bearing blog

I have sort of hit a wall trying to decide what to do for Religion in our homeschool this year.

 

All my school-age kids are enrolled in parish religious education, a good program that uses the Faith and Life series. I am confident that the basics are being covered there, but I like to supplement it at home. My second-grader is, of course, preparing for First Confession and First Communion this year, and there’s so much take-home work that we’re not going to do anything “extra” for her, but the others have me flummoxed. Since the “basics” are covered at church, I should have room to get into things that interest them particularly or that develop other skills, but I think I am overthinking it.

When my oldest was nine and ten, I used the Baltimore Catechism as memory work, since I wasn’t doing any other sort of memorization with him. That went really well; he enjoyed the challenge and he’s just the sort of kid who likes questions and answers.

My current almost-10-year-old, however, is not that kind of a kid, and H. (my partner in co-schooling) has been doing poetry memorization with all the four-to-eleven-year-olds. (She divided them up by gender and went with what they responded to. Last year the girls did assorted poetry heavy on the nature themes — my daughter developed a taste for Wordsworth — and the boys learned Robert Hugh Benson’s Old Testament Rhymes.) So there isn’t a memorization-gap that needs to be filled. He is pretty interested in stories of saints (the bloodier the martyrdom, the better) but he doesn’t like to read very much even though he’s quite capable of it — he is plowing through Harry Potter and completely bored with every other book in the Entire World.

I was originally planning to have my history-buff 8th-grader do a survey of the OT but he said he didn’t want to do that this year (even though we spent last year putting it in context with a history of the Jewish people…) and I am trying to be flexible. What he really wanted to do was Church history. But all the good curricula I can find are upper high school. Normally I am cool with putting together my own curricula for things but I am kinda swamped right now and would need a LOT more time for that one. I suppose I could narrow the scope. He is, I think, mainly interested in understanding the story of the Protestant reformation (both German and English flavors) and the Counter-reformation. A commendable goal for an 8th-grader. I don’t know where I would start. Other than assigning him Come Rack, Come Rope!, which is sitting on my shelf waiting for the right moment.

 

Wait, I just now while writing had one idea. Maybe we could use Hilaire Belloc’s The Great Heresies as a sort of “spine” and do a unit on each and attack Church history that way. If you aren’t familiar with this book, it’s a not-very-long one in which Belloc considers in turn Arianism, Islam, Albigensianism, Protestantism (as seen from Europe in the beginning of the 20th century — so the American evangelical flavor is not really represented), and “modernism.” The book has a number of features, though, which make me reluctant to promote Belloc as a particular, central authority. He has an opinion and he is going to give it to you with wit and clarity, which makes him persuasive and fun to read, but… I like my history resources to have a more neutral tone unless I am either (a) ready to endorse the author’s entire attitude as exactly right or (b) illustrating one point of view among several.

 

(And no, I am not saying that I teach that all points of view are equal, but it is important to me to convey a strong impression that multiple points of view exist about historical events — i.e., one should never take it for granted that there is One Acceptable Interpretation of Events — and that reasonable, well-meaning people can hold to different interpretations.)

I have thought about using the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply for a jumping-off point of family discussion — me, my 13- and 10-year-olds, my husband from time to time. Not from the very beginning, but specifically the third section, which is about living the Christian life. Just sit down a couple of times a week with a pot of tea, read what it has to say a few questions at a time, talk about why it matters, maybe assign some journal entries or writing assignments. There is definitely something about that which appeals to me — partly because I could maybe manage both boys at once — but it’s so much more spontaneous than I usually roll that I feel uneasy about it. I might find myself brushing it off from week to week because of less time to sit down with that tea. I always get wrapped up in the things to do and write and see and plan that it is very hard for me to just sit down and spend time with the kids. Which maybe is a reason to go ahead and do it. I haven’t been able to find any pre-prepared curricula based off the Compendium (or off of YOUCAT — even though I would rather use the Compendium, anything based on YOUCAT should work too since they have exactly the same structure), which would force me to be much more freewheeling than usual. And it has the disadvantage of not being a response to what either boy suggested he would be interested in studying. Although I could maybe send each one away with different reading to do, tied to what we’re discussing together, but reflecting their individual interest. How did such-and-such a saint Iive out this commandment in a heroic way? How did such-and-such a historical event present particular moral challenges to Christians affected by it?

 

If I don’t come up with anything better, I may have to do it that way, if only because I won’t have time to come up with anything else!

 

From extemporaneous remarks during a catechesis given by Pope Francis on June 17 to the Diocese of Rome.  

I want to tell you something.

In the Gospel there's that beautiful passage that tells us of the shepherd who, on returning to the sheepfold and realizing that a sheep is missing, leaves the 99 and goes to look for it, to look for the one.

But, brothers and sisters, we have one.

It's the 99 who we're missing!

We have to go out, we must go to them!

In this culture—let's face it—we only have one. We are the minority. And do we feel the fervour, the apostolic zeal to go out and find the other 99? This is a big responsibility and we must ask the Lord for the grace of generosity and the courage and the patience to go out, to go out and proclaim the Gospel.

The catechesis was reportedly inspired by these words from the First Letter of St. Paul to the Romans:  

“For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. … We who were baptized … are not under the law but under grace.” 

I find this alteration fascinating, and not a little unsettling.  Has he turned the Gospel on its head here?  Is this legitimate?  Is it a commentary on the difference between the culture back then and the culture now?  

When I think of the parable of the lost (singular) sheep, I often wonder about the ninety-nine being left without a shepherd.  Are they, in fact, safe in their numbers?  Maybe it's a sort of promise that the ones who stick together in the wilderness will, in fact, be okay, and the Shepherd will look out for the ones who have somehow struck out on their own; we should trust.  I don't know; maybe if I knew more about sheep I'd get it.

 

Matthew's version

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18, the ninety-nine-and-one sheep are identified with "little ones" who, in context, are "those who believe in me" and have "become like little children:"

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.  And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea…

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?  And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish."

It's all stuff about how much God values every individual person, even (especially?) the insignificant or those who choose to make themselves insignificant, and his special care for those that "wander," or sin.  It goes on with advice about dealing with sin and forgiving sinners:  

“If your brother or sister sins,  go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven…

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."

You get the impression that the earthly shepherds' part in going after the one lost sheep has a lot to do with instruction combined with ready forgiveness.

(I confess I'm not sure what Jesus means by "treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."  I assume that the inspired evangelist knew what that meant.  Sounds like a question for a historian.)

Anyway, notice the question that Jesus uses the parable to answer:  "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"  The parable comes late in his answer; after he explains that one must become "little" and "lowly"  to be the greatest, he uses the sheep parable to explain that one individual is very valuable to God.

 

Luke's version

Luke places this parable in an entirely different context.  From Chapter 15:

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus.  But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

Then Jesus told them this parable:  “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?  And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’  I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."

Here the lost sheep parable is an answer to the question the Pharisees and teachers of the law did not ask aloud:  "Why do you welcome sinners and eat with them?"

The lost sheep who is found, who inspires the rejoicing, is "the sinner who repents."  I find it interesting that the Pharisees and teachers of the law only asked about Jesus eating with "sinners,"  but Jesus answered as if the question was "Why do you eat with repentant sinners?"

If they'd asked it that way, they would have seen it was a stupid question.  But maybe not; maybe the Pharisees don't really believe in repentance, so they can't see the difference.

I think this same mistake is often made today.  It's really quite remarkable how many of the interlocutors' questions have turned out to be repeated over the centuries.

The "rejoicing" Jesus identifies is over not sinners, but "sinners who repent;" not lost sheep who remain lost, but lost sheep who are found and carried home.  The ninety-nine sheep left to fend for themselves (or each other, anyway) let us know that even one repentant sinner is tremendously valuable.  It is essentially the same point made in Matthew; but the difference in context — because the parable is in answer to different questions in the two Gospels — gives it a different flavor.  

 

Francis's twist

… So here we are with Francis's "parable," which he turns on its head:  Now the many are missing and the few are faithful.  Now it isn't the shepherd who leaves the faithful to go in search of the lone wanderer — but the few faithful sheep told to disperse courageously "to the outskirts" (Francis's words) where they are to proclaim the Gospel to them.

What's different?

Well, to start with:  In Jesus's version, the shepherd is still present as a walking, talking, human teacher.

In this modern-day version, we have no visible shepherd.  We've been wandering (all together, "found") in the wilderness without him.   (What's he doing?  Off finding lost sheep from the fold and bringing them back one at a time?)

There's a couple of ways we could read this.  One might be to wonder if Francis has ever actually spent any time around sheep, and if this departure from the prepared script were really all that well-considered.  

But giving the man the benefit of the doubt, we could consider it a reminder of the lessons from the original parable, flipped a little bit because of the numbers.

Back then, the "righteous" were (apparently) mainstream and the "sinners" were (apparently) fringe.  Jesus could make the point that a few sinners are at least as valuable as a whole lot of righteous people; that is to say, that value (when it comes to persons) doesn't scale linearly.  

Today (Francis says), sin is mainstream and "those who believe" are fringe.  Depends where in the world you are, okay, but fair enough.  Probably true in Italy.  But maybe when you're a righteous fringe you're especially prone to thinking yourself extra special.  Extra valuable.  The Remnant.  The One Percent.  

Maybe there's a huge temptation to turn inward and cluster into a little protective bunch.  

I don't know.  Do sheep do that?

Anyway, if the lessons of the parable of the sheep (original version) are that

    (1) greatness in heaven belongs to those who become little or insignificant on earth and 

    (2) an individual repentant sinner has inestimable worth, maybe more than a person who doesn't need to repent

then this message of Francis — that we the "found" sheep must go out to bring back the "lost" sheep by proclaiming the Gospel — carries with it a subtext of "do it not as a great person but as an insignificant person, with instruction and ready forgiveness, and acknowledge the potentially  inestimable worth of the sinner you seek to instruct and forgive."

If you're a "found" sheep out in search of a "lost" sheep, then the lost sheep's safe return is perhaps to be treated as if it is more valuable than yours.

Going to the outskirts is not going to be without risk for any of us.

One of the annoying things about first trimester is that it becomes hard to eat vegetables, at exactly the moment when you feel most guilty about having a cruddy diet.

In my normal life, I eat copious quantities of vegetables, like four one-half-cup "servings" at a time, so it's especially noticeable when I switch to a yogurt-and-crackers-based existence.  

I think I solved the problem this week, however.  

Step One:  First, have a gigantic craving for Vietnamese food.  Stop on the way home from the gym and get a double order of imperial egg rolls (the little crispy kind, with rice noodles and pork and shreds of carrot inside, served with syrupy fish sauce with carrot floating in it) and a large order of veggie fried rice with extra veggies.

Step Two:  Eat the egg rolls.  Be immediately blissful, followed shortly thereafter by being immediately sorry.  Unable to face it, stick the fried rice, unopened in its little wax carton, in the fridge for the next day, and stumble up to bed to lie down.

Step Three:  Mix 3/4 cup of fried rice with an entire bag of steamable mixed veggies.  I chose "Asian Medley" but I believe broccoli, carrots, and snap peas would also be nice.

Step Four:  Searching for protein, top with fried egg.  Or possibly handful of cashews.

Step Five:  Sriracha!  And egg yolk all running down into the rice.  And soy sauce.

Now all I need is a steady supply of carryout Vietnamese fried rice.  Unfortunately, I have yet to make it out of a Vietnamese carryout without also the egg rolls.