., or to a local college for some of their high school classes for credit that they can use later to skip unnecessary years towards a degree.

Some individuals and governments resist the home school trend.  Families that come to the U.S. specifically for the freedom to give their children an education risk deportation.  They come here because America does allow home schooling, albeit begrudgingly.

Maybe the U.S. is so cranky because they're concerned for the children.  They wouldn't want your kids to be at a disadvantage when they get to college.  After such a good education at home reading Shakespeare and Frost and writing a dissertation on Plato, the first year or two of college is a review of middle school.  Home schooling means risking brain damage when your children bang their heads repeatedly against the wall of their dorm rooms.

Sure, not every home school is excellent, but why take that chance?  Don't risk raising your students to be too smart for college at the undergraduate degree level.  Think of all the money you'll spend on those first two years – maybe three! – of college before everyone catches up with your little scholars.  Think of their strong, healthy brains slowly turning to mush day after day, going through the motions of writing ten page papers that are so hard they can't wait to get to graduate school.  Just think!  You're setting your children up to spend years of their adult life in universities before they are finally satisfied with the challenge they find getting their doctorate in English.  You're raising your children to be academics!

Let's face it.  College will only put a strong hand on your budding child's shoulder and tell them, "It's time to conform, son.  Bwahaha we've finally GOT YOU!"

Right when your kids thought they were ready to fly, too.  You set them up to think that college is the time to soar mentally and academically and, of course, the reality is that college will teach them to slow down and match everyone else's mediocrity.  Please spare them that cruel punishment.  Spare them the pain of that horrible adjustment and protect them from haunting questions like, "What am I doing with my life?  Why is America so dumb?"  And that of course leads to anarchy.

So if you love your kids, do them and your country a favor.  Don't teach your kids to be smart and love learning.  We all know it's a dead end after high school, and the hill to interesting courses gets steep.  Why would you raise your kids to question the status quo?  You'd lead them to disappointment and disillusionment and despair.  They'll have to realize sooner or later that they need money and no one will stop to listen to all that advanced knowledge they accumulated.  There will be no circles to sit in and discuss Nietzsche or C.S. Lewis or Alex Haley.  Home schooling teaches your kids that life is smart.  Life is not smart, it is dumb.

Could be you'll be a lucky one and your home schooling will be mediocre, or your child won't be set on fire to learn.  But when your kids are at stake, you probably shouldn't take the risk.

post signature

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Did you wonder, Did you worry?

Robin Williams' death – his suicide – did it rock you?  I'm guessing that it did.  We've been obsessively pulling out videos and stories about him ever since.  Suicide is a big deal.  I hope it rocked you.

His distinctive voice charmed the nation for years and many consider him a comedic genius.  Personality poured out of him with a fluidity unbridled by creative mental strain, some say.  To me, he seemed a person, an approachable person – somebody who was just a somebody.  Since his death, so many journalists, bloggers, commentators, and random people – all who didn't know him – have tried to interpret his life and understand his suicide.

The truth, of course, is that we can never understand.  The biological factors, the psychological factors, the personal experience never tell us how a great man can take his life.  Why wasn't he afraid to end it all?  Did he think he was helping his loved ones?  Did he see the inevitable pain those who knew him would carry for the rest of their own lives?  Was his own pain too great to spare them?

In Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton said, "The man who kills himself kills all men.  As far as he is concerned, he wipes out the world."

"Today," says Russell Brand, "Robin Williams is part of the sad narrative that we used to turn to him to disrupt."

I read somewhere that depression and the numbers of suicides have experienced spikes in recent decades.  Songs have been written about it.  Books have been published to help loved ones cope.  When I type "suicidal" into Google, it provides a helpline.

But many still misunderstand depression and suicide.

Some called Williams free.  Some wrote long statuses on Facebook about what he meant to them.  Others wrote posts that went viral.  Some felt a twinge of discomfort and compassion, even fear.  Sometimes the right message was said the wrong way.  Sometimes the wrong thing was said the right way.

So here's my question.  Did you wonder?  Did you worry?

I did.

My own experiences with depression have left me sensitive to the possible, hidden experiences of my siblings.  Some of my friends have told me about their struggles.  What if?  What if my best friend decided to end it all?  What if someone decided he was only weighing me down?  What if he thought it wasn't worth it?

If you didn't worry, you should have.  Not everyone is brave enough to admit they need help.

I haven't blogged about this until now because I felt that I could not say anything that hadn't already been said.  And if I say anything at all, I want it to be thoughtful.

But finally, I wonder how many people really understand; and that ignorance drives me to write.

I suffered for years on my own, sure that my pain was my fault.  Why couldn't I just get over it?  Why couldn't I just be happy?  Did I not love everyone?  Was I selfish?

My faith was a crutch.  Crutch – so often a negative meaning.  My faith was my broken leg and my crutch.  I thought I was a terrible sinner for feeling so wretched – that I had no joy because I was not holy enough.  If only I loved God more….  If only I loved my neighbor more….

I'm sure many people have recovered from their depression and thrown out their religion, scoffing at it for putting them down.  Actually, my Catholic religion does not blame me for depression, although I didn't know that at the time; and even though it (mistakenly) tore at me, my faith was what kept me going.  I never refused to get out of bed and I didn't coop myself up in a corner of my room.  I did walk around in a despondent state, rarely if ever looking anyone in the eye, giving short and to the point answers, dreading and loathing small talk, hating compliments.  "My hair may be pretty but that doesn't make it better.  I may be a good dancer, but that isn't helping me.  Don't tell my father I'm mature – you don't know me."

My inner faith, mistakenly telling me that I was at fault for how I felt, told me that if I just kept trying and was the best that I could be, everything would get better.  I felt moments of joy and happiness, but as I continued to agree to everything that was asked of me and volunteered silently to do still more, my overall mood was not improving.

I felt happiest when I was making a little boy smile.  I've known him since he was born and we're very close.  His family spent a lot of time at my house and I spent most of that time with him.  I was their babysitter, and I would hold him and hold him until his crying stopped and he fell asleep in my arms.  And I felt content and happy in those moments.

But when I wasn't at peace, I asked myself, "Why don't you kill yourself?"  I thought about it more than once.  But I'd say not more than four times.  The answer I always had for myself was, "What difference would it make?"  No one would care.  No one would know the difference.  They might cry, but they'd soon go on with their lives and not remember.  I felt convinced that I improved the lives of those around me, even though I noticed that they managed to instinctively fill in the gaps when I was out of the house.  But I felt, unseen by all, I was doing something for them, even if they didn't care.  And that gave me a sense of purpose.  And I think it kept me going.

I was also terrified of suicide.  One of the symptoms of my depression was always thinking of the in-depth, personal details.  I was afraid of pain, and of panic like I experienced in panic attacks, and of changing my mind at the last moment when it would be already too late.  I decided that if I were to kill myself, I'd have to use a gun.  We had one in the house somewhere – I had seen the locked safe just once.  But even if I could have found it and unlocked it, I wouldn't have known how to use it.

And already striving so hard to please God, I wouldn't want to make all that for nothing.

I would say that, at the time, I was never so defeated that I was genuinely suicidal.  The question held a touch of humor for me.  It was too serious a thought to be taken seriously.

But… I don't know how I was spared seriously considering it.  No one was there to help me through.  And I don't know that anyone could have helped me.  I didn't want help.

Sometimes I still have episodes of depression – much shorter episodes, thank God.  And recently, I experienced such a deep exasperation that I momentarily did give up on life and suicide became real.  And even knowing everything I do about depression, I still would rather keep it to myself.

It makes you think doesn't it?

Sometimes people talk about suicide as though "if only someone had realized and gotten them help!"  Sometimes that's not enough.  Because suicide is not a question of cure.  You can catch an injury before it turns into a bad case of gangrene.  You can prescribe treatment to a medical issue and heal the body.  You can diagnose depression and try to correct it – but depression is tricky.  It's too complicated for even someone who has experienced it to explain.

And suicide – it's not a disease.  It's a choice.  It's a choice to reject life.

Sometimes depression doesn't go away.  And despite all the efforts of anyone – no matter how qualified – sometimes depression seems inevitable, incurable, and indomitable.  It can lead to a new level of despair that few people know exists.  That despair is what drives some people to the precipice of suicide.  Even if the best help is available to them, some people still choose suicide.

That's the very bitter reality.

It's a sin against life.  It's a sin against hope.  It's a sin against all mankind.  How dare you tell us it's not worth it.  How dare you leave us such a legacy.

How dare you….

How could you leave us alone?

The more I thought about Robin William's death, the more I was grateful for life.  I looked around me and I said, "What if I lost any of these people?"  Even my enemies – would I be able to handle the news?  I was a thorn in their side – or at the very least, I did very nearly nothing to make their lives more worth while.  That would almost be worse than losing a friend.  But if I lost a friend – his or her memory would be like playing catch with a rose bush, unresolved questions of guilt coming in stitches.  And there's the possibility that I could have taken my own life and all those people would have been ripped from me.  By my own choice.

We need to start paying attention.  Depression is a mental illness and as such, a person doesn't have much control over it.  Sometimes drugs help, balancing the chemicals in the brain.  Sometimes therapy helps.  And yet part of me believes that there's got to be something so simple, so fundamental and we're missing it – whether it's a loss of place and identity, or the loss of a deeper meaning, or just a crueler world….  There's got to be a factor, perhaps unmeasurable by science, that speaks to the human person that would cure case upon case of depression.

Perhaps it's just my own lucky experience with depression, but I feel like the solution must be right under our nose.

Because suicide must not happen.  It's the last breath of hope disappearing from the world.

post signature

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Morality Clause in Cincinnati Archdiocese

The situation in the Oakland Diocese is a tricky one.  Reports say that the changes to the contract school teachers have to sign stem from the recent lawsuits involving moral violations.  Last year, for example, unmarried teacher Christa Dias used in-vitro fertilization to get pregnant and was then fired.  [More examples of dismissals from Cincinnati.com.]  The new morality clause addresses possible future disputes along the same lines:

The revised contracts forbid teachers from -- among other things -- living together or having sex outside of marriage, using in-vitro fertilization, a gay "lifestyle," or publicly supporting any of those things.
and:
The language reads, "Such conduct or lifestyle that is in contradiction to Catholic doctrine or morals includes, but is not limited to, improper use of social media/communication, public support of or publicly living together outside marriage, public support of or sexual activity out of wedlock, public support of or homosexual lifestyle, public support of or use of abortion, public support of or use of a surrogate mother, public support of or use of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, public membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals, and/or flagrant deceit or dishonesty."

Many, including teachers who will be expected to sign this contract for the coming year, are outraged and feel that the Church is being intolerant and ignorant.  "Homosexuality," some are crying, "is not a lifestyle!"  Teachers are outraged that, in order to teach, they should have to sign something that would ask them to turn against their LGBT family and friends.  Teachers are not being asked to sever relationships with LGBT family and friends, but some, such as a first-grade teacher Molly Shumate, do not see a distinction.  Shumate's son is gay and, she says, if he finds a partner, she will be in "the front row with the biggest bouquet."  The spokesman for the archdiocese explained that nothing new is expected from the teachers; rather, what is already expected is now clearly spelled out in the contract – there can be no surprises.  Cincinnati.com quoted Rich Leonardi, parent of two children in archdiocese schools: "The Archdiocese is right to be focused on that.  We need to establish some parameters.  Denying or muddying those things leads to scandal. … And given the amount of embarrassment and scandal … I think it's a good idea."

In all the uproar, most who object do not see why a Catholic school should be allowed to fire anyone for these issues.  Some see it as an irrelevant Church driving people away, and others critique that the schools do not require the same standards of their students and their students' families as they are now requiring of their teachers.  Some teachers, such as Shumate, have walked away from their jobs rather than sign the contract, and others will sign for the paycheck but only grudgingly.

But as Leonardi also pointed out, parents send their children to these schools for a Catholic education.  Even non-Catholic families pick these schools because they appreciate the values a Catholic school offers – values that the Church teaches and promotes.  If the faculty and staff speak, aloud or by example, against these values, the school has the obligation to fire them.  As Schumate said, teachers do not work at Catholic schools for the money.  If they are teaching, then, at a Catholic school for the values, they contradict themselves for objecting to the step taken by the diocese to protect those values.

Teachers like Shumate take issue with the "negative" response to homosexuality, but although they have the sympathy of many Catholics and non-Catholics alike, they demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge about Catholic social teaching.  Roger Rosen, a French and Latin teacher, shows concern for LGBT students: "How do I look at a gay student in the eye and tell him he's just as important as everybody else but I'm not allowed to support him as much as I would like? How does that make him feel?"  The Church does not claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and does support homosexuals – and many have likewise been pointing to Pope Francis and asking the archdiocese, "What would Pope Francis do?"  However, the Popes (and yes, Pope Francis as well) continue to uphold that engaging in homosexual actions is immoral [for Biblical agreement, see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10].  When the diocese requires its teachers to not support a homosexual lifestyle, this is not the Church saying that homosexuals should be left alone and ignored or despised; but rather, that teachers must instruct their students in Catholic teaching (which they should themselves understand or else direct their students to someone who does) and they should love all equally and without judgment, but they should not encourage or give approval to a homosexual lifestyle (as explained at length by the Church).

Shumate's problem with the new contract is ultimately that she either does not fully know the teachings of the Church or she refuses them, in which case she is not actually Catholic.  She is obligated to support and love her son, but she is also obligated to advise him not to marry another man.  The teaching may be a hard pill to swallow but a more in-depth study of the Church's position may help to remove the sting.

These schools require their teachers to adhere to Church teaching but do not reject students based on the student's or the student's family's beliefs or background – easily excused.  Students come to the school to be instructed, and in addition, are not responsible for the choices of their parents, siblings, or extended family.  And the Church encourages anyone, regardless, to learn about the Church and the values it upholds.  Teachers are hired at Catholic schools to teach and instruct the students in these values.  If they fail to do so, the school may dismiss them.  Anyone that teaches by word or deed that extramarital sex or in-vitro fertilization is perfectly acceptable clearly does not fulfill the needs of a Catholic school.  There are secular schools for teachers to teach at and many Catholic teachers who are looking for openings.  I would advise recently graduated education majors from Franciscan University of Steubenville to stick around Ohio for a while.

May a Catholic school fire teachers over immorality, even though it is politically taboo?  The objective of a Catholic school would seem to give them this prerogative.  Renee, a commenter on the article on Cincinnati's WLWT website, said: "If the catholic schools were solely funded by private dollars, I'd have no problem with this morality clause. Since, however, some of the catholic schools in the area continue to exist solely because of tax payer funds (i.e. voucher system), I question the legality of the morality clause."  She amended later:
"I didn't say the schools are run solely based on the voucher system. I said, some of the schools exist (i.e. are able to continue to keep their doors open) solely because of the voucher system.
 "Approximately 70% of the students attending one of the eight catholic inner city schools are doing so on a voucher. For one of the schools, I know for certain that it's more than 80%. While the schools aren't run "solely" based on the voucher system, they sure as heck wouldn't all still be open without voucher funds."
According to Renee, since Catholic schools are dependent on money that the government gives children to go to school, a Catholic school should be politically correct.  She is probably correct that many Catholic schools would close if families could no longer afford to send their children to the school of their choice; however, the Catholic school is not via the voucher system directly funded by the government.  The government gives the money to a family, not to the school.  It is indeed a private institution.  If the families choose to send their children to a Catholic school, the government is not dishing out money to a Catholic school.  A lot of money comes from the government and ends up somewhere else – but the somewhere else is not consequentially a government funded organization.

The Human Rights Campaign has sent a letter to the Vatican and hope for an audience with Pope Francis, and their billboards ask, "Would Pope Francis Sign the New Catholic Teacher Contract?"  Although Pope Francis has stunned the world with his "revolutionary" acceptance of homosexuals, Pope Francis also knows the need for a solid Catholic education, and praises it's importance today:

Again and again, the Church has acted as a mediator in find­ing solutions to problems affecting peace, social harmony, the land, the defence of life, human and civil rights, and so forth. And how much good has been done by Catholic schools and uni­versities around the world! This is a good thing. Yet, we find it difficult to make people see that when we raise other questions less palatable to public opinion, we are doing so out of fidelity to precisely the same convictions about human dignity and the common good. 

Francis, like his predecessors, would most likely acknowledge the need for an authentic Catholic education, and stand behind the duty that Catholic schools have to offer this education.  He would also, no doubt, encourage dialogue, and he may even try to clear up misunderstanding about the Church's teaching on education and homosexuality and so on.  Shumate said, "He's the one I would want some guidance from;" but most likely she expects to him to say what she wants to hear and would not be guided by his "guidance" if it contradicted her decision; for, after all, by walking away from her job and supporting her son's possible future gay marriage, she knows "in her heart" she is doing the right thing.


Sources and further reading:

– Quoted from in this article:



Recent progress:

post signature