Do we listen to designers to set our moral compasses? I am glad that some Jesuit priests in Baltimore, Maryland, have a different set of ideas and concepts of teaching youths and reshaping them into gentlemen. While we here in Lancaster, Ohio (and probably many school systems across our entire nation) argue over how to run a school or which curriculum is best or what “new idea” or method of teaching will be best; there is a work of some Catholic Jesuits in Baltimore, Maryland, who are not impressed with such unproven methods.

George F. Will wrote an article, which was a breath of fresh air as he told of the work of those Jesuit priests. In 1997 I wrote an essay calling attention to Wills’ essay, which appeared in the Columbus, Ohio DISPATCH. As I began this reincarnation of my essay I made a brief search through Google and found the school is alive and well. (Links are provided below.)

In that newspaper column of ten years ago, George Will told about some 58 boys coming from 19 zip codes, some of which leave home before 6 a.m., some taking three buses to get to school and then take off for home around 5:15 p.m., with several hours of homework to finish. Forty-nine were African Americans, two Africans, four Hispanic Americans and three Caucasians made up this group of inner-city middle school students. They shake hands with their 31-year old headmaster, the priest and with any other adult in the vestibule looking each in the eye saying, “Good morning.” “Poor enunciation,” George Will says, “is corrected.”

These boys did not come from rich or ideal homes. The technical language describing the academy’s student body is: “adjudicated and at risk youths”. “Forty three of the boys came from homes with at most, one parent…but they all came dressed neatly in the school uniform (white or blue shirt, dark tie, dark slacks, no sneakers, no exceptions) … Graduates went on to some of the area’s best schools.” “Ebonics…was not spoken there,” says George Will.

While some public schools in our nation suffer from lack of voter support because of failed levees, one after another, this unique school proves discipline and authoritarian principles still work. The students do not “run the school or set the standards” at Loyola Academy. Perhaps our public school systems are looking in the wrong places for answers to problems in our schools.

“It is a point David Brooks makes in the then current issue [1997] of “The Public Interest” concerning why religious institutions do better than secular ones at molding character. It is not only that they have a particularly powerful sense of mission, and hence are especially demanding, but also that “they place human life in a transcendent context.” (Emphasis mine, The Wordwright)

Incentives for responsible parenting are effectively set forth in that “men and women…are God’s stewards in the lives of their children, the best pregnancy deterrent may be to inculcate in the heart of each adolescent the belief, that, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit…therefore honor God with your body.”

George Will asked, “What was the significance of Loyola’s little swarm of 58 boys in the larger system of things?” and answered: “Just this! Enough micro solutions and there will be no macro-problems.” “It has been said that whereas religion once was an agency for socializing people by teaching them the seriousness of what were called eternal verities, it has become just another choice of leisure activity. If so, Loyola Academy remains splendidly stuck in the past and determined to remain so.” Oh for some public school boards to adopt such a stand! “New” has not always been better but for some reason our current educational philosophies apparently think “old is out!” Loyola thankfully is proving otherwise.

Loyola Academy teaches their young men that “gratitude is the hallmark of a gentleman.” Their handbook sets as their aims a desire in their students to be “competent men for others.” (Quotes, unless otherwise noted are from Wills’ article.)

The key words are competent men for others! Take care of the small problems and the big problems will take care of themselves. The little details, you know, like treating adults with respect, looking them in the eye and saying, “Good morning”. The little details like opening a door for a lady, and anyone else except yourself. Little things like saying, “Thank you, and please…” The little things like growing up and enjoying childhood and wait until adulthood arrives before trying adult activities. Those whose minds are interested in sales, not building character, design clothes that advertise or invite male interest to view bare navels or tight jeans. Tight fitting, casual attire and revealing clothes are details our public school systems could do something about if they would simply adopt principles Loyola uses to teach their male students.

George Will mentioned that Cal Thomas’ noted: “…that if each of Maryland’s 5,000 places of worship became responsible for ten welfare families, or 37 individuals, all of Maryland’s caseload would be covered.” Once again, may we realize that all of our problems are theological problems – which our beliefs (in God and in spiritual awareness) manifest a moral compass that our hedonistic and humanistic leaders want us to abandon. Abandoning prayers in school, denying the religious influence in the lives of our nation’s forefathers, are all efforts used to re-write history to fit the casual and humanistic lifestyle.

Could it be we are looking to the wrong programs to solve our problems? Maybe we ought to reconsider the Golden Rule? Perhaps we ought to recall the reason behind the Ten Commandments instead of castigating all the “Judge Wrights” in our land and fining those who display the Ten Commandments on their property just because the American Civil Liberties Union finds loopholes enabling them to get their agendas accomplished. Deuteronomy 4:40 states the reason behind the Ten Commandments: “…that it may go well with you…” “Go well?” How about living decent and moral lives? How about living responsible lives? How about being thoughtful men and women? Yes, “go well” instead of “go wrong”.

The Scottish poet, Robert Burns, framed his thoughts about goodness in these words: “Whatever mitigates the woes or increases the happiness of others – this is my criterion of goodness. And whatever injures society at large, or any individual, in it – this is my measure of iniquity.”

Could it be that we are reaping what we have sown?

THE WORDWRIGHT

LINKS about Loyola Academy:
http://www.st-ignatius.net/website/history.html
http://www.st-ignatius.net/website/academy_days.htm

Posted by Bill Venrick at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

MAYBE OLD, BUT STILL TRUE

As one in the Senior Set (actually 65 + 10) it is a common thought those of my age to reminisce, “Old is better.” After looking through one of George F. Will’s books I consider classics. I like reading Will as long as I can keep a dictionary at arm’s reach but there were no big words in the article George Will wrote in “The Morning After” (American Successes and Excesses 1981-1986), specifically the essay entitled, “Movies As Child Abuse”. Copyright 1986, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc., New York.

“Gory is great” – or at least that must be the criteria for many movies, TV or theater because there is so much of it. I have to admit the cowboy shoot-em-ups of the 1940’s were a little on the fake side but how much reality of “blood and guts” do you have to see to be content? When someone is shot today you not only hear the guns (and the impact of the bullet on the victim) you also see the blood from the exiting bullet splatter on the wall or a nearby piece of furniture. The detail editors occasionally “clean it up” by not showing the actual body being shot, but rather showing the blood splattering a mirror near the victim—great work for the gory details without seeing the victim getting shot.

George Will recounted the time he went to see Marathon Man (torture with a dental drill was involved) and he nearly ran from the theater. “The rest of the audience—like most movie audiences, mostly young, was unfazed.” George Will, is no child psychiatrist to my knowledge, but what he wrote deserves the attention of parents: “ The principal worry is not that repeated exposure to depictions of cruelty will make persons act cruelly. Rather, it is that it will produce persons who can respond only to depictions of excess. A generation raised on what are known as ‘slash films’ (Prom Night, Halloween, Friday the Thirteenth, etc.) may become unable to enjoy subtlety, nuance or delicacy. That is, they may be rendered immune to art.”

Be reminded, these quotes and observations are from the writings of George Will in the years 1981-1986. What’s happened since then? Do you remember Columbine High School, near Denver, Colorado, 1999; Heath High School, Paducah, Ky, 1997; Pearl High School, Pearl, Mississippi, 1997; an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., 2006, just to name a few. While these school shootings were going on in the U.S., Canada, Scotland, Sanaa (Yeman), were experiencing similar shootings. Could it be George Will is not only a great essayist but more like a prophet – what is it that drives such killers as we have seen in the last twenty-one years since Will wrote: “The Morning After”. Yes, we’re there (21 years later) and is it really appropriate that we are able to group “successes” with “excesses”? And, has the diet of excesses of gore and bloody details been good for young minds? And how could such an overall exposure to such mindless gore be presented or imbedded into so many minds in so many states and countries in the same period of time -- other than through television, video “games” and theaters — how else? Read George Will’s thoughts for the second time:

“The principal worry is not that repeated exposure to depictions of cruelty will make persons act cruelly. Rather, it is that it will produce persons who can respond only to depictions of excess. A generation raised on what are known as ‘slash films’ (Prom Night, Halloween, Friday the Thirteenth, etc.) may become unable to enjoy subtlety, nuance or delicacy. That is, they may be rendered immune to art.”

And what about a civilized society, respect for others and individual responsibility traded off with such immunity, George? Any questions?

THE WORDWRIGHT

Posted by Bill Venrick at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

RUMINATIONS, Number One

February 2007 marks one year that I have been at this location in cyberspace. It has been a great experience and the feedback has been helpful but I honestly wish more would take the time to use the COMMENTS section. Its not that no comments come in but candidly those who pretend to want to comment are either purveyors of the philosophy that anything goes in life. Since my 17th birthday I have made it a point to believe God has a purpose for our lives and self-gratification is not one of those purposes or virtues. There is nothing wrong with sexuality within marriage, after all, it wasn’t God who was surprised to find that Adam & Eve were naked, it was Adam & Eve, and what they learned from flirting with temptation was just the beginning of becoming wise as the world.

THE WORDWRIGHT is not a pulpit for such purveyors nor is it our intention to sell anything from this website. It is those kinds of comments that come to us – trying to sell pills, propaganda or even get a loan or mortgage. Please, if you like what you read, let us know; if you want to sell something, try the old-fashioned way, pay someone for space and join the commercial world of sales & marketing.

A rumination is one of those words we borrowed from Latin that is used to define the cud that a cow chews. In fact any animal that “chews the cud” (buffalo, goat, deer, camel and antelope for example) has a stomach with four chambers: the rumen, reticulum, omasum and abomasum. It’s quite different from the way humans chew their food; when a cow chews its food and swallows it, in just a few minutes back up comes that food, you can see it come back as a lump sliding up her neck. So with that word picture in mind, the ruminations this web site will be sharing from time to time are just some thoughts that would be advantageous for you to “chew over”, hopefully again and again.

To assist in getting my 2nd year off in words from THE WORDWRIGHT, this entry has just a couple topics you can “chew on” for a while (long or short) and see if you can look at life from a different perspective.

WHERE’S THE FOREST?

No doubt you’ve heard the expression, “I can’t see the forest for the trees.” Why is it we have so much trouble seeing the forest because of the trees? Or maybe you’ve heard “It’s as plain as the nose on your face.” Either expression has to be read with a bit of humor. I have often “lost” something that I was using or looking at just moments before and somehow my concept of what it looks like or perhaps my mind became so occupied with other things that the former object might just as well vanished before my eyes. Usually here of late I have learned if I just quit thinking about it, it appears almost as quick as it disappeared. It was there all the time.

The very things God wants us to do we fail to see because we are so focused on the “spiritual” things of our lives. There are, however, some things that God actually wants us to do! Even a casual reading of the book of Exodus is so detailed you would think it was from a parts list an engineer wrote out. God specifically told men what to include in the tabernacle but it was their job to “go find” or “make” the objects God wanted used for building the tabernacle. Read through the list in Exodus 26th chapter; it took all kinds of people: weavers, rope makers, goldsmiths, silversmiths and foundry craftsmen, just to name a few. But those people had to work with their hands to make something. God didn’t wiggle his nose and the skins of sea cows floated down from the sky—hunters provided the sea cow (manatee or perhaps hippopotamus) and craftsmen who worked with hides dyed them to order.

Where man took the wrong fork in the road was when it comes to “salvation” he felt like it wasn’t right to be “free” so they came up with “things” they had to do, and penance was one such “works”. You can’t win back your favor with God – once He forgives you, forget it. Isn’t that what God does when he “throws it back over his shoulder into the sea”? It’s a forgotten or done deal – once God forgives us he does not bring it up again (like humans often do). (Read Isaiah 38:17b; Psalms 32:1-2)

“Chew it over” again and again. When our sins are forgiven, they’re forgiven – and God throws this plus in, He forgets them as well!

THE WORDWRIGHT

++++++++++++++++++

EVER DO SOMETHING YOU REGRETTED?

C. W. Gusewelle, a columnist writer who used to write for The Columbus Dispatch, once told the story of how, as a youth, he shot a crow on impulse, for a lark, and when the crow only suffered a broken wing, C. W. took it home and tried to mend it but the bird died.

Gusewelle learned as a young man, his first lesson in “the certainty of consequences.” Even after thirty years he remembered the exact spot where he buried that crow. He wrote, “The past never can be entirely put behind. What we have done is part of what we are, and will be with us always – as this memory has stayed with me.” C. W. Gusewelle then asked his readers, “How much accumulated weight of deliberate or careless wrong is one prepared to carry? In the end, that calculation governs the decisions of a life.”
Credit: The Columbus Dispatch, August 27,1996.

THE WORDWRIGHT

Posted by Bill Venrick at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)