Of Roles and Responsibilities

In a recent post titled "What is the Purpose of Schools?", I asked whether and to what degree schools should provide social services beyond the education of children. Red Cardigan from And Sometimes Tea offered some to-the-point comments, concluding that "the reality is that if the schools reclaimed the primacy of their educational mission other agencies might have to step up to offer the social services that schools now provide."

I could not help thinking of two passages by the Roman poet Ovid. The first is from his Metamorphoses in which Apollo chides Cupid for going about with a bow and arrow, claiming that a mere boy has no right to the weapons that he, a mature god, carries.

'quid' que 'tibi, lascive puer, cum fortibus armis?'
dixerat: 'ista decent umeros gestamina nostros,
tu face nescio quos esto contentus amores
inritare tua, nec laudes adsere nostras!' (Metamorphoses I.456-457, 461-462)


"What work of yours, you playful boy, to go
About with armor stout and strong?" he said.
Such weapons better grace my arms, but you,
Content yourself to stoke the fires of love
And give up seeking praise more rightly mine." (Translation mine)

Then there is this from the beginning of the Amores in which he pleads playfully with Cupid for forcing him to write love poetry instead of more robust epic. Ovid complains that Cupid has overstepped his bounds and suggests that he has violated the natural order by asking what would happen if other deities switched roles.

quid, si praeripiat flavae Venus arma Minervae,
ventilet accensas flava Minerva faces?
quis probet in silvis Cererem regnare iugosis,
lege pharetratae Virginis arva coli?
crinibus insignem quis acuta cuspide Phoebum
instruat, Aoniam Marte movente lyram? (Amores I.1.7-12)

What then if Venus should the weapons of
Minerva golden snatch away,
Or if Minerva golden should stir up
The torch of love into a blaze?
Who would approve of Ceres reigning o'er
The steep and wooded mountain haunt,
Or farmland tilled according to the law
Of her more suited to the hunt?
And would Apollo of the flowing hair
Learn how to throw the pointed spear?
And would the Grecian lyre plucked by Mars' hand
Bring music pleasing to the ear? (Translation mine)

Ovid's point in each passage is that there are different spheres for each deity, and therefore for each person. By extension I would say that the same applies for our various institutions. As Red Cardigan rightly stated, the educational mission of a school is its primary mission. Yes, it is true, that children who are hungry, ill-clothed, and emotionally crippled do not learn as well as those who do not suffer these all-too-common maladies. Yet it is the primary of mission of parents, whether they wanted to find themselves in the parenting role or not, to see to these things. It is not first, and it is certainly not foremost, the duty of schools, and much less so is it the duty of the state, to attend to such matters. If any institution is to assist here it is the body of Christ, the Church, but then not in the form of mere provision of necessities, although the Church may often and rightly does provide them, but in the form of teaching and guiding parents how to fulfill their God-given roles.

Education is best served, society is best served, and schools are at their best when academic institutions focus exclusively on that which they are designed and equipped to do, which is to instruct and guide the young.

What is the Purpose of Schools?

I ask this question because there are over four hundred closings and delays in the greater Indianapolis area, yet three school districts are in session. At first one might think that a different set of roads serves these districts, roads not filled with snow during the morning drive times, roads not expected to be filled with more snow during the evening drive time during a winter storm so bad it has been dubbed by national media as "Snowmageddon." But no, the same roads that have prompted all other public and private schools to close run through the three districts that have remained open. So what is the reason?

These three districts have the highest percentage of students on free and reduced lunch. In other words, these three districts have a higher degree of poverty and financial need. The rationale is that the students in these districts need at least one warm meal and a few hours of warmth, something they may not get in homes without power and/or parents.

So which is it? Does a school have more of a responsibility to serve a child's food and shelter needs, or his travel safety needs? Assuming that a school is first an educational institution, is it also foremost an educational institution? What roles do providing food, shelter, after school care, and other social services have in a school?

I am genuinely interested in hearing what people have to say on this one.

Socrates, Glaucon, and Health Care

You must read this brilliant satire of the health care debacle at The Catholic Thing. It is written by Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C.

Theodicy, Berkeley, and Plantinga

The son of a friend of mine is a professor of philosophy who published a paper addressing issues of theodicy and the ontology of George Berekely. My friend asked me to summarize his son's paper for him, which I did, and reproduce below.

1. The philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753) wrote a number of works based on a model of the world (technical term: ontology) that, if true, makes the problem of evil difficult to impossible to reconcile with his understanding of God.

2. Berkeley's ontology was immaterialist, which is to say, he believed that all causation is the work of spirits, and in particular, God is the primary, efficient cause of all things. Example: The cause of the red mark on the student's paper is not first and foremost my hand moving the red pen across the page, but God, Who holds all things together.

3. Berkeley's understanding of God was that He is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. God is everywhere, knows everything, can do anything, and always wills what is good.

4. The problem, then, is how to reconcile seemingly needless evil with the existence of such a God. Clearly some evil is necessary for a greater good. When my daughter screams in the doctor's office as Daddy holds her down while a nurse sticks her with an injection of vaccination, she is experiencing an evil, but it is not a needless or gratuitous one. It serves a greater purpose. Yet there is, or at least seems to be, genuinely needless evil, such as a tree falling on a helpless fawn who lies suffering on the floor of the forest for several days before finally dying. If God is as Berkeley understands Him, then God is in the forest, understands the pain of the fawn, and could lift the tree. Yet He does not. This, then, seems inconsistent with one of His qualities. He is either not there (not omnipresent), does not understand what is going on (not omniscient), could not help the fawn (is not omnipotent), or He is all those things, but by willfully choosing to do nothing proves He is not benevolent.

5. This paper's reading of Berkeley is that for Berkeley there would be no way to resolve this. One solution is that Berkeley would have been better adopting a materialist ontology, or model of the world in which "God could, in theory, choose to set the laws of nature into motion then remove himself from being the primary, efficient cause of natural events." (Quandt, 16). In other words, "within a materialist ontology, God could control the laws of nature, yet allow material objects to be the seondary, efficient cause of natural events." (Quandt, 17)

There is a classic solution to the problem of evil, a major event of modern times in that this perennial problem has now been considered closed thanks to the efforts of Notre Dame professor of philosophy, Alvin Plantinga. His book, God, Freedom, and Evil, contains the famous "free will defense." While not strictly a theodicy, it has, at least in philosophical circles, settled the problem outlined above. My summary of Plantinga's argument can be found here. I would also direct anyone who is interested in such things to the Plantinga's seminal talk, "Advice to Christian Philosophers."

Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival

At the suggestion of a fellow blogger, I have joined the group Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival. Although I am not Catholic, just yet, many of the posts here support and advance Catholic teaching. The purpose of this group is to highlight one post from the previous week. And so...

The post from last week that I will highlight is On Not Respecting a Woman's Decision. Yes, it is a provocative title, and chances are, it is not about what you think. Check it out to find out!

On Not Respecting a Woman's Decision

A decision to do a particular thing does not warrant anyone's respect solely on the grounds that it was a woman who made the decision. Then again, respect is not accorded to a decision simply because a man, a child, an elderly person, an Italian, a Christian, or a dog catcher made it, either.

In response to Tim Tebow's pro-life ad that will run during the Super Bowl on Sunday, Planned Parenthood has duped two other high profile athletes into making an ad that runs on YouTube promoting a mother's right to kill her child. I say that Planned Parenthood has duped them into doing this, because I do not want to believe that anyone could be so illogical as to think the script makes any sense.

Says Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner, "I want my daughters to live in a world where everyone's decisions are respected." NFL player Sean James adds, "We're working toward the day when every woman will be valued; where every woman's decision about her health and her family will be trusted and respected."

Really? Do we really want to live in a world where everyone's decisions are respected, including the decision to fly airplanes into buildings, the decision to commit genocide, and the decision to murder? If this is the kind of world that Planned Parenthood really wants, then why has this organization protested the decision of CBS to air the Tebow ad?

And does Mr. James really want to respect a woman's decision about her health and family when that decision jeopardizes her health and family? I would hope that Mr. James would intervene in the life of a loved one who was making self-destructive decisions in her use of alcohol or drugs. Surely he would not sit by and respect what was going on.

So, I repeat. No sane person could ever respect any decision simply on the basis of the gender, age, ethnicity, or any other descriptor of the person making it. A decision can only be respected or rejected based on its merits, and the decision to kill an unborn child can only merit rejection.

They Must Be Joking!

A shocking report has just been released from the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine showing strong evidence for the efficacy of abstinence-only education programs. The AOL article says that "a groundbreaking study found that students who take classes emphasizing abstinence are less likely to have sex than those who take classes teaching safe sex."

In other words, it is groundbreaking news that students learn X in a class that teaches X.

In related news, Commissioner Gordon of the Gotham City Police Department said that his force may have to re-think how they approach criminal rehabilitation. Said Gordon, "If the research on abstinence-only education is accurate, then we may have to re-evaluate our current program of teaching criminals the dangers of a life of crime while educating them in safer, more effective ways to commit crimes, should they choose to do so. Nearly half of those who go through our program continue to commit crimes. It seems, however, that if we taught them how not to commit crimes at all, we would have fewer criminals."

The ripple effect of this new study on abstinence-based education is being felt elsewhere in society. Pastor Fem N. Ist of First Liberal Church of Mainline Theology responded by saying, "While we have always had an open approach at First Church, regularly teaching non-Christian and even anti-Christian truths alongside the Judeo-Christian mytho-construct of the Creator-Redeemer-Sustainer, we have also noticed a precipitous decline in membership. It is possible that we would see more people accepting Christ if we taught only the truths of Christianity." Pastor Ist went on to add that such a change was unlikely to happen at First Church.

Meanwhile, educators are beginning to wonder whether there might be implications for their field as well. Dr. M. Agin Dat of the John Dewey-John Dunphy School of Education observed, "For years we have been training future teachers to present a values-neutral, tolerance-based education to their students. Recent studies, however, have revealed a disturbing trend in American society in which increasing numbers of people are unable even to articulate, much less defend, a coherent position on anything. This has led to the widespread belief that all beliefs believe the same things and that no one is ever wrong. This is beginning to have disastrous consequences in all aspects of society from interpersonal relationships to the criminal justice system to foreign policy. Based on the findings of this new study on abstinence programs, it would seem, however improbable it sounds, that you get what you teach."

Or as Paul put in Galatians 6:7, NIV, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows."

Freedom vs. License

I had an interesting discussion with some people today. The general topic was ethics, and the particular issue was abortion. Several claimed that they were pro-choice while maintaining that abortion is a moral evil. Their position is that it is a moral good to have the freedom to make choices such as whether or not to participate in a moral evil. From this it would seem that we should be legalizing the sale and use of crack cocaine. Surely such a position must lead to anarchy, for if it is a moral good for me to be freed of constraints by which I could not choose one moral evil, then I must be freed from the constraints by which I could not choose any moral evil. Why is a woman's right to choose an abortion more worthy of protection than anyone's right to choose crack?

One person commented that crack users typically bring harm on others, and I countered that those who have abortions do as well, and this naturally led to whether or not a fetus is a person.

What I see in the incoherent position stated above is the result of longstanding confusion of freedom with license. Unrestrained, absolute license must, of necessity, lead to anarchy, which is nothing other than a lack of all governance. Freedom, however, has limits, and both the freedom and its limits serve a great good.

Furthermore, the mad grasp for license goes hand-in-glove with the acquisitive, materialistic society of our times. No sooner has the child unwrapped one gift than he is after the next. The day after Christmas, when most of us received more items than we needed, many were out to use gift money to buy more items. The next and best thing after freedom is not more freedom to the point of unrestrained license. It is the development of freedom and its limits, an ever more thorough understanding and application of both.

Of course, if I am wrong, then might as well legalize crack today.

On Torture

The indefatigable and always to-the-point blogger, Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea, has launched a new blog called Coalition for Clarity. It's purpose is to discuss issues related to torture and to argue against any use of torture for any purpose.

In my life I have gone from being very much a dove regarding issues of war to much more of a hawk. By this I do not mean I am a warmonger, but I have come to see the necessity, this side of heaven, for nations to maintain military forces and to deploy them when necessary. Yes, I do make a distinction between murder on the street and killing in war, and no, there is no contradiction between this position and my unshakable conviction that abortion is always, everywhere, wrong.

So what, then, of torture? Surely there are some instances when, in the interest of national security, it becomes as necessary to torture an enemy for information as it does to deploy military forces against that enemy. So runs a common logic.

Yet there is a difference between two nations going to war against each other, each fully cognizant of what is involved, what is at stake, and both being capable in some measure of taking part in armed conflict. While the two nations need not be equal in their military capability, there is a measure of comparability necessary, else the conflict turns into genocide. To put it in terms of the childhood playground, the fight must be fair.

Even the child on the playground knows that in playing the game "Mercy," when one person has reached his limit of pain and has called out the magic word, the other must immediately relent. A victim of torture cannot fight back. The situation is, by definition, unfair.

So where does that leave us? What if the prisoner in custody has information that could save a nation, information without which the nation and countless souls may come to harm? What if that prisoner's will is so strong that he is able to withstand all morally acceptable techniques to draw that information from him?

I would say that the nation must find another way. It must pray and continue to work every morally acceptable angle possible, but it must stop short of torture. God does not take advantage of His size in dealing with us, sinners all. He has means at His disposal to accomplish any number of tasks, but He does not use them. And if the worst imaginable thing happens, if disaster strikes the nation that failed to obtain the information it needed, then such is the consequence of evil in the world. Until Christ returns, evil, which has in eternity been defeated, yet holds sway, and there are consequences of that evil. Witness only the crucifixion of the incarnate God. And as that moment of all moments has shown us, there is no evil that God cannot turn, ultimately, to good, and it is for this reason that I say torture is never, in any place, for any reason, permissible.

Indiana University Library Honor

Amid the army of trivia clamoring for our attention today, an important piece of news may have escaped your attention. The Indiana University Bloomington Libraries have been recognized by peers as the top university library in the country.

What a wonderful thing is the library! I can only imagine what the library at Alexandria might have been like. Its destruction is one of the great tragedies of history I would like to undue. Nonetheless, I am happy to pass along this library news and proud as punch to say my wife and I are undergraduate alumni of this fine institution!