Surprise! There is still life at the Vatican. The institutional Church is still breathing. Someone in Rome continues to actually think. While one would not consider the Church to have suddenly become a dynamic organism, at least there appears to be a flicker of life. The latest word from the Vatican on receiving Anglican communities into the Church represents potentially the most significant move in the life of the Church since Pope John XXIII flew open the windows of the Vatican and called for the Second Vatican Council.
Let me hasten to add lest there be any confusion, the new move also points to several negative issues. The Vatican's actions raise major concerns which will be addressed in some detail below. Yet in terms of what it could portend for the future it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
While we know very little about the details of this latest Vatican move, we do know that it creates a new structure within the Church. It is of course not really a new rite like one of the uniate eastern rite churches. Instead it is known as an ordinariate, akin to the military ordinariate which serves all of our men and women in the armed services. Anglicans interested in joining the Catholic Church will be able to join as it were en masse. They can retain their liturgy, customs, and probably even their heirarchy. The ordinariate to be established will be separate from our current diocesan structure. It will have its own leadership and will not report to any diocesan bishop. Married Episcopal clergy can continue serving as priests in this new ordinariate.
We are of course still waiting for the Apostolic Constitution which is a papal document that will provide the details of how this ordinariate will operate. There is little doubt that the Vatican will attempt to make the structure as narrow as possible so as not to engender more change to the Roman Rite than it intends. However, even if they are successful in doing so initially, it is likely that changes will occur over time, and the ordinariate structure offers within itself the possibility of some intriguing developments.
Certainly, a major issue for the Church here has to be that of a married clergy. We know that the history of the Church has included a married clergy during much of its 2000 year history. Less known is that the Church currently has married priests. There are Eastern Rite communities in union with Rome that have and have always had married clergy. There are also about 200 former Episcopalian and Lutheran clergy who have been accepted into the Roman Catholic Church in this country and are serving as married clergy today. If indeed there is an influx of Anglican communities in this country and other countries who operate with an existing married clergy it will represent a major change in the operation of the Church. Only time can tell what it means. At a minimum, however, it will provide a place for priests who want to get married to continue their priesthood while remaining faithful to the Church. There could be added pressure if there were significant numbers of priests who wanted to join the new church structure. It could provide an opening to more married priests even within the Roman Rite.
Additionally, it is possible that entire parishes within the Roman Rite might prefer the Anglican or Episcopal tradition and choose to affiliate with an Anglican community. It actually provides the opportunity for some of the diversity I have been speaking about in earlier blogs. Movement between the Roman Rite and this new ordinariate could provide choices that would make it possible for Catholic and Episcopal communities to adapt religious and liturgical practices to fit the worshipping needs of their community. While it is certainly not simple, you could almost choose what liturgical tradition you wanted to join. Those who prefer a return to a Mass closer to the traditional Latin Mass might be able to do that while allowing other catholic communities the option of maintaining and even updating further the Mass as it is currently offered in Churches around the country.
Let's take a look at some of the real negatives to what Rome has decided to do. These negatives exist both within and outside the Church. From within the Church one has to ask why we can reward outsiders with special privleges and yet have nothing to offer our own people. Marriage is permitted for clergy coming into the Church, but our own clergy, some of whom have served the Church faithfully for many years, are not permitted any options and are cast aside and turned away if they have chosen to enter the married state.
Of even greater concern is what it tells us about how the institutional church continues to operate. The Church essentially snubs its nose at the Anglican community and its leadership and provides a haven for any disaffected members. It has basically set out to raid another denomination. Specifically, the Anglican community is a denomination with which Rome has carried out good faith ecumenical dialogue seeking greater understanding and unity. Never mind what this recent decision means for the larger goal of working together as fellow Christians to respect and encourage one another in the faith. It is also striking that the Church found no way to help protect young boys from being molested by its own clergy, but when it came to gathering new converts and perhaps additional resources, church buildings etc, suddenly the Vatican was able to find creative and progressive means to enable something in its own self interest to proceed. Even worse it appears that communities are being rewarded specifically because of their stance on gay marriage and women priests. Trampling on the civil rights of others is not a particularly good way to enhance one's own image of a community of the Gospel.
On balance then this move by Rome is a difficult one to characterize. It is troubling to see the Church move in opportunistic fashion to lay claim to members of a collegial community. Boldly intruding on the internal matters of an ecclesial group with which we have developed cooperative relationships seems shameful in the extreme. It also reflects that continuing clerical imperialism that lets one know that the Church need not abide by what might be considered ordinary rules of decorum and courtesy. Yet, perhaps this may be a case out of which good may come from evil. While we await the details of the new structure, it seems likely that in one way or another the Church may have embarked on a course that will significantly alter its celibate clergy whether that was its original intention or not.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Women in the Church (First in A Series of Blog Entries on Church Related Issues)
A number of reports are currently surfacing on the status of women and American Society. Time magazine's current cover story and Maria Shriver's report for the Center for American Progress are two examples. I wanted to focus more specifically on where women stand within the Roman Catholic religious tradition.
Women religious have always had an active and influential role in the Church. Most of us older Catholics were taught by the nuns at some point in our lives. We often made fun of them and stories abound about how they rapped students' knuckles with rulers etc. Still there is no question that they had enormous influence in the development of generations of Catholics. Despite their efforts they have been undervalued - typically doing much of the work, but not considered when decisions needed to be made. Nuns always defer to the priest, because what would a woman know anyway. When it came to decision making, policy issues, or religious doctrine, women in the Church simply haven't mattered.
I must confess that in my mind there are also some negatives in giving women a greater role in Church leadership. Women in the Church have tended to promote some of the more excessive devotions bordering on superstition such as novenas, first Friday and First Saturday devotions. Many have also latched on to a rigid anti-abortion stance that leaves no room for accepting the fact that other people of good will may have a different view. Yet women in leadership in the Church have demonstrated wisdom, competence as well as many valuable virtues that some would consider feminine. These virtues which are often missing from our male dominated clergy and could provide a valuable counter balance to the operation of our Church might include gentleness, nurturing, compassion, and more open-mindedness.
Women in the United States continue to have many challenges as is pointed out in the reports on women that are currently emerging. Yet there can be no question that the status of women in our country is at a different place than exists in many other countries in the world including many western countries. Women in the US have achieved a level of equality and acceptance that is probably unique. The vast majority of Americans including men now believe that women can do essentially anything men can do and have a right to do it. Basically, it is discrimination pure and simple to say that women are not permitted to exercise certain functions. The denial of priesthood to women is essentially unamerican.
According to Time's "What Women want Now" almost 40% 0f women in the US are now the primary bread winners in the family. Eight in 10 respondents say that mothers are just as productive at work as fathers or childless workers. Husbands and wives negotiate family policies as to who does what to keep the family going according to 84% of those polled. Women serve as financial planners in 64% of homes, and as family accountants in 71% of families. Women also make 75% of the buying decisions. Again, women are clearly in a different place in American society than just about any other country. and what might be customary in other parts of the world does not work for American society. We need a church that is sensitive to the needs of women and the entire Catholic community in the US right now. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter often cites the universality of the Church as a major reason why what Americans want cannot be the norm for Church action. It is time, however, for the US church to quit being denied what it needs to satisfy what might work for other countries in other parts of the world.
Biblical arguments are of course put forward as to why women cannot be ordained priests. A look at scripture tells us that womens' heads should be covered in church. It tells us that women should be obedient to their husbands. Clearly neither of these edicts of Paul are in effect today, and almost all would agree that these kinds of statements are conditioned by the mores of the time in which they were writtten. The notion that we should be held to such standards makes little sense.
The main argument put forward to rule out women priests is that all the Apostles were men. The tradition of the Church rules out the ordination of women. Yet there is clear evidence that women at least served as deacons in the early church, as well as in other positions of authority. Some scholars would go further and put forth evidence of female priests. The truth is it doesn't matter. There is nothing in the new testament that prohibits the ordination of women and the time has come. If Mary can be the Mother of God, surely a woman can preside at the Eucharist. The only impediment really is a 'good old boys network' in Rome who are set in their ways, don't understand societal changes and just like things the way they are - that's not good enough.
To be fair, women certainly have grown in stature in our Church particularly in our country. We do have female theologians, we even have female parish administrators, directors of religious education etc. But if there ever was a glass ceiling it exists in the Church. We are told the Church can't move cause much of the world is not ready for a greater role for women. Yet why should the western world, especially the United States, be prohibited from fulfilling its spiritual needs because others are not ready? We need more diversity in our Church and if countries make different choices why is that a problem?
So what happens now? The times cry out for change. The ranks of the clergy are thinning and are not being replenished with enough young priests. More and more often the faithful will be without access to the sacraments due to a lack of priests. The ongoing sex abuse crisis demands seeking alternatives to the current system.
Many Church issues are interrelated. What prevents us from moving ahead on women's issues is often embedded in church structure. The way decisions are made impacts our ability to make progress. No matter what large percentages of clergy and laity alike in Des Moines might feel, not only are they unempowered to make decisions regarding their needs, there is no forum for them to even voice their concerns. In fact if they should express their concerns, they may well be punished for having the temerity to speak up. That is why I wish to work on a series of articles on church related issues to illustrate how they are interelated and demand forceful action on the part of the Church, meaning Church as the people of God.
Women religious have always had an active and influential role in the Church. Most of us older Catholics were taught by the nuns at some point in our lives. We often made fun of them and stories abound about how they rapped students' knuckles with rulers etc. Still there is no question that they had enormous influence in the development of generations of Catholics. Despite their efforts they have been undervalued - typically doing much of the work, but not considered when decisions needed to be made. Nuns always defer to the priest, because what would a woman know anyway. When it came to decision making, policy issues, or religious doctrine, women in the Church simply haven't mattered.
I must confess that in my mind there are also some negatives in giving women a greater role in Church leadership. Women in the Church have tended to promote some of the more excessive devotions bordering on superstition such as novenas, first Friday and First Saturday devotions. Many have also latched on to a rigid anti-abortion stance that leaves no room for accepting the fact that other people of good will may have a different view. Yet women in leadership in the Church have demonstrated wisdom, competence as well as many valuable virtues that some would consider feminine. These virtues which are often missing from our male dominated clergy and could provide a valuable counter balance to the operation of our Church might include gentleness, nurturing, compassion, and more open-mindedness.
Women in the United States continue to have many challenges as is pointed out in the reports on women that are currently emerging. Yet there can be no question that the status of women in our country is at a different place than exists in many other countries in the world including many western countries. Women in the US have achieved a level of equality and acceptance that is probably unique. The vast majority of Americans including men now believe that women can do essentially anything men can do and have a right to do it. Basically, it is discrimination pure and simple to say that women are not permitted to exercise certain functions. The denial of priesthood to women is essentially unamerican.
According to Time's "What Women want Now" almost 40% 0f women in the US are now the primary bread winners in the family. Eight in 10 respondents say that mothers are just as productive at work as fathers or childless workers. Husbands and wives negotiate family policies as to who does what to keep the family going according to 84% of those polled. Women serve as financial planners in 64% of homes, and as family accountants in 71% of families. Women also make 75% of the buying decisions. Again, women are clearly in a different place in American society than just about any other country. and what might be customary in other parts of the world does not work for American society. We need a church that is sensitive to the needs of women and the entire Catholic community in the US right now. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter often cites the universality of the Church as a major reason why what Americans want cannot be the norm for Church action. It is time, however, for the US church to quit being denied what it needs to satisfy what might work for other countries in other parts of the world.
Biblical arguments are of course put forward as to why women cannot be ordained priests. A look at scripture tells us that womens' heads should be covered in church. It tells us that women should be obedient to their husbands. Clearly neither of these edicts of Paul are in effect today, and almost all would agree that these kinds of statements are conditioned by the mores of the time in which they were writtten. The notion that we should be held to such standards makes little sense.
The main argument put forward to rule out women priests is that all the Apostles were men. The tradition of the Church rules out the ordination of women. Yet there is clear evidence that women at least served as deacons in the early church, as well as in other positions of authority. Some scholars would go further and put forth evidence of female priests. The truth is it doesn't matter. There is nothing in the new testament that prohibits the ordination of women and the time has come. If Mary can be the Mother of God, surely a woman can preside at the Eucharist. The only impediment really is a 'good old boys network' in Rome who are set in their ways, don't understand societal changes and just like things the way they are - that's not good enough.
To be fair, women certainly have grown in stature in our Church particularly in our country. We do have female theologians, we even have female parish administrators, directors of religious education etc. But if there ever was a glass ceiling it exists in the Church. We are told the Church can't move cause much of the world is not ready for a greater role for women. Yet why should the western world, especially the United States, be prohibited from fulfilling its spiritual needs because others are not ready? We need more diversity in our Church and if countries make different choices why is that a problem?
So what happens now? The times cry out for change. The ranks of the clergy are thinning and are not being replenished with enough young priests. More and more often the faithful will be without access to the sacraments due to a lack of priests. The ongoing sex abuse crisis demands seeking alternatives to the current system.
Many Church issues are interrelated. What prevents us from moving ahead on women's issues is often embedded in church structure. The way decisions are made impacts our ability to make progress. No matter what large percentages of clergy and laity alike in Des Moines might feel, not only are they unempowered to make decisions regarding their needs, there is no forum for them to even voice their concerns. In fact if they should express their concerns, they may well be punished for having the temerity to speak up. That is why I wish to work on a series of articles on church related issues to illustrate how they are interelated and demand forceful action on the part of the Church, meaning Church as the people of God.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Our Neighbor to the North
It seems a good time to share some reflections from my recent trip to Canada. First of all, the major issues of the day all seem to be in transition. Although pundits are more than willing to declare failure on everything from health care to Afghanistan, the reality is that the verdict is out and will remain so until these issues play themselves out over time. Also it was a very special trip that deserves some space on this blog.
My wife and I just spent the better part of two weeks driving around eastern Canada. Our visit included Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, and a ski resort in central Ontario. I might add that though we did no skiing we were able to see the beautiful countryside via their ski lift. The fall foilage was splendid, the people were extremely friendly, and the visit offered an opportunity to explore some interesting aspects of our neighbor to the north.
One interesting note is that the headline the day we arrived in Canada was about Roman Catholic Bishop Raymond Lahey of Nova Scotia, who had been arrested in Ottowa for having been found with pornography on his laptop computer. It turns out that Bishop Lahey had just recently been involved in negotiating a sex abuse settlement with a former altar boy in his diocese. Catholics appeared to be outraged, in some cases pointing out that celibacy hsd never worked, is not natural, and mandatory celibacy should be ended. Catholic Bishops for their part seemed to be saying that the answer is simply to ordain holier men to the priesthood.
I thought this story illustrated a couple of important points. It is not only the United States that has such problems, though perhaps our free press tends to give more extensive coverage to such stories. Human nature doesn't really change from place to place, and the Church still doesn't get it. Business as usual continues to be the heirarchical mantra, but this approach will catch up to the Church at some point.
My second reflection has as its focus relationships or interactions between French Canadians and those who speak only English. Many, including those in Ontario, told us that people in Quebec either do not want to or are unable to speak English, and with no knowledge of French we would have difficulty there. This proved not to be true. Everyone we spoke to in Quebec was most polite and helpful. Everyone spoke English to us as soon as they realized we did not know French. Upon discussion one person did tell us they have to speak English on their job, perhaps suggesting some reluctance on her part, but she was fluent in English and was very pleasant in our interactions.
What was interesting was that a number of people we spoke to in Ottawa had never been to French Canada and seemed to have little interest in going there, almost as if it was a separate country and they were quite happy where they were. On the other hand, a number of people in Quebec who spoke English told us they had gone to the Toronto area to study and learn their English. Admittedly these are very superficial observations on the topic but it does seem like the relationships involved are somewhat intriguing and it would be interesting to know more.
Finally, we also had a few, though certainly incomplete conversations regarding health care. Basically, there was clearly an acknowledgement of the fact that the taxes in Canada were considerably higher than here. I did not get the impression that anyone was particularly happy with that fact. Many said they would come to the "states" to make certain purchases. At the same time everyone seemed to accept their health care system as necessary and an important part of their lives. They receive their medical card at birth, and it seems it is pretty much impossible for them to conceive of their lives without this health care coverage. Many wondered how folks can survive without coverage in this country, for example, wondering what would happen to a young girl who is pregnant and had no insurance. For my part I can only say that I had an encounter with their health care system while on my trip and found all the health care officials who treated me to be kind, efficient, and competent.
The bottom line is that I just completed a truly memorable vacation in Canada. I have just touched the surface on a number of intriguing issues, but I would certainly be pleased to pursue any of them in much greater depth. In any case, our trip exceeded all expectations and I have nothing, nor do I have any desire to say anything bad about our neighbor to the north.
My wife and I just spent the better part of two weeks driving around eastern Canada. Our visit included Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, and a ski resort in central Ontario. I might add that though we did no skiing we were able to see the beautiful countryside via their ski lift. The fall foilage was splendid, the people were extremely friendly, and the visit offered an opportunity to explore some interesting aspects of our neighbor to the north.
One interesting note is that the headline the day we arrived in Canada was about Roman Catholic Bishop Raymond Lahey of Nova Scotia, who had been arrested in Ottowa for having been found with pornography on his laptop computer. It turns out that Bishop Lahey had just recently been involved in negotiating a sex abuse settlement with a former altar boy in his diocese. Catholics appeared to be outraged, in some cases pointing out that celibacy hsd never worked, is not natural, and mandatory celibacy should be ended. Catholic Bishops for their part seemed to be saying that the answer is simply to ordain holier men to the priesthood.
I thought this story illustrated a couple of important points. It is not only the United States that has such problems, though perhaps our free press tends to give more extensive coverage to such stories. Human nature doesn't really change from place to place, and the Church still doesn't get it. Business as usual continues to be the heirarchical mantra, but this approach will catch up to the Church at some point.
My second reflection has as its focus relationships or interactions between French Canadians and those who speak only English. Many, including those in Ontario, told us that people in Quebec either do not want to or are unable to speak English, and with no knowledge of French we would have difficulty there. This proved not to be true. Everyone we spoke to in Quebec was most polite and helpful. Everyone spoke English to us as soon as they realized we did not know French. Upon discussion one person did tell us they have to speak English on their job, perhaps suggesting some reluctance on her part, but she was fluent in English and was very pleasant in our interactions.
What was interesting was that a number of people we spoke to in Ottawa had never been to French Canada and seemed to have little interest in going there, almost as if it was a separate country and they were quite happy where they were. On the other hand, a number of people in Quebec who spoke English told us they had gone to the Toronto area to study and learn their English. Admittedly these are very superficial observations on the topic but it does seem like the relationships involved are somewhat intriguing and it would be interesting to know more.
Finally, we also had a few, though certainly incomplete conversations regarding health care. Basically, there was clearly an acknowledgement of the fact that the taxes in Canada were considerably higher than here. I did not get the impression that anyone was particularly happy with that fact. Many said they would come to the "states" to make certain purchases. At the same time everyone seemed to accept their health care system as necessary and an important part of their lives. They receive their medical card at birth, and it seems it is pretty much impossible for them to conceive of their lives without this health care coverage. Many wondered how folks can survive without coverage in this country, for example, wondering what would happen to a young girl who is pregnant and had no insurance. For my part I can only say that I had an encounter with their health care system while on my trip and found all the health care officials who treated me to be kind, efficient, and competent.
The bottom line is that I just completed a truly memorable vacation in Canada. I have just touched the surface on a number of intriguing issues, but I would certainly be pleased to pursue any of them in much greater depth. In any case, our trip exceeded all expectations and I have nothing, nor do I have any desire to say anything bad about our neighbor to the north.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Politics and Education
On Wednesday, September 23, the Baltimore Sun reported the results of the recent Maryland High School Assessment Tests that are now required for graduation. It turns out that out of a graduating class of 62,000 students only 11 students were denied graduation because of the High School Assessments. In Baltimore City where everyone feared large numbers of students would fail to graduate, not a single student was denied graduation due to these tests. A few thousand students across the state completed special graduation projects in lieu of the tests, and some were given waivers or special certificates rather than actual diplomas. Still, it is clear that students in the state of Maryland were impressively successful in negotiating Maryland's High School Assesssments (HSA's)
Maryland introduced these HSA's several years ago. Passing rates were quite low with Baltimore City in particular having huge failure rates. The State of Maryland wanted to require these tests for graduation, but the requirement was delayed for a number of years because of fears that large numbers of students would fail to graduate and parents would be outraged. There was also concern about what it would mean if large numbers of students lacking high school diplomas were dumped on society.
So it seems that everyone would now be happy. Students have been successful in passing the tests, and parents have been able to enjoy seeing their beaming children walk across the stage. Apparently that is not the case. The high pass rate has generated a huge controversy throughout the state. The test must be too easy. The tests must be made more rigorous. Even the Baltimore Sun is already opining that more difficult questions need to be included on the exam.
The HSA's test minimum skills in English, Algebra, Government, and Biology. They are not college entrance exams. They attempt to prevent the awarding of a diploma to students who lack the most basic skills that society believes students should have to be considered a high school graduate. By and large the idea is to assure local employers that if they hire one of our graduates, they are hiring a young person who has the basic english and math skills an employer would expect of a new hire.
The history of such tests illustrates some of the problems that are inherent in this kind of endeavor. Baltimore City was a leader in the development of minimal requirements which began with proficiency tests in the early 1970's. The state of Maryland copied and subsumed Baltimore's tests into functional reding and math tests some years later. In every case history has repeated itself. Initially large numbers failed the tests and over time it became a routine activity that students negotiated successfully in one way or another. This is an extremely important point, but no one seems interested in focusing on it. The pattern keeps repeating itself, but what does it mean.
Are teachers teaching to the test? Are students over time getting used to the expectations of a particular test? Is there actually improved instruction and learning going on? What have we really learned and gained by introducing such a requirement?
The answer to the first two questions is a qualified yes. Teachers are not teaching the questions and answers that students will see on the actual tests themselves. They are however, pursuing a curriculum that focuses heavily on the kinds of information that will be covered on these tests. In many cases their jobs or their tenure depends on making sure that their students are successful. Repetition is also a significant aid to improvement on such exams. We even recommend that students take the college entrance exams several times as a way of improving their scores. So the fact that scores and pass rates improve over time should not be a surprise to anyone.
Are students really learning more? There is not a lot of evidence that this is the case. The problem with focusing so heavily on the content of the tests is that other areas of instruction are likely neglected. If the goal is to ensure that students know the material that is included on a particular exam then perhaps this may be a good way of achieving that goal. The real test may be how students perform in other circumstances apart from the HSA. Do they know the information on the exams only to successfully answer exam questions, or can they use this information in other settings?
Ome of the major difficulties is that everyone has their own expectations for these tests. It may be a good idea to be able to certify that students exiting our secondary schools have attained basic specific knowledge in certain high school subjects. The problem is that school officials, politicians, and the community want so much more. An urban school superintendent wants to demonstrate that his program is creating dramatic improvements in student learning. Politicians want voters to believe they have found a way to fix ongoing problems with our schools. We want to be able to point to a marker that shows how much better our schools have become. Parents want to be able to see and say that their child is developing well.
As with Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon we want all our children to be above average. Neither this exam nor any other is able to provide such information or all the other kinds of results we seek. We have forgotten the reality of what tests are designed to do, and the reality that different tests measure different aspects of the educational process. Perhaps if we could feel good about the fact that across the state are students are mastering important basic concepts, and if we continue to tweak the tests as needed to insure students know those things we feel are most important, we will then be able to move on to effectively confront other educational challenges not met by HSA's.
Maryland introduced these HSA's several years ago. Passing rates were quite low with Baltimore City in particular having huge failure rates. The State of Maryland wanted to require these tests for graduation, but the requirement was delayed for a number of years because of fears that large numbers of students would fail to graduate and parents would be outraged. There was also concern about what it would mean if large numbers of students lacking high school diplomas were dumped on society.
So it seems that everyone would now be happy. Students have been successful in passing the tests, and parents have been able to enjoy seeing their beaming children walk across the stage. Apparently that is not the case. The high pass rate has generated a huge controversy throughout the state. The test must be too easy. The tests must be made more rigorous. Even the Baltimore Sun is already opining that more difficult questions need to be included on the exam.
The HSA's test minimum skills in English, Algebra, Government, and Biology. They are not college entrance exams. They attempt to prevent the awarding of a diploma to students who lack the most basic skills that society believes students should have to be considered a high school graduate. By and large the idea is to assure local employers that if they hire one of our graduates, they are hiring a young person who has the basic english and math skills an employer would expect of a new hire.
The history of such tests illustrates some of the problems that are inherent in this kind of endeavor. Baltimore City was a leader in the development of minimal requirements which began with proficiency tests in the early 1970's. The state of Maryland copied and subsumed Baltimore's tests into functional reding and math tests some years later. In every case history has repeated itself. Initially large numbers failed the tests and over time it became a routine activity that students negotiated successfully in one way or another. This is an extremely important point, but no one seems interested in focusing on it. The pattern keeps repeating itself, but what does it mean.
Are teachers teaching to the test? Are students over time getting used to the expectations of a particular test? Is there actually improved instruction and learning going on? What have we really learned and gained by introducing such a requirement?
The answer to the first two questions is a qualified yes. Teachers are not teaching the questions and answers that students will see on the actual tests themselves. They are however, pursuing a curriculum that focuses heavily on the kinds of information that will be covered on these tests. In many cases their jobs or their tenure depends on making sure that their students are successful. Repetition is also a significant aid to improvement on such exams. We even recommend that students take the college entrance exams several times as a way of improving their scores. So the fact that scores and pass rates improve over time should not be a surprise to anyone.
Are students really learning more? There is not a lot of evidence that this is the case. The problem with focusing so heavily on the content of the tests is that other areas of instruction are likely neglected. If the goal is to ensure that students know the material that is included on a particular exam then perhaps this may be a good way of achieving that goal. The real test may be how students perform in other circumstances apart from the HSA. Do they know the information on the exams only to successfully answer exam questions, or can they use this information in other settings?
Ome of the major difficulties is that everyone has their own expectations for these tests. It may be a good idea to be able to certify that students exiting our secondary schools have attained basic specific knowledge in certain high school subjects. The problem is that school officials, politicians, and the community want so much more. An urban school superintendent wants to demonstrate that his program is creating dramatic improvements in student learning. Politicians want voters to believe they have found a way to fix ongoing problems with our schools. We want to be able to point to a marker that shows how much better our schools have become. Parents want to be able to see and say that their child is developing well.
As with Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon we want all our children to be above average. Neither this exam nor any other is able to provide such information or all the other kinds of results we seek. We have forgotten the reality of what tests are designed to do, and the reality that different tests measure different aspects of the educational process. Perhaps if we could feel good about the fact that across the state are students are mastering important basic concepts, and if we continue to tweak the tests as needed to insure students know those things we feel are most important, we will then be able to move on to effectively confront other educational challenges not met by HSA's.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Liturgical Reform
The on-line edition of the National Catholic Reporter highlights reports of impending liturgical changes coming from the Vatican. Officials in Rome deny changes are coming and note that this is not the time for change considering that a new Missal is in process at this point. These denials seem to support the notion that changes are probably coming, but perhaps not for awhile. Some of the changes mentioned include an elimination of communion in the hand and having the priest turning around to face the wall. I wonder if Jesus turned his back to his apostles during the last supper.
Change that we know is definitely coming is a new missal which will go back to using more stilted English. Probably the most jarring for the people in the pews will be a return to the response of 'And with your spirit', when the priest says 'the Lord be with you'. Let me say here and now that I will continue to respond 'and with you' as I have been. Yes you heard it here. My big rebellion against the Church is in place. I can see the Vatican quaking in its boots already. Mind you, I won't be saying it loudly or holding up any signs, but let it be known that this is one Catholic who stands up for his beliefs.
Herein lies the problem with what are essentially ongoing reforms of the reform of the liturgy. None of the changes in themselves represent a big deal. To complain vociferously about any of these changes make one appear small and overly concerned about trivial issues when there are so many more important issues to contemplate. Such a reality makes it easy for the Vatican to little by little reverse the reforms that were put in place by the Second Vatican Council.
The truth is it really doesn't make much difference. When the new reforms were instituted in the 60's there was great optimism that the power of the liturgy would transform all of us into much better Catholics and Christians. There is little evidence of that. Traditionalists believe that making the liturgy more 'sacred' will instill greater reverence and thus holiness in the people of God. They too are wrong. I can assure you that I served many private Latin Masses for priests during my years in the seminary. Many of these Masses were completed in about 10 minutes. Prayers like the Gloria and the Creed were recited in seconds. It was precisely this kind of rote recitation of prayers not understood that led to the liturgical reforms in the first place.
The truth is, though we believe in "ex opere operato" (the power of the liturgy to be effective in itself) it actually has limited impact on parishoners regardless of its format. People in the pews do not easily connect with the Sunday worship so it is difficult to understand how separating them even more from what's going on will improve the situation. The only liturgies that I ever felt had a significant impact on the participants were very small group liturgies such as a family mass around the dining room table with a beloved priest presiding. Of course, such services would now be considered totally out of bounds.
As much as I hate to admit it though, I believe traditionalists are correct. In the forseeable future we will likely be returning to a eucharistic celebration much closer to the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass. Where I believe the traditionalists are mistaken, however, is in the belief that this return to something akin to the old Latin Mass will be any more permanent than the Vatican II changes. No doubt the reform of the reforms will stay in place for perhaps 50 to 100 years, but at some point people are going to insist on being more a part of their Sunday worship. Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, altar girls and the like will be reinstituted.
The point that is being missed, just as it was during Vatican II, is that one size does not fit all. Just as some people love contemporary Masses and others find them terribly jarring, more variety needs to be provided. Our job as Church is to provide the kinds of worship that people can relate too. The availability of the Tridentine Mass in the Baltimore Archdiocese is a part of that. It might be instructive to note, however, that there has been no real clamor from the people to expand the latin mass offerings.
Finally, if people want more traditional devotions such as forty hours or perpetual adoration they should be available. I always loved 40 hour devotions growing up, even though it now seems to me to be pretty suspect from a theological perspective. There is no evidence Jesus instituted the Eucharist so that we could gaze at a jewel laden monstrance. But if people find meaning in such services there is no reason they shouldn't be available. More progressive forms of worship also need to be available. Again, as Church we need to provide for the worship needs of the entire community. At some point, I believe we will learn the importance of providing modalities by which all of us can best meet God and connect with our spiritual dimension. Clearly the robotic and perfunctory universal performance of poorly understood ritual cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of all of today's Catholics.
Change that we know is definitely coming is a new missal which will go back to using more stilted English. Probably the most jarring for the people in the pews will be a return to the response of 'And with your spirit', when the priest says 'the Lord be with you'. Let me say here and now that I will continue to respond 'and with you' as I have been. Yes you heard it here. My big rebellion against the Church is in place. I can see the Vatican quaking in its boots already. Mind you, I won't be saying it loudly or holding up any signs, but let it be known that this is one Catholic who stands up for his beliefs.
Herein lies the problem with what are essentially ongoing reforms of the reform of the liturgy. None of the changes in themselves represent a big deal. To complain vociferously about any of these changes make one appear small and overly concerned about trivial issues when there are so many more important issues to contemplate. Such a reality makes it easy for the Vatican to little by little reverse the reforms that were put in place by the Second Vatican Council.
The truth is it really doesn't make much difference. When the new reforms were instituted in the 60's there was great optimism that the power of the liturgy would transform all of us into much better Catholics and Christians. There is little evidence of that. Traditionalists believe that making the liturgy more 'sacred' will instill greater reverence and thus holiness in the people of God. They too are wrong. I can assure you that I served many private Latin Masses for priests during my years in the seminary. Many of these Masses were completed in about 10 minutes. Prayers like the Gloria and the Creed were recited in seconds. It was precisely this kind of rote recitation of prayers not understood that led to the liturgical reforms in the first place.
The truth is, though we believe in "ex opere operato" (the power of the liturgy to be effective in itself) it actually has limited impact on parishoners regardless of its format. People in the pews do not easily connect with the Sunday worship so it is difficult to understand how separating them even more from what's going on will improve the situation. The only liturgies that I ever felt had a significant impact on the participants were very small group liturgies such as a family mass around the dining room table with a beloved priest presiding. Of course, such services would now be considered totally out of bounds.
As much as I hate to admit it though, I believe traditionalists are correct. In the forseeable future we will likely be returning to a eucharistic celebration much closer to the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass. Where I believe the traditionalists are mistaken, however, is in the belief that this return to something akin to the old Latin Mass will be any more permanent than the Vatican II changes. No doubt the reform of the reforms will stay in place for perhaps 50 to 100 years, but at some point people are going to insist on being more a part of their Sunday worship. Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, altar girls and the like will be reinstituted.
The point that is being missed, just as it was during Vatican II, is that one size does not fit all. Just as some people love contemporary Masses and others find them terribly jarring, more variety needs to be provided. Our job as Church is to provide the kinds of worship that people can relate too. The availability of the Tridentine Mass in the Baltimore Archdiocese is a part of that. It might be instructive to note, however, that there has been no real clamor from the people to expand the latin mass offerings.
Finally, if people want more traditional devotions such as forty hours or perpetual adoration they should be available. I always loved 40 hour devotions growing up, even though it now seems to me to be pretty suspect from a theological perspective. There is no evidence Jesus instituted the Eucharist so that we could gaze at a jewel laden monstrance. But if people find meaning in such services there is no reason they shouldn't be available. More progressive forms of worship also need to be available. Again, as Church we need to provide for the worship needs of the entire community. At some point, I believe we will learn the importance of providing modalities by which all of us can best meet God and connect with our spiritual dimension. Clearly the robotic and perfunctory universal performance of poorly understood ritual cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of all of today's Catholics.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Losing an Election
I know what it means to lose an election. I have a great deal of experience in that regard. My first vote for president was in 1964. I voted for Barry Goldwater. If you don't know who he is it may be because there never was a President Goldwater. In the ensuing years I voted for such household names as Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and my favorite, John Anderson. If you need to look him up check out the election of 1980. In fact in a total of 12 presidential contests I voted for exactly 3 successful presidential candidates.
For most people this is probably not a major catastrophe. Most of us fulfill our democratic duty and vote in presidential elections. We pay enough attention to choose the person we believe is the best candidate. If that candidate wins we are happy and if he loses we may be sad for a day or two. As my faithful Republican Dad always said, "No matter who wins, I will have to get up tomorrow and go to work". For a vocal and perhaps growing minority however, elections have begun to affect us at the very core of our existence.
For me, elections really began to matter in 1980. Everyone loved Ronald Reagan and he had certainly been one of my favorite movie actors. I was really troubled, however, by the direction of his administration. I simply could not understand why he appointed a Secretary of Labor who was aginst labor. Why did he choose an environmental leader who was anti-environment? Also, why was the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare seeking to abolish the office he led? President Reagan's policies seemed designed to hurt poor people and increase the gap in our country between rich and poor.
My point is that losing elections began to have an impact on who I was. I became disillusioned, depressed, began to question myself, and yes, became angry. I won't even begin to get into the Bush/Gore debacle of 2000. I might add that even though I voted for President Obama I was also disappointed for some time that my preferred candidate Hillary Clinton was defeated. What is important here is that I believe what is going on among the opponents of Barack Obama today is that they are having difficulty with losing the election.
Some of the almost bizarre actions and accusations coming from the anti-Obama forces reflect this inability to accept the election results. The absurdly contradictory cries of socialist, communist, and Nazi are relevant examples. The questions about Obama's birth certificate, as well as continued insistence on the existence of death panels in health care reform suggest such people are angry that their candidate lost. They have perhaps begun to believe that their candidate is entitled to victory and anything short of that is so unacceptable that it must be overturned.
We hear cries of secession and states refusing to accept any health care bill that may be enacted. Folks are buying guns and establishing new militias to protect themselves from 'something'. The incredulous outcry over the President speaking to school children suggests a refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. These erstwhile patriots seem to believe that allegiance to their country involves somehow destroying the President of that country. In the recent address to a joint session of congress we saw that these attitudes can emerge even from those who are supposed to be part of the government apparatus itself. The outburst from congressman Joe Wilson reflects this deep seated anger that could threaten even the veneer of civility needed to operate our government on a day to day basis.
I am not at all sure what solutions can be offered to end this stalemate. The fact that this group represents a rather small fraction of the electorate is not particularly helpful. In our modern technological society it is clear that a small fringe group can exercize inordinate power and dramatically impact the day's events. Yet I do believe it is time for the most extreme in this group to step back, reflect, and as patriots give some thought to the future of our country. As the President has said repeatedly, he will entertain thoughtful, serious proposals from anyone at any time. I recommend that we all dial back the rhetoric, force ourselves to put together cogent arguments for or against major issues, and attempt to influence the debate in ways that are appropriate to the democratic process. If it is not clear what might be appropriate, let me just say that bringing guns to rallies, and shouting down elected officials to prevent them from speaking are not appropriate.
Let me finally say as one who knows what it feels like to lose an election that really matters, it is helpful to take a longer perspective. This really is a great country and it has survived many crises. One administration follows another, and amazingly the country tends not to fall apart in 4 to 8 years. That's one reason this country has always had the good sense to change parties every eight years or so. Again my Dad used to say, "it's time to give the other guys a chance". That might be good advice for those who seem to be having so much trouble with the new guy. Despite my concerns, our country survived the Reagan years and even the last eight years of George W. Bush. This country will also survive the eight years of the Obama administration, so calm down.
My advice would be if you want to be back in power in eight years, demonstrate that you have something positive to offer to the policy debate. Forego the rancor, the wild and inaccurate statements, and personal animosity. We still are all Americans and while we will not always agree we all love our country. It was my son who insisted, when I began to have my doubts about George Bush, that he was not evil. President Bush was trying to do what he thought was right for our country. We should accept that fact as true for every president and administration before we begin to formulate our legitimate policy criticisms.
For most people this is probably not a major catastrophe. Most of us fulfill our democratic duty and vote in presidential elections. We pay enough attention to choose the person we believe is the best candidate. If that candidate wins we are happy and if he loses we may be sad for a day or two. As my faithful Republican Dad always said, "No matter who wins, I will have to get up tomorrow and go to work". For a vocal and perhaps growing minority however, elections have begun to affect us at the very core of our existence.
For me, elections really began to matter in 1980. Everyone loved Ronald Reagan and he had certainly been one of my favorite movie actors. I was really troubled, however, by the direction of his administration. I simply could not understand why he appointed a Secretary of Labor who was aginst labor. Why did he choose an environmental leader who was anti-environment? Also, why was the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare seeking to abolish the office he led? President Reagan's policies seemed designed to hurt poor people and increase the gap in our country between rich and poor.
My point is that losing elections began to have an impact on who I was. I became disillusioned, depressed, began to question myself, and yes, became angry. I won't even begin to get into the Bush/Gore debacle of 2000. I might add that even though I voted for President Obama I was also disappointed for some time that my preferred candidate Hillary Clinton was defeated. What is important here is that I believe what is going on among the opponents of Barack Obama today is that they are having difficulty with losing the election.
Some of the almost bizarre actions and accusations coming from the anti-Obama forces reflect this inability to accept the election results. The absurdly contradictory cries of socialist, communist, and Nazi are relevant examples. The questions about Obama's birth certificate, as well as continued insistence on the existence of death panels in health care reform suggest such people are angry that their candidate lost. They have perhaps begun to believe that their candidate is entitled to victory and anything short of that is so unacceptable that it must be overturned.
We hear cries of secession and states refusing to accept any health care bill that may be enacted. Folks are buying guns and establishing new militias to protect themselves from 'something'. The incredulous outcry over the President speaking to school children suggests a refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. These erstwhile patriots seem to believe that allegiance to their country involves somehow destroying the President of that country. In the recent address to a joint session of congress we saw that these attitudes can emerge even from those who are supposed to be part of the government apparatus itself. The outburst from congressman Joe Wilson reflects this deep seated anger that could threaten even the veneer of civility needed to operate our government on a day to day basis.
I am not at all sure what solutions can be offered to end this stalemate. The fact that this group represents a rather small fraction of the electorate is not particularly helpful. In our modern technological society it is clear that a small fringe group can exercize inordinate power and dramatically impact the day's events. Yet I do believe it is time for the most extreme in this group to step back, reflect, and as patriots give some thought to the future of our country. As the President has said repeatedly, he will entertain thoughtful, serious proposals from anyone at any time. I recommend that we all dial back the rhetoric, force ourselves to put together cogent arguments for or against major issues, and attempt to influence the debate in ways that are appropriate to the democratic process. If it is not clear what might be appropriate, let me just say that bringing guns to rallies, and shouting down elected officials to prevent them from speaking are not appropriate.
Let me finally say as one who knows what it feels like to lose an election that really matters, it is helpful to take a longer perspective. This really is a great country and it has survived many crises. One administration follows another, and amazingly the country tends not to fall apart in 4 to 8 years. That's one reason this country has always had the good sense to change parties every eight years or so. Again my Dad used to say, "it's time to give the other guys a chance". That might be good advice for those who seem to be having so much trouble with the new guy. Despite my concerns, our country survived the Reagan years and even the last eight years of George W. Bush. This country will also survive the eight years of the Obama administration, so calm down.
My advice would be if you want to be back in power in eight years, demonstrate that you have something positive to offer to the policy debate. Forego the rancor, the wild and inaccurate statements, and personal animosity. We still are all Americans and while we will not always agree we all love our country. It was my son who insisted, when I began to have my doubts about George Bush, that he was not evil. President Bush was trying to do what he thought was right for our country. We should accept that fact as true for every president and administration before we begin to formulate our legitimate policy criticisms.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Living Gospel Values
The Funeral Mass of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy offers another opportunity to explore what it means to be Catholic and/or Christian in 2009. I intend no defense or elucidation of the life of Senator Kennedy. Those who know him well have been expounding on every conceivable aspect of his life. I do, however, wonder about some comments I have heard. One priest commented that he had prayed for Senator Kennedy at Mass the day after he died and was excoriated by a member of his flock for the sacrilegious act of praying for such a man. I would like to believe that this does not represent an acceptable attitude of a Catholic/and or Christian in our country today.
The central core of the funeral mass was the Gospel taken from Matthew 25. I must confess this passage has always been at the center of what I believed being Catholic and Christian was all about. Jesus describes the final judgement at the end of the world. He gathers to himself those who saw him hungry and fed him, thirsty and gave him drink, without clothes and clothed him etc. Those who did not do these things for the least among us were denied heaven. We tend to gloss over such biblical passages because we know that we all fall short in this realm. I know I certainly do. We learn that being Christian is really hard. Maybe that's why we concentrate on following rules and adopting a rigid orthodoxy of belief rather than focusing on how we live our lives and treat others each day.
We know that the greatest commandment is love of God and the second is love of neighbor. We also know that we have been told to judge not, lest we be judged. We need to be very careful about condemning others. I saw nowhere in Jesus words that in order to gain heaven you had to adhere to a prescribed set of dicta. In fact Jesus argument with the pharisees was all about keeping the finer points of the Mosaic Law but failing in the more important area of living good and upright lives.
These Gospel values provide the impetus for the social teachings of the Church which were also much in evidence in the recent Kennedy rituals. Pope Benedict XVI just finished a great encyclical focusing on these social teachings. Earlier he penned encyclicals on the virtues of love and on hope. He understands the Church and every Christian has a mission to reach out to those around us in need with meaningful responses to make things better. He also demonstrated these gospel values by responding with compassion and charity to Senator Kennedy's letter to him requesting his prayers. In doing so he again provides a great example of how we need to treat one another.
Another theme on display at the funeral mass was the Church's attitude towards redemption. Again Jesus said he came to save sinners. The prodigal son story reminds us of God's love for each of us and his desire to bring us into his care. We have become too caught up in castigating all those who may see things differently. As difficult as it may be for some of us to accept, forgiveness and reconciliation are things that all of us need, not just those who disagree with us. Again in Matthew 7Jesus asks how can I see to remove the speck from my brother's eye if I cannot see to remove the beam in my own eye? The truth is we need to be reconciled to one another. To do that we must first truly listen to the other, then force ourselves to understand his/her point of view, and finally be able to see how the image of God is present in each of those around us, even those we find difficult to love.
The central core of the funeral mass was the Gospel taken from Matthew 25. I must confess this passage has always been at the center of what I believed being Catholic and Christian was all about. Jesus describes the final judgement at the end of the world. He gathers to himself those who saw him hungry and fed him, thirsty and gave him drink, without clothes and clothed him etc. Those who did not do these things for the least among us were denied heaven. We tend to gloss over such biblical passages because we know that we all fall short in this realm. I know I certainly do. We learn that being Christian is really hard. Maybe that's why we concentrate on following rules and adopting a rigid orthodoxy of belief rather than focusing on how we live our lives and treat others each day.
We know that the greatest commandment is love of God and the second is love of neighbor. We also know that we have been told to judge not, lest we be judged. We need to be very careful about condemning others. I saw nowhere in Jesus words that in order to gain heaven you had to adhere to a prescribed set of dicta. In fact Jesus argument with the pharisees was all about keeping the finer points of the Mosaic Law but failing in the more important area of living good and upright lives.
These Gospel values provide the impetus for the social teachings of the Church which were also much in evidence in the recent Kennedy rituals. Pope Benedict XVI just finished a great encyclical focusing on these social teachings. Earlier he penned encyclicals on the virtues of love and on hope. He understands the Church and every Christian has a mission to reach out to those around us in need with meaningful responses to make things better. He also demonstrated these gospel values by responding with compassion and charity to Senator Kennedy's letter to him requesting his prayers. In doing so he again provides a great example of how we need to treat one another.
Another theme on display at the funeral mass was the Church's attitude towards redemption. Again Jesus said he came to save sinners. The prodigal son story reminds us of God's love for each of us and his desire to bring us into his care. We have become too caught up in castigating all those who may see things differently. As difficult as it may be for some of us to accept, forgiveness and reconciliation are things that all of us need, not just those who disagree with us. Again in Matthew 7Jesus asks how can I see to remove the speck from my brother's eye if I cannot see to remove the beam in my own eye? The truth is we need to be reconciled to one another. To do that we must first truly listen to the other, then force ourselves to understand his/her point of view, and finally be able to see how the image of God is present in each of those around us, even those we find difficult to love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
