Monday Morning Catechism: The Precepts of the Church

Because I want to use my blog for catechesis, I'm starting a new semi-regular (read "when I get around to it") feature here at LLATPOH:  Monday Morning Catechism.  Every, or most...maybe several....Mondays I'll have a post covering a specific aspect of the Catholic faith.  For the inaugural MMC, let's cover the Precepts of the Church.

What is a precept?  The dictionary definition of "precept" is "a command or principle intended especially as a general rule of action."  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the precepts of the Church are "obligatory...positive laws" given Catholics by "pastoral authorities...to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor."(CCC 2041).

Let's parse this a little before we move on.  The Catechism tells us in this paragraph that the Precepts are

• Obligatory:  for a Catholic, the Precepts are not optional.  They are binding on us, and are things we must do in order to call ourselves Catholics.
• Positive Laws:  the Precepts are things we must do-not things we should avoid doing.  Too often, the Church is seen by the world as giving people a whole list of things not to do.  It is true, there are negative laws that tell us the things we should avoid to keep from falling into sin.  But in phrasing the Precepts as positive statements, the Church tells us that being a follower of Christ is much more than merely avoiding sin.  It means we're to act.
• The very necessary minimum:  as parents, want to help our children grow into responsible adults.  Part of that process includes giving them chores to do.  Susan and I gave our three chores from the time they were about four years old.  But we did not start out by making them mow the lawn or cook dinner.  They started small, picking up their toys or taking out the trash.  We started with the minimum that was necessary to teach them that everyone had responsibilities in a family to help keep a clean house.  Likewise, through the Precepts, the Church as our loving Mother gives us her children the few things that are essential for us as Catholics.  But essential for what?  What are the precepts minimally necessary for?
• For the growth in love of God and neighbor:  this is the purpose of the Precepts.  They have been provided us by the Church as a sure guide to our growth as followers of Christ.  But the are not to be done merely outwardly;  we can't just go through the motions.  We are to perform these in a "spirit of prayer and moral effort"  so these outward actions can bring about our inward transformation.

So what are the Precepts?  The Catechism lists 5.

1.  Attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation; along with resting from servile labor.  The Catechism explains that this Precept "requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints....by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered."(CCC 2042)  In the United States, the Holy Days of Obligation (aside from Sundays) are:

• December 8--Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception
• December 25--Solemnity of the Nativity (Christmas)
• January 1--Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God
• 40 Days from Easter Sunday, or the nearest Sunday--Solemnity of the Ascension of our Lord
• August 15--Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary
• November 1--Solemnity of All Saints 

As Catholics, to miss attendance at Sunday Mass or a Holy Day of Obligation for any but a serious reasons (such as illness of self or a child) is a mortal sin and should be confessed at the next opportunity.  But even if there is a valid reason, we should strive to meet our obligation.  It may involve extra effort on our part and adjusting our schedule, but such is the importance of Mass is that it's worth it.  Last Sunday is a case in point; we went out to our Suburban and it wouldn't start.  That was it, I thought, we'd miss Mass; but that was okay, after all, because it was not our intention.  But later that afternoon, we borrowed our neighbor's car and went to a Church near us that has a late Sunday afternoon Mass.  

What about "resting from servile labor?"  The Catechism explains this as "resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of those days."  The simplest application of this is to Sunday; simply, we should not work on Sundays and avoid anything that might distract us from honoring God.  But we should also be sure not to apply this legalistically.  (For years we were members of a very conservative Presbyterian church which had a very strict view of Sundays as the Sabbath;  not only was work prohibited, but activities such as going to the pool and playground, shopping, even watching television were not approved.  Reading the bible or discussing the morning sermon were acceptable.  I thank God to have been delivered from this perspective).  But what about Holy Days of Obligation that fall on regular workdays?   That's a difficult question and one each of us needs to work out on our own;  some days I took off of work, but in general I think attendance at Mass (either the day of or on the Vigil) and honoring the day by offering our regular work to the Lord as a way of commemorating is a good approach to take.

2.   Confession at least Once a Year.  This Precept, the Catechism says, "ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of sacrament and reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness"(CCC 2042).  The Council of Trent decreed that Catholics, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year." Remember, one must receive the Eucharist in a state of grace.  "Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession"(CCC 1457).

Of the five, this may be one of the most neglected.  There is more avoidance of this sacrament than any of the others, partly I think because many Catholics have accepted the predominate Protestant ethos in our country that says that it is enough to confess one's sin directly to Jesus;  Jesus, after all, not the priest, forgives sins.  If one is really, really sorry and tells Jesus he's sorry, that is enough.  Well, if that were all that was necessary, then it would (1) not be a sacrament, and (2) not be a precept.  One can say, in fact, after Baptism and the Eucharist, Confession is the most important sacrament.

How important?  So important that Jesus himself told St. Maria Faustina (as recorded in her Diary):

Write, speak of My mercy. Tell souls where they are to look for solace; that is, in the Tribunal of Mercy. There the greatest miracles take place [and] are incessantly repeated. To avail oneself of this miracle, it is not necessary to go on a great pilgrimage or to carry out some external ceremony; it suffices to come with faith to the feet of My representative and to reveal to him one's misery, and the miracle of Divine Mercy will be fully demonstrated. Were a soul like a decaying corpse so that from a human standpoint, there would be no [hope of ] restoration and everything would already be lost, it is not so with God. The miracle of Divine Mercy restores that soul in full. Oh, how miserable are those who do not take advantage of the miracle of God's mercy! You will call out in vain, but it will be too late. (1448)

As I've said in another post ,  my dear daughter Maggie wrote of her first confession on her blog.

Finally, just remember that once a year is a precept;  we should not read this legalistically and decide we only need to go once a year.  I think that if you go less than at least once a month, you're missing innumerable graces.  And these days, who can't use as much grace as possible.

3.  Receive the Eucharist at least once a year, during Easter.  Again, this is the bare minimum for a Catholic;  the once a year reception is closely related to the once-a-year confession.  The assumption is made, I believe, that if you are not regularly receiving the Eucharist, you are not regularly attending Mass;  therefore you are in mortal sin;  therefore you need to go to Confession before receiving the Eucharist at Easter.  But while the Church requires attendance at Mass every Sunday and every Holy Day of Obligation, it does not require reception of the Eucharist;  this is a holdover from earlier times when people received the Eucharist infrequently.  Regular reception of the Eucharist is in fact a relatively recent historical development; so for someone who is a regular Mass attending Catholic, this precept may seem a little odd.  It seems, on the other hand, to give the irregular Catholic a pass in a way.  They can miss every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, go to confession, receive the Eucharist on Easter Sunday, and go merrily along the remaining 364 days of the year.

Again, though, I think we need to look beyond such a narrow and legalistic reading of the precept.  The precept gives no one a pass; a person who misses every Sunday is committing a mortal sin, and unless they are in great health and never leave their house, are constantly endangering their soul.  No one would say an "Easter only Catholic" is in fact a good, or even proper, Catholic.

The precept, as with Confession, serves as a reminder to us of the great importance of the Eucharist--the source and summit of our life.  The Catechism says of reception of the Eucharist that "the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily."  As I have written before, I have received great graces from the daily reception of the Eucharist.  Unless you live in an area without a nearby Catholic Church, I strongly recommend this discipline for the growth of your soul.

4.  Observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.  Such days, the Catechism says, "ensures the times of ascesis [the exercise of self-discipline] and penance which prepares us for the liturgical feasts and helps us to acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart" (CCC 2043).  Since the Second Vatican Council, in the United States the days of abstinence from meat are Ash Wednesday  Fridays during Lent, and on Good Friday; fast days are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.  Traditionally, all Fridays were days of obligatory abstinence from meat;  today, it is not a requirement, but a discipline individual Catholics might choose to adopt. Last year, Cardinal Dolan posted an article on his blog that the restoration of the tradition might help us regain our identity as Catholics.

I must admit, this has been a difficult one for me.  Partly, it's because of the legalism I've encountered concerning it; as an Anglican, one woman I knew adhered strictly to the rules of abstinence (which in the absence of the Pope and real sacraments was all an Anglican had to convince themselves that they were really an truly Catholic) that she didn't think anyone else should have meat either.  When we had a reception on a Friday night at Church, all the dishes were meatless--but we had boiled shrimp and smoked salmon.   Sorry, but there is nothing penitential about shrimp or smoked salmon.  But when done with the right spirit, there is real spiritual benefit.  Symbolically, giving up flesh meat reminds us that our Lord gave up his fleshly body on the Cross for our sins.  It is something that we should somehow remember every Friday of the year;  giving up meat is a relatively easy way to do that.

5.  Help provide the needs of the Church.  Of this, the Catechism says "the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability."(CCC 2043).

When people read this, they immediately jump to giving money.  Of course, this covers the giving of monetary support to the Church.  The question usually asked is, "how much?"  Coming from a Protestant background where tithing was emphasized, that was a question Susan and I had.  So, we did some research and came to an astonishing conclusion:  the Catholic Church does not specify a specific fixed percentage.  Tithing was an Old Testament regulation, one that we are dispensed from under the New Covenant.  But this does not mean we are not to give to the Church;  we are required to, but the amount is left up to us.

But I also think we need to look beyond a narrow and legalistic reading of the Precept.  It does cover monetary giving to our local Parish, but it is not limited to this.  There are a couple of other aspects we should consider.

First, every Parish has needs other than monetary.  For a Parish does not just run on money; it also runs on people.  Men and women are needed to teach children and adults the faith;  servers are needed for the altar; help is needed to maintain the physical plant of the church.  In some Parishes, particularly large and affluent ones, people may actually be a greater need.  When considering the help we can provide, we should look at our time and talents as well as our treasure.

Second, the Church means more than the institution of the Parish.  The Church is the Body of Christ;  each individual person in the pews makes up the Body.  Every person in the Church has a need; it may be monetary, but it could be an intangible.  Perhaps there's a single mom who needs help with her unruly young teenage son; maybe an elderly widow needs some yard work or household repairs done;  maybe a young High School student is struggling in calculus and needs a good grade to get a College Scholarship.  We are so used to thinking about meeting needs through institutions that we forget that as Catholics we are individually called to practice both the corporal and spiritual works of mercy;  in doing so, we are fulfilling this Precept.

I hope that I've shed some light on these 5 Precepts.  Just remember, though, that I'm just a catechist;  I'm not a trained theologian nor am I a priest or deacon.  If you have further questions, please go to your parish priest;  they are there, not just to Sunday Mass, but to provide help in growing in your Catholic faith.

Next week (hopefully):  The Ten Commandments.

 

7 Thoughts on Ayn Rand

Since being named by Mitt Romney as his running mate, Paul Ryan has been roundly criticized for his professed admiration for the works of author Ayn Rand.  While to be expected from the political left and the secularist media, some of the sharpest criticism has come from fellow Catholics.  This criticism is not new; it was made in the letter signed by 90 Georgetown professors and alumni before his April speech:

In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.

Ryan has repeatedly explained his attraction to the works of Rand, and placed it in context.  For example, there was his interview in National Review a few months ago:

" I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young.  I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.”

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says. (emphasis added)

But in spite of this and similar statements, Ryan is still criticized because of his admitted liking of Rand's works and his assigning of her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged to his Congressional staffers and interns.  Most of the criticism is aimed at his specific budget proposals, which are said by critics to reflect more Rand than Aquinas.

Father Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest at Georgetown, told the Huffington Post that Ryan’s views do not reflect the tenets of their shared faith. “I am afraid that Chairman Ryan’s budget reflects the values of his favorite philosopher Ayn Rand rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said. “Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love.”

(In fact, the criticism demonstrates an accepts the Obama Administration's caricature of the Ryan budget proposal as "social Darwinism".)

The criticism of Ryan's liking of Rand has continued, and has grown sharper.  Among Catholic writers in particular, Rand is a particular target (see, for example, the usually thoughtful Mark Shea's comments).  But much of the criticism of Rand is based on a caricature of her thought and writings.  For example, in a Huffington Post article, Professor Charles J. Reid, professor of law at the University of St. Thomas writes of Rand:

Rand is best understood as a faded modern epigone of the social darwinist movements of the latter 19th century. Claiming the mantle of Charles Darwin but drawing the wrong lessons from his work, these pseudo-scientists tried to transfer insights from the workings of biology to social structures. All life, they argued, was a struggle. Man had to compete to live. Nature was "red in tooth and claw," and so also, by extension, were human relations...

Ayn Rand, to her great credit, rejected racism emphatically. But she celebrated much of the rest of the social darwinist creed. There is no room in her work for cooperation, for community, for concern for the less advantaged. The maximization of individual productive capacity, freed of the impediments of state control, is the byword of her philosophy, so-called "Objectivism." The noble entrepreneur, the far-sighted man of wealth and power, the bold individualist who casts off the shackles of the "takers" and the "hangers-on," is the hero of her fiction. Without him, society itself would crumble to dust.

[Ryan's] tepid protest that he reads the Bible and so cannot be a follower of Ayn Rand rings hollow. The record of his public life is that of a man in thrall to a curdled, warped individualism.

What is clear from most of these criticisms is that they are based on either a superficial reading or Rand's works, or no reading of them at all.

Like Ryan, I read Atlas Shrugged in my mid-teens.  I probably have read it through about half a dozen times in the last 30 years.  It, along with the works of Milton Freedman and other free market economists, formed my thoughts concerning the superiority of the market, the danger of socialism and excessive government, and the superiority of the private sector to solve problems of poverty and create a society of freedom and prosperity for all.  But also like Ryan, as a Christian I have rejected Rand's underlying philosophy.

So, how is a Catholic to think about Ayn Rand?  To help, here are 7 thoughts.

--- 1 ---

Regardless of what you may think of her underlying atheism and materialism, you should recognize Ayn Rand as one of the first novelists to write seriously about the evils of totalitarianism.   Unlike many of her critics, Rand saw those evils first hand.  Born in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1905, she was 12 at the time of the Russian Revolution;  when the Bolsheviks took over, they seized her father's drugstore and her family fled to the Crimea.  Along with millions of Russians, Rand suffered through the social and economic upheavals as her homeland slipped into totalitarianism.  She experienced the shortages, the desperation, the deprivation caused by a state controlled economy.  Her first novel, We The Living, was based on her experiences in the Soviet Union and was one the first fictional depictions of life under a communist regime.  These experiences also informed her thinking and views put forward in Atlas Shrugged.  Unfortunately, unlike another witness to the totalitarian horrors of the 20th Century, Blessed John Paul II, she accepted the underlying worldview of the Soviets--materialistic atheism--and said the antidote to totalitarianism was individual self-interest.

--- 2 ---

In spite of what her critics and her acolytes may think, Rand was not primarily a philosopher, nor a n economist; she was a novelist.  While I loved Atlas Shrugged and have read most things she wrote (though for some reason I could never get into The Fountainhead),  I read them as novels.  While I admit in my own youthful agnosticism I found her philosophy attractive (particularly for someone like myself who was a bit of a loner), as a system her philosophy of Objectivism is an odd amalgam of Nietzsche, Aristotle, and pop psychology and does not work in the real world.   Her understanding of free-market economics is not original, but reflects numerous other influences.  Her novels are not blueprints; they are fiction.  Anyone who treats them as anything more is in for a difficult time.

--- 3 ---

Atlas Shrugged is an impressive and expansive novelistic description of what happens when governmental regulation of the economy runs amok.  For me, like for Paul Ryan as I would expect, this  part of the novel had the biggest impact.  The gradual process by which industries were driven into bankruptcy by regulation; the inability of the state to provide goods and services;  the replacement of free exchange and contracts with force and coercion; the take over of industry by the state--Rand touches on all of these points in the novel.  She is particularly effective in describing what happens to a society when individuals are no longer rewarded for their work, but everyone is treated "equal".  Particularly memorable is her description of what happens when the Twenty-First Century Motor Company is managed as a collectivist experiment instead of a business (hint: nothing good).

--- 4 ---

Atlas Shrugged shows what happens when a society rejects God.  This aspect of the novel only struck me recently, surprising considering Rand's atheism.  Rand's atheism, as I understand it, was a general rejection of supernaturalism; she did not consider God important enough to think about.  It's not just her heroes that reject God; He is completely absent.  Both the villains and the heroes operate without reference to God.  With no God, there is no objective standard of morality.  For the villains, what is moral is what they determine is right for the group at the expense of the individual; for the heroes, what is moral is what they determine to be right for the individual at the expense of the group.  Without an objective moral standard (God), they look for another reference.  For Rand, the only proper reference to what is moral is the self-interest of the individual; in the words of John Galt's credo, "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

--- 5 ---

Rand's villains and heroes are mirror images of each other.  That's the best way to understand the characterizations.  The villains and the heroes believe the opposite of the other.  The villains, as mentioned under 4, believe in the collective over the individual; the heroes, the individuals over the collective.  The villains reject the material in favor of the spiritual; the heroes, the spiritual in favor of the material.  The villains have no positive attributes; the heroes no negative attributes.  The heroes are supposed to be noble, and the villains degenerate.  But the heroes themselves are immoral; for example, the adulterous relationship carried on between the two main characters.  Overall, the characters are not "real"; they are caricatures.  This is why ultimately the novel is unsatisfying; the reader cannot relate to the heroes.

--- 6 ---

Aspects of Rand's thought do contradict Church teaching.  Ironically, her basic rejection of collectivist economics does not constitute a rejection of Catholic Teaching, in spite of what "social justice" Catholics contend.  But her radical individualism does.  As the Catechism states,

1879 The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.

Another aspect of Rand's thought that contradicts the Church is her view of the human person.  She clearly sees some people as more worthwhile than others;  the industrialist and the artist have more inherent dignity than the poor or the sick because the former derive their dignity from the fact that they work and product.  This is the opposite of what the  Church teaches:

1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son[1] to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

People who are not producers, or who are not creative, or who are dependent on others because of various limitations are described by Rand as "looters" and "parasites."  The implication is that these people are a drag on the productive members of society. And for Rand, the goal of every individual is their own happiness and fulfillment   Any obstacle to this, any source of suffering is to be removed or avoided.  The logical conclusion is seen in Rand's views on abortion...

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings. ("The Last Survey," The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3.

and birth control ...

The capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional. Nature endows man with a variety of potentials—and it is hismind that must decide which capacities he chooses to exercise, according to his own hierarchy of rational goals and values.

The mere fact that man has the capacity to kill, does not mean that it is his duty to become a murderer; in the same way, the mere fact that man has the capacity to procreate, does not mean that it is his duty to commit spiritual suicide by making procreation his primary goal and turning himself into a stud-farm animal . . . .

To an animal, the rearing of its young is a matter of temporary cycles. To man, it is a lifelong responsibility—a grave responsibility that must not be undertaken causelessly, thoughtlessly or accidentally.

In regard to the moral aspects of birth control, the primary right involved is not the “right” of an unborn child, nor of the family, nor of society, nor of God. The primary right is one which—in today’s public clamor on the subject—few, if any, voices have had the courage to uphold: the right of man and woman to their own life and happiness—the right not to be regarded as the means to any end.

When Ryan says he rejects Rand's philosophy, clearly this is what he is talking about.  Knowing what to accept and what to reject from Rand reveals that he, unlike his critics, is actually familiar with her work and thought.  Those Catholics liberals who accept contraception and abortion in the name of social justice are actually more Randian than Ryan is.  Rand, in fact, would despise Ryan for his Catholicism and his pro-life views.

--- 7 ---

A Catholic can read Rand, but carefully.  This is true of any work of literature.  A Catholic can benefit from a careful, thoughtful reading of even the most anti-Church writing;  even in heresies there is a glimmer of truth.  So a Catholic can read Rand as a critique of collectivist economics (which she intended) and as a critique of atheistic materialism (which she did not).  But they should not accept her philosophy as the be all and end all.  Reading Rand might spark an interest in economics, which should lead a Catholic student to see what the Church says about economics and society, about freedom and liberty, and about the dignity of the human person.   

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Wifey Wednesday: The Four Freedoms Revisited, Part 3--Freedom of Worship

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Proverbs 31:30

This one is ultimately the crux of the matter.  The US  Bishops have called this our “First Freedom,” and it is hands-down the one we seem most in danger of losing at this time in our history.  So we hope and pray and we write our Congressman, but we are still uneasy.  I mean, what if all our efforts fail to work and we ultimately loose our precious freedom to worship as we please?  On the one hand, it seems impossible that that could happen here.  On the other hand, we also know that we have no guarantees. 

 

Fortunately, we will never, ever be dependent on the government for the freedom to teach our children how to worship.  Here’s what they can never take away from us.

• Freedom to Attend Mass.  I read a comment by a priest one time who said that it is not that we have to go to mass, but that we get to go to mass.  This is the lesson we need to teach our children.  The sad truth is that they may someday not live in a country where they get to go to mass.  Let’s not fail to value something until it’s gone.

• Freedom to Pray.  No matter what happens, we can and should always be praying with and for our families.  This can range from a whispered rosary prayed over the head of a nursing baby to father-led dinnertime prayer over the food to the “Thank you, Jesus” uttered reverently when you find a good parking place in a crowded lot.  When our children see and hear us praying like this, they come to understand that talking to God is simply a part of everyday life.

• Freedom to Read the Bible.  When you child sees you reading the Bible, he knows it’s important to you.  When you read the Bible to him, he knows that it’s important to him.

• Freedom to Sing Hymns.  Nothing gets the faith into our hearts like singing the truths of the Bible set to music.  I can testify from personal experience that in my times of deepest sorrow, when I had been crying too hard to read the Bible and was too desperate even to pray, the songs I learned at my father’s knee kept me going and believing that my faith would see me through.

• Freedom to Learn the Catechism.  One of the things that set us apart as Catholics is that we are not just dependent on our own understanding of Scripture to teach us what we believe; we also have all the wisdom of 2000 years of teaching to guide us.  Let’s make sure that our children learn the value of these lessons while they are still young.

• Freedom to Serve Others.  When we work together as a family to serve others in Jesus’ name we are bringing our faith full circle, from teaching to learning to practicing and then back to teaching again.  We are also placing ourselves in the best possible position of being the “good guys” in our society and hopefully showing others that the Freedom of Worship is not just good for us, but that it’s good for everyone.

Bio
Susan Mathis is delighted to be a daughter of the Church, the wife of James and the mother of Chris, Josh and Maggie.  In addition to homeschooling and homemaking, she also blogs for freebooknotes.com.