Poverty Builds Character

Money problems have invaded my normally philosophical mind and taken over as of late. It seems like I worry about money all the time. Now, adding a new expense into the mix, we just sent our oldest son off to college. An already tight family budget has shrunk to ridiculous proportions.

For me, struggles with money can be especially acute because I grew up in fairly affluent circumstances. I often wish that I could provide for my own children a similar lifestyle that I took for granted growing up. As a youth, I went skiing in the Alps and the Rockies, and I never questioned whether my parents would pay for college. Now, as an adult, trips to Alabama and Ohio are budget-busters, and I'm beginning to see parents paying for college as just another mistake coming out of the sixties.

My wife and I have had more than a few arguments about paying for college over the years. She sees college as the student's responsibility, and I have seen college as largely the parents'. Like usual, I have resisted her viewpoint and learned the hard way that she was right. Aptly, our eldest son seems to have settled on a mid-ground between my wife's position and mine. To his credit, he has earned several academic scholarships through his university. But, partly due to his expectation that we would help, he didn't apply for additional scholarships or awards. For us, the bottom line is as follows: according to student aid, with six kids on a mental health income our total expected family contribution is $0.00. (Who am I to question the Federal Government?) Reality check! I am not my father. I do not make a six-figure income. I cannot afford elaborate ski trips, and I cannot afford to send my children to college. We will manage, somehow. But from this point forward, if my kids want to go to college, they have to hit the books and study, research educational institutions and opportunities, and apply for independent scholarships. Otherwise, they will be forced to accrue excessive student loans that an undergraduate education scarcely justifies. Or they can join the military. Or they can get a job.

Coming from my background, this perspective on paying for college is somewhere between heresy and high-treason. My mother and siblings believe that one should not have more children than one is able to send to college. (Eh Gads! My mother and her other children actually think Margaret Sanger was right!) Often, being a Christian, especially a traditional Catholic, can put a person at odds with parents and siblings. For me, this struggle has been at times quite painful. My family has made some very cold remarks about my large family and small income. Their most frequent criticism is this: "How are you going to afford to send them all to college?"

But, really, what's so wrong with expecting young adults to pay for their university education? Perhaps there is something inherently flawed with seeing higher education as a parental obligation. Financial responsibility begets personal responsibility. If the student is footing the bill—either through scholarships or loans or cash—he or she will be more apt to study hard and to learn something. But if Mom and Dad are paying the tab, the student will be more prone to partying and goofing off. Too many parents today see college as a transition period into adulthood. In reality, most college students are technically adults, 18 years or older. For those who approach college life seriously, college is just another variant—like the military or the workforce—of early adult life.

Unfortunately, very few students coming from public high school will have developed this level of serious scholarship, and if they do, they inevitably miss the most important aspect—the love of learning for the sake of learning. Today, most of the serious students are too busy chasing after grades or careers, and they denigrate the study of wisdom or general knowledge. Instead, they quickly jump on the merry-go-round of technological training and external reward. Whereas in high-school, their reward was good grades, in college their reward is looking forward to a lucrative career. Of course, there is nothing wrong in-itself with a profitable career, but when money is the only goal, there's a problem. The world really doesn't need any more smart accountants, lawyers, doctors, or CEOs. What the world really does need, however, are smart accountants, lawyers, doctors, and CEOs who understand the importance of values and ethics. These future ethical leaders are not simply chasing a carrot and stick, they genuinely love learning about their fields simply for the sake of knowledge.

Lately, I've been really worried about our oldest as he goes off to college, not just the whole finances aspect. I'm especially concerned about whether he had the commitment and perspicacity. Then something happened that gave me tremendous hope. Looking at his dorm room he said, "It's not as small as I remember it." Then he said, "I can't believe I have a whole dresser to myself." Wow! What gratitude! It was rather humbling for me, but all the sudden I saw that all of our struggles have been worthwhile. I've been really hard on myself for now being able to provide a better life for my children, and yet that very lack has helped to shape their characters in a positive way. I compare my oldest to myself at his age, and he outshines me in so many ways. At that age, nothing was ever good enough for me; he's incredibly grateful for a small dorm room. I expected things to be handed to me with little effort on my part; he works harder than I did at this stage. And what I did earn, I quickly squandered on the next amusement; well, not everything is all that different. But he's making progress.

More Than NOT

"Did you sign [name omitted] up for the 'Voluntary Drug Testing' program?" she asked. (My child and her child were both entering 7^th grade.) The other parent was referring to a program that was new to the public school at the time, "Voluntary Drug Testing." Starting in 7^th grade, parents could sign their children up for random urine drug screens and be notified of the results.

"No," I immediately responded. "I'm not going to have my teens subjected to random drug tests or mandatory counseling."

Her chin dropped. "Why not?"

"I've worked as a drug and alcohol counselor," was the only answer I could muster. Sensing that anything I could say would fall on deaf ears, I simply walked away. But a myriad of thoughts occurred to me. "What if the results are positive?" I thought to myself. "Does that then allow the school system to mandate drug and alcohol treatment? And if so, do the parents get a choice in which treatment provider the children see?" Though I am concerned and quite vigilant about ensuring my children do not use drugs or alcohol, in many ways I'm even more frightened of the drug and alcohol treatment industry. Often, especially in relatively mild cases of substance abuse, the status quo of treatment in the United States does more harm than good. Confrontational counseling—now unequivocally debunked (Miller & Rollnick 1991)—continues to be all-too prevalent. Watered-down theology and new-age spirituality are mainstays, and genuine religious practice is discouraged (eg. Bradshaw). No, I'm not about to turn over the decision-making process regarding my children's lives to the school system, police, and treatment industry. For me, declining the "Voluntary Drug Testing" program was an easy decision.

Nonetheless, that other parent's remark did bother me enough to talk about it later with my wife. Her response was something like, "If our teenagers don't think we trust them, then they might as well be doing drugs or whatever else we suspect them of doing!" My wife sees trust as a two-way street. The children need to know that they can rely on us, but we also have to trust them. Of course, we are cautious not to provide too much freedom, and we try to make sure they are not abusing their liberty. For example, when they come home from being out with friends, we talk to them for a few minutes. Occasionally, we may even check their breath. Most importantly, we do this in a nonintrusive, non-accusatory manner. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify."

Recently, during a break, I discussed this "Voluntary Drug Testing" program with my clinical supervisor, a psychologist who specializes in the behavioral treatment of children. He had a different take on the subject. He had two major concerns with a school program such as drug-testing of teens. First, parents who sign up for this program are relinquishing their parental role and allowing the school-system to pick up the responsibility. Second, these parents are assuming that the school-system is competent to take over the task adequately.

My clinical supervisor compared the "Voluntary Drug Testing" to an ecological study on Driver's Education (Robinson 1980). The gist of this study was that, back in the late 1970s, the state of Connecticut cut funding for school-based, Driver's Education. Some of the school districts dropped the program entirely, while other districts chose to continue funding Driver's Education from their own coffers. This led to a natural or ecological way of measuring the effectiveness of Driver's Education, by comparing the motor vehicle accident rates between these large populations of youths, with or without school-based Driver's Education. The results were interesting. The school districts that opted out of the Driver's Education actually had lower accident rates, and the school districts that continued to have Driver's Education had higher rates. Did this mean that the Driver's Education was somehow to blame for the higher accident rate? No, that wasn't the problem. Upon closer analysis, it turns out that the students without the Driver's Education class waited longer to get their licenses and that delay accounted for the change in the accident rate. My clinical supervisor interprets this difference as a change in parental involvement. The parents of students with Driver's Training assumed that their teens were ready to drive. They relinquished the decision of when to allow the teen to get a license over to the driving instructor. The parents of teens without Driver's Training had to make the decision themselves. With first-hand knowledge of their teens' driving performance, they were more apt to delay the licensure, resulting in fewer accidents.

In a similar way, his concern about a "Voluntary Drug Testing" program at the school was that parents would become prone to relinquishing their parental role. These parents might be less apt to keep a watchful eye and nose on their children, and more prone to trust that the school's drug-testing would pick up any misbehaviors. Anyone with a slight knowledge about drug and alcohol screenings knows that these tests can miss a lot. There is no substitute for parental mindfulness. Besides, if circumstances warrant, parents can now purchase these tests over-the-counter at the local pharmacy. At least then, the parents (and students) can decide for themselves how to proceed and not be at the mercy of the school, police, and treatment providers.

This discussion is timely. President Obama's Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, is now talking about expanding the role of public schools. With single parents and dual-career families, parents are time-strapped to provide the kind of activity, supervision, and assistance that many students appear to need. Amazingly (to me, at least), many parents are more than willing to allow the school-system to pick up the slack. Couple this with an elitist attitude toward the families of "at-risk-youth," and many of these programs are likely to get the green light.

Meanwhile, we traditional Catholics and conservative Christians are pulling our children out of the public school system by the droves. It occurs to me: This "Voluntary Drug Testing" program can be seen as a metaphor for public schooling in general. By dropping our children off at the doors of the public school, we parents relinquish control. We leave the education of our progeny to people we barely know. By allowing the school system to educate our children, we trust that they are competent to do so. Yet, in the back of our minds, we know that the United States has one of the worst-ranked educational systems in the civilized world.

As obvious as the homeschooling decision seems to me now, our family has only recently joined the trend of Christians fleeing from the public schools. Five weeks ago, we started homeschooling. As such, I'm still sorting out various aspects of the whole decision. Initially, for me, the decision had a lot to do with setting more rigorous academic standards. This is clearly the case. Our homeschooling program, one of the largest, substantially challenges our 4^th and 10^th graders, who were both superb students in the public schools. In certain skill areas, particularly reading comprehension, they are struggling to pick up the pace in homeschooling. My dear wife—who does the lion's share of the teaching—is finding that homeschooling is more work than we anticipated, but with even greater payoff.

Increasingly, though, I'm becoming aware that academics are not the main reason that we or most parents are homeschooling. Children can learn math, science, and reading all day long, but if they don't develop moral character, all that education is for naught. On the subject of values, however, the public schools are mostly silent. Public schools try to create a values-neutral type of environment, but this approach has three fatal flaws as follows: First, values are the most important thing, and any teacher who tries to be mute on values often leaves out the part that gives the lesson meaning. Second, the goal of being values-neutral is a lie; individual values always seep through. Third, increasingly the public schools do endorse a set of values, those of the liberal-progressive, elitist movement. The result is an education that lacks meaning (eg. few modern children can explain the significance of the Pilgrims), lacks integrity (eg. teens will always pick up on their Health teacher's individual belief about premarital sex) and lacks justice (eg. school boards are increasingly banning books that exert morally upright values while making others of reprehensible value required reading). This situation is extremely dire. There is no way to remain in the school system and work from the inside to make things better. The only solution for Christian parents who are serious about their children's moral education is to withdraw them from public school.

The root of the problem regarding values for public schools is they cannot speak positively about character education. For example, public schools cannot rightly espouse the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. These are positive values, and as such relate to a specific set of religious beliefs. The only things that public schools can talk about in regard to values are feelings and behaviors. All of these behaviors are expressed in the negative. Public schools frequently address the importance of NOT using drugs, NOT getting pregnant, NOT treating homosexuals unkindly, and NOT being bigoted towards other groups of people. Thus, the fruit of modern education is a student who is generally nice and gentle, but otherwise lacks real personality or character. These students know nothing of vice or virtue, but only of avoiding bad behavior and hurting other people's feelings. Morality to these young people is not objective or open to debate, but absolutely subjective. Do not challenge their point of view; their pleasant façade will turn vicious. The best that modern education has to offer—if all of these NOT lessons are heard succinctly—is a two-dimensional person, a paper cut-out. These students cannot develop real moral character, as that requires rigorous thought, self-criticism, and positive moral instruction.

And so, as a newly franchised homeschooling parent, I have little fear that my children will use drugs, get pregnant, treat people unkindly, or behave in bigoted ways. My bigger concern is what types of positive traits they will develop and nurture. I want to raise children of moral character. And that's why I think parents choose homeschooling.

Future Homeschooling Dad—Blogpost #2

Public schools stink! I went to public school and public universities, and it's a miracle I know anything at all. Most of what I know today, I learned on my own or from my family.

Lately, I've been wondering: If my own education was independent and family-based, is that typical of most students? I've concluded the answer is yes. Smart, motivated parents tend to have smart, motivated students. I think that the public schools are secretly aware that children learn more on their own and from their parents than they do at school. Proof? Exhibit A: The increased quantity of homework that today's teachers assign students. This past year, my grade-school children frequently brought home one to two hours of homework per night. With so much homework, I often wondered if my children were learning anything at school. So I asked them, "What did you do at school today?" Frequently, they said they watched Lion King or had a party. Exhibit B: Testing. In our state the tests for No Child Left Behind are called the PSSAs. Our oldest actually quoted one of his teachers saying, "PSSAs are more important than SATs." Translation: the school exists not to educate our children, but to perpetuate itself. The teachers care more about their jobs than our children's futures. As a result, the teachers stress achievement on testing, but rarely educate on topics that might inspire the children. One elementary school teacher informed us that they only cover new material for two months out of the school year. The rest of the year they are reviewing old material and taking standardized tests. I would add watching movies and having parties.

Our family's days of public education are now over, marked by our eldest graduating from public high school last week. Presently, my wife and I spend a lot of time trying to undo the damage a public school education has inflicted upon him. This senior year, the teachers and administration were not focused on academics, but on ritual. Homecoming, painting the field, winter ball, senior trip, student council, band, clubs, sports, prom, and graduation ceremonies were the focus. I initiated contact with both the principal and the vice principal this year. Both times, they changed the subject and discussed one of these rituals. As traditional Catholics, our family gets plenty of ritual at church. We do not appreciate the secular administrators of the public school enforcing empty rituals upon our children. Just because the rest of society is starved of rituals does not mean that we are. We are already full.

Our second son will be entering 10^th grade this coming year. Because of his age, we allowed him to decide whether to stay in public school or to start homeschooling. We were somewhat surprised when he selected homeschooling. His reasons were as follows: 1. He said, "They [we] don't do anything at school." 2. Our school district will still allow him to participate in sports. 3. He can work at his own pace, and he hopes to be attending community college while his peers are still attending high school. He didn't care about all the rituals. He expressed a desire to get away from the social meat grinder. And he felt that most of the teachers are just overgrown kids themselves. Lately, however, he's expressed some misgivings. Partly, he realized how much work homeschooling would be and got cold feet. He's also brought up the number one excuse for not homeschooling, "socialization."

Having raised a child all the way through high school, I'm beginning to wonder what parents and teachers really mean by "socialization." High school, especially today, is brutal. As an adult, if I encounter a boss or coworkers who are unbearable, I can always look for a new job or quit. But public school students seldom have the option of changing schools or quitting. Instead, these students are stuck and need to learn how to brush off criticism. Is this what parents and teachers mean by socialization? No, I don't think so. High schools do not orchestrate social stress in order to develop their students' stress tolerance. High school is not West Point. Rather, high schools go out of their way to eliminate stress, often creating more stress in the process. High school is more like a cult. Today's students learn to socialize in an environment of rigidly defined rules and standards. Does this eliminate bullies and discrimination? No, quite the contrary. Much like my work-experience with bright criminals in jails and prisons, policies that are too rigid allow a few mean-spirited but bright students to figure out ways to bypass the system. Zero tolerance policies are a particularly useful tool to these clever students, who back administrators into a corner and force them to forget common-sense. In this way, a handful of "mean kids" actually run the social milieu of high school.

This is not the type of socialization that most parents desire. Many parents have an idyllic recollection of high school. With the error of euphoric memory, they forget the painful events and only remember the good times. In truth, adolescence is a painful time of life. Being stuck in a box with hundreds of other youths struggling with the same issues does not prepare a young man or woman for adulthood. Teachers and administrators who have likewise not resolved these same issues—hence perpetually in high school—only exacerbate the problem. In reality, socialization begins and ends in the family. Children learn their values from their families, from their primary relationship bonds. At the extreme, children who fail to make those bonds with their primary caregivers may later be unable to form meaningful attachments to other human beings. More commonly, children who do have loving parents but spend much of their lives shuffling from daycare to elementary school to middle-school and to high-school come to identify more with their peers than with their families. Under these circumstances, public schools start taking on characteristics of gangs or cults.

Luckily, our children have done well despite public school. I'm proud of our eldest for graduation. Frankly, academics were a minor part of his accomplishment. Surviving the "mean kids" (and I hope he wasn't one of them) was an amazing feat. He's a better kid than I ever was. If I had to go to public high school today, I doubt I'd graduate. So, with the past twelve years under our belts, for many reasons, my wife and I have decided that public schooling is not worth it. My advice to parents of public school children: Caveat Emptor.

[Future] Homeschooling Dad--Blog Post #1

Dear wife has been wanting to home-school for the past several years. I've resisted. Gradually, though, I have started to see the sense in teaching our children ourselves. Over the past thirteen years, we've had both good and bad experiences with schools, public and private. I don't think the schools or the experiences have changed as much as our perception. For me, the tipping point was this past fall when our four school-aged children got the flu. It turns out that the school district has a rule that, if the children miss three or more days of school, they have to go to the doctor before returning to school. If not, the parents will be fined $350 per child. Well, three of our children met their criteria, so that would have been $1050. The cost to take three well-children to the doctor was $75. Begrudgingly, we took the children to the doctor. The timing was especially difficult as we had just replaced the transmission in the minivan and Christmas was fast approaching. The school, of course, was unswerving, bureaucratic. And we're lucky. We have health insurance. What happens to the families less fortunate than we are? Perhaps typical of men, my opinion about homeschooling didn't change until public schooling hit my pocketbook and I felt the yoke of tyranny.

Since then, nearly every day something has happened that has reaffirmed my opinion about homeschooling. And nearly every day, I've thought about blogging about the most recent episode that tips the scales even more in favor of taking over the education of our children. Dear wife tells me that she, too, wants to blog about homeschooling. I think, though, that she wants to talk in more general terms, most likely in terms of how it relates to Christianity in particular. I'm thinking more about some ongoing, short, anecdotal posts. I think the topic allows plenty of room for discussion and comment.

Today's anecdote relates to our oldest, a high-school senior, and his upcoming college decision. Regarding his status, we have reason to be thankful. He's been accepted to five universities, two public and three private. He's also been offered scholarships by all three private schools, making their cost on par with the state schools. He's leaning toward one of the state schools, my father's alma mater. He's also been accepted to main campus of the university where I got my undergraduate degree, a school with a much venerated octogenarian football coach. But, barring making the decision for him, we're hoping he chooses one of the private schools. We are particularly interested in a Catholic school recommended by the Cardinal Newman Society. The whole college preparation and selection process has been long and exhausting. Our son has been resistant to our guidance, but our perseverance has largely paid off. His grades have improved. He put some effort into his SAT and essay, and now he has options. The problem is that, for the second time, he came home telling us that his high-school teachers were trying to persuade both him and his classmates that public universities are better than private colleges. Not only do I disagree, but they are specifically undermining what we are trying to tell our child. If we were homeschooling, this would not be an issue.

Some people might say, "Sure, that's why you want to home school. You're afraid of having your children exposed to different points of view." This is not a fair criticism. My concern is not exposure to a variety of opinions, but exposure to only one viewpoint—that of mainstream secular society. Furthermore, the prevailing opinion is presented with no room for debate. For example, in regard to the private versus public universities debate, any discussion of character education is off limits. The prevailing wisdom is that character education is the parents' job. The status quo in university education today is a technical education peppered with an indoctrination into the sacred cows of modern academia—feminism, civil rights, and liberalism. Though these issues may be important, they do not fit under the rubric of a traditional liberal arts education because open debate and exploration of the truth are not allowed. Don't believe me? Try going into a Women's Studies class and talking about the drawbacks of daycare. The same can be said, with scarce exceptions, for any of these curricula. Furthermore, the gist of these courses carries forward to the social milieu of these universities, from COED dorms to house parties. On most secular campuses (and, to be fair, in many religious schools), mainstream secular opinion is as sure to mold the student as the Colorado River was once poised to form the Grand Canyon.

Perhaps a specific example would be instructive. I went to a large, state university during the Congressional debate on censorship of rock music. From a 400-level course (which many of the Grad Students in my major audited), I was acquainted with a graduate student who was teaching Freshman English. He asked his students to write a pro/con paper on the music censorship debate. He had around 30 students in his class. Troubled by his students' rigid stance on the topic, he advised that anyone arguing for censorship would be more likely to get an A. His papers came back, and to his great disappointment, all 30 came back against censorship. The point is not that censorship is good, but that these students were incapable of perspective-taking or arguing from another point of view. My point is that these skills are unlikely to be learned at a large university, especially in a predominately technical emphasis of study.

I think the problem of conceptual rigidity and lack of character education is epidemic in our society. I saw an example the other night while flipping through the channels. The show was Private Practice. Yes, of course this was merely a T.V. show, but it was quite believable. In my experience, many doctors really do act like this. In the show, two doctors were struggling with a romantic entanglement because the female doctor's best friend was the male doctor's ex-wife. In other words, these were highly educated people struggling with an issue that they should have understood in 10^th grade--you don't double-cross your friends or throw salt in the wounds of break-up. These were characters with 12+ years of technical higher education, but who lacked a basic education in character development. In my view, all the money in the world, all the high-end jobs, cannot possibly make up for the interpersonal mayhem and emptiness that invariably follow in the wake of spiritual poverty. No, I'm not arguing for Bible-college in lieu of science education, but I am asserting that values are the most important facet at all levels of education, from elementary to post-doctoral.

So, in response to my son's Chemistry teacher: Yes, education is what the student makes of it. But a real education is more than understanding electron configurations, the most important aspects of education are the values the student learns in the process. As Christian parents, it is our responsibility to provide our son with some religious instruction. We would also like him to continue his studies. Personally, I would like it if he chose to take a few courses in religion and ethics while at college. I might recommend that he take a course in Eschatology or Exegesis or Theology. It is my hope that he will develop an understanding of his faith commensurate intellectually with his expertise in his chosen field of study. In retrospect, our eldest may have been best guided in this direction by a course of home-study rather than a public-school education.

It’s the End of the World—I Just Know It…..

"For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, and cast away himself?" Luke 9:25

I know it's a bit belated, but Happy New Year! These past few months, especially since Thanksgiving, have been exhausting, stressing, trying, and rewarding. Precisely because of these difficulties, I've found myself praying more often. I've tried to shift my focus only to Jesus, and, as a result, I've discovered that I'm better equipped to resist the temptations of the Evil One. How blessed I am indeed! Even though I've been dealing with my own sin and reconciliation, life still goes on. I could mention all the mundane things happening in our lives right now, but all pale in comparison to the suffering of the thousands of men, women, and children in Haiti. It is because of them, their agony, and their deaths, that I sat down to write.

Yesterday, a very young woman, probably in her early 20s, knocked on my door. This, in and of itself, is fairly unusual. Normally, people don't knock on our door. They just walk right in. Yea, it's like that. We live in one of those kinds of neighborhoods. Our neighbors are friendly. Crime is mostly non-existent. And well, we don't have that many friends. But after our 3 year old was able to convince me someone was indeed knocking, I headed to the door with the baby on my hip. To my dismay, it was not the Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol. It was instead a very sweet faced, soft spoken Witness. She was amicable and, for a brief moment, I felt bad about making her stand on the porch in the cold to "witness." I've had plenty of experience with the Jehovah's Witnesses. A few of my friends in the past were Witnesses and they have all, in some form or another, attempted to convert me. I learned a long time ago that letting them inside your home, even though one is attempting to be charitable, is a really bad idea. I deal with them the only way I know how—by smiling and then closing the door. I've heard that answering the door naked works, but I'm way too old for that. I suspect, though, that had I answered the door in my birthday suit, my sweet young visitor would have been convinced all the more that I needed Jehovah.

Now I suspect each and every person has been greeted from time to time by a Jehovah's Witness. They have a pretty thorough door to door campaign which I actually admire. The people, though, are pretty annoying. Actually, it's not the people themselves, but the tactics they employ in an effort to convert those of us who are in the dark. For the unaware, these tactics seem fairly harmless. The sweet young lady who came to my door said only a few words to initiate a response. "With the recent news of the devastating earthquake in Haiti, many people are wondering if God cares about them at all." Yep, that's how she started the visit. I had been thinking about it all week. In my sleep, I could hear babies crying out for their mothers. I could hear mothers screaming in anguish over lost children. I could only imagine the horror on people's faces as the buildings they were standing in collapsed under their feet, crushing them to death. I had already spent nights praying for these poor souls, that God would have mercy and lead them to heaven. And my sweet Jehovah's Witness visitor was counting on just that reaction.

For Jehovah's Witnesses, the Apocalypse is just around the corner. In fact, they used to be in the Armageddon prediction business. I remember two times specifically as a young child and teenager hearing about Witnesses who had sold their homes and quit their jobs in anticipation of Armageddon. Catastrophic events like earthquakes, wars, famine, and poverty are just signs to them that Armageddon is that much closer. There are plenty of Christians who would agree with that. I suspect, just as my Witness visitor suggested, that plenty of people both Christian and non-Christian wonder if, in the face of all these tragedies, God cares for us at all. It's because of these very concerns and suspicions that I believe so many people are drawn to, even obsessed, with the Apocalypse and the end of times. Hollywood has caught on and keeps churning out the movies—The Road, 9, The Book of Eli, and 2012 are a handful that have been released in the last year alone. In the face of wars, natural disasters, starvation, poverty, and corrupt governments it's no wonder people across the planet are anxious. The end is always near.

The End has always been near. It would take an entire page to cite the catastrophes, floods, fires, and wars that have taken place throughout recorded history. Major civilizations have collapsed after thousands of years of prosperity. Political systems, empires, and nations all rise and fall. Entire races of people and species of animals have disappeared. There have always been plagues, pestilence, and disease infecting and destroying huge populations of people. And just as surely as all these things were happening, there have always been people trying to explain them, understand them, and cope with them. Some people, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, have also attempted to exploit them. But Jesus addressed catastrophes. He talked to great multitudes about the end times and he revealed to the disciples the Truth about such things. He told them, and they passed along to us, that this world will surely pass away but that our salvation is in Jesus Christ the Lord; our real reward is in Heaven.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, or the Apocalypse, has been the source of great anxiety, superstition, and lies. Jesus warned us about this in the Gospel according to St. Luke. He said that men will be "withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world." As I look around in our society, our political institutions, our schools, and even our churches this attitude seems pervasive. It seems our culture's interest has become particularly heightened in the last few decades. Save Our Earth has become the contemporary mantra. There is no shortage of plans to curb population growth, stave off global warming, protect endangered species, and end the nuclear age. We're fighting wars on terrorism, drugs, poverty, and AIDS. Many people, including plenty of Christians, are preoccupied with this world, fearful of its destruction, and downright angry that it's happening in the first place. They've elevated the world and the things in it above our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The world is their idol. They are looking for salvation in their own achievements, their own finances, and their own wisdom. They are lost and the Devil is delighted.

The world is going to end. Big deal. No one knows when that time will be. No matter how many predictions are made or how many clever ways humans calculate time, nothing changes the fact that only God knows when the last day will be. I imagine most people will face their own personal end long before the world explodes. It's that realization that concerns me a great deal. Although I hope to be a centenarian one day, I cannot be certain that I won't get hit by a car tomorrow, develop cancer, or get crushed in a building during an earthquake. And that's why this whole sad business in Haiti and the Jehovah's Witness bothers me. For almost 2 weeks now, I've prayed for the poor souls of those who have died. I've often wondered what they were doing in those last minutes. Was some mother yelling at her children? Was some young boy grabbing a sweet potato from a neighbor's garden? Was a young unmarried girl slipping off for a romp with her boyfriend? Was grandma praying the Rosary? Was a grown man helping his aged father get dressed for the day? Were their children singing to their younger siblings? Had everyone been to confession that morning? Was anyone pleading with God to save them and give them one more chance to be better and do more for others? I have often imagined that those people are me, taken by surprise that the end is sooner than I planned. Am I ready? Will I be like the thief hanging on Jesus' left, resentful of my temporal punishments, longing for the pleasure of this world, pleading with Christ to "save me" from death? Or will I be like the thief hanging with Jesus on his right, publicly acknowledging my sins, embracing my suffering and trials, and humbly asking for Christ to remember me in His Kingdom?

As I closed the door behind my young Jehovah's Witness visitor, I felt sad. In her current state, anticipating a future living on this earth, denying the existence of an immortal soul, this young girl will probably never be with Christ in Heaven. I prayed that, before she dies, she will find the Truth. I prayed that I will learn how to replace my fear of man with the fear of God. I prayed that I will learn how to love, live, act, and speak the Truth without fearing criticism, ridicule, and scorn from other people. I prayed that I, in my sinfulness, will always remember the Lord and his Truth so that on the last day He will remember me.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly. For as a snare shall it come upon all that sit upon the face of the whole earth. Watch ye, therefore, praying at all times, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are to come, and to stand before the Son of man." Luke 21:33-36


O My Jesus, forgive us our sins; save us from the fires of hell; lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy Mercy. Amen