Franciscan at Home

This is a paid advertisement in the April-June 2019 issue.

Do you want to know the most common questions a youth minister gets asked? “How many kids came to youth group last night?” or “How many kids signed up for the retreat?” Throughout my 10+ years of working as a parish youth minister, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked these questions as a way to evaluate the success of the parish youth program. Now, typically a youth minister responds to the most popular question with the most popular answer, which is “Youth ministry isn’t about numbers; if we change one heart it’s worth it.”

Unfortunately, “nickels and noses” (money and numbers), as Gil Rendle puts it in his book Doing the Math of Mission, are two of the quickest and simplest ways to evaluate ministry. Rendle, however, makes the distinction between counting and measuring, saying that counting is “more about resources and activities than about outcomes,” whereas measuring is about “change… it is more about call, purpose, and possibility.”[1] Whether clearly articulated or not, I don’t think anyone would argue that “change” is what ministry is all about. Conversion, growth, holiness: these are about change, not numbers. Isn’t this what we want to see happening in the lives of our teens?

As our culture degenerates into a post-Christian, secular humanist society, youth ministry becomes more difficult. Some studies show that Gen Z is the “least religious” generation in our country today. Youth ministers have to work harder and be more creative than ever before to connect to students. Students are busier than ever. No longer are Wednesday nights and Sundays reserved for “families and faith”; school and club teams schedule events during these previously hallowed times. Because students are more connected through social media and the internet, why go to youth group when they can watch a well-edited YouTube video or do a simple Google search to find their answers about God?

The Treasure We Give

With the smell of Domino’s pepperoni pizza in the air and the sound of girly giggles that had not quite settled down, a group of 50 or so high school students crowded in small groups on the carpet floor of the parish center on a Sunday night, ready for another catechetical lesson in the St. Gertrude youth ministry program. As a Freshman in high school, I would carpool with friends 40 minutes across town just to be a part of this group. It wasn’t my home parish, but the faith was alive and well at St. Gertrude, and a friend invited me to come and see.

On this particular night, after tummies were filled and icebreakers were done, we sat down for the weekly teaching from our youth minister and the conversation made its way to the topic of sin. The floor was opened for questions, and I raised my hand: “I don’t understand how the original sin of Adam and Eve could be passed down to all of us. It wasn’t our sin.” The youth minister gave an explanation that I’m sure was catechetically sound and thorough, but it didn’t stick. One, then another adult leader chimed in, hoping to explain in a way that would resonate. I felt bad. I knew I was asking a difficult question, and I really didn’t want to embarrass these nice people who welcomed me every week with pizza and side hugs and gave their Sunday nights to help me grow closer to God. Worse, I didn’t want to seem uncool in front of my youth group friends and draw attention to myself. I was starting to say it wasn’t a big deal and I didn’t need any more examples, when someone else spoke up.

It was Fr. Stephen, a Dominican friar who was assigned to the youth group as our chaplain. He had a quiet, kind demeanor; so when he spoke, I listened. He told me that God created humanity perfectly, like a priceless painting. Through sin, that painting was damaged. Parts of it were marred and torn, even missing. That same human nature was passed on to each of us, and while we did not commit the original sin of Adam and Eve, we are the heirs of that broken humanity. He finished explaining that it is Christ who redeems and restores us, once and for all through his death and resurrection, and in our daily living through the sacraments and grace.

It clicked. I understood.

“Parenting was so much easier when I raised my non-existent children hypothetically”.

A friend shared this meme with me a few months ago, and it resonated. Before I became a mom, I had lofty ideas about how much screen time and fresh fruit children should consume. My parent-self, on the other hand, decided screen time doesn’t count if it’s Veggie Tales or Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood; and if this pouch of applesauce says it’s 100% real fruit, then who am I to judge?

Nowhere, however, was my hypothetical parenting more exercised than during my interactions with the parents of my students in sacramental preparation and youth ministry. My twenty-something single-self couldn’t understand why parents didn’t seem to read my clever emails, attend all my parent meetings, and (most importantly) get their children to Mass on Sunday or the Saturday vigil. My thirty-something newly-married-self had animated conversations with my husband after a night of youth ministry about how our kids would be different.

Then we became parents, and every prayer for humility I had ever uttered was answered. Perhaps it was a more unusual adjustment than most, since we became parents through fostering children whose exposure to faith in general, and Catholicism in particular, was limited or even erroneous. However, the more I listen to other parents, the more I learn that, with the task of raising tiny humans (whether they are biological children, step children, grandchildren, adopted children, or foster children), there is a constant sense of inadequacy that creeps into everything we do: the food we serve, the educational methods we select, and the extracurriculars we elect.

However, as a professional lay minister—whose resume includes years of work as a youth minister and as a catechist at a mission in Central America and at parishes in both South Carolina and Florida—I was unprepared for the thoughts that buffeted me when I went from being a catechist “on staff” to being the primary catechist of the children in my home. Over the years, I’ve come to recognize these thoughts for what they are: lies. Sometimes the truth of how God sees us and how the Holy Spirit is moving can be hardest to discern in our own life and in the lives of those closest to us.

Here are some of the negative thoughts that bombard me, especially at frustrating moments when attempting to share the faith within my own home. Perhaps you can relate.

This is a paid advertisement in the January-March 2020 issue. Advertisements should not be viewed as endorsements from the publisher.

En el número anterior de The Catechetical Review,[1] miramos la luz que da la Sagrada Escritura sobre el movimiento transgénero moderno, en particular los relatos de la Creación y de la Ley de Moisés. Ahora queremos ver específicamente algunos textos relevantes de los Evangelios y del Nuevo Testamento en general.

Las enseñanzas más claras de Jesús en cuanto a los asuntos sexuales se dan cuando los fariseos lo presionan sobre el divorcio en Mateo 19,3-6:

Y los fariseos lo pusieron a prueba,

“¿Es lícito al hombre divorciarse de su mujer por cualquier motivo? El respondió: ¿No han leído ustedes que el Creador, desde el principio, los hizo varón y mujer; y que dijo: ‘Por eso, el hombre dejará a su padre y a su madre para unirse a su mujer, y los dos no serán sino una sola carne’? De manera que ya no son dos, sino una sola carne. Que el hombre no separe lo que Dios ha unido.”

Jesús reconoce sólo dos géneros, masculino y femenino, y afirma que han sido creados por el mismo Dios. Además, Jesús afirma que la unión física / sexual entre hombre y mujer en el matrimonio es sagrada, habiendo sido establecida por Dios: “Que el hombre no separe lo que Dios ha unido”. ¿Cómo deriva esto desde Génesis 2,24, que describe a la unión de hombre y mujer utilizando la voz pasiva: “se une a su mujer… se hacen una sola carne”? Jesús interpreta esto de manera autoritativa como un pasivo divino, un recurso literario de la literatura bíblica y judía por el cual el escritor no nombra a Dios por reverencia religiosa, sino que pone en el pasivo a la acción de Dios. Por lo tanto, el significado verdadero de Génesis 2,24 es, “un hombre…es unido por Dios a su mujer… y los dos son hechos una sola carne por Dios”. En relación con la controversia moderna transgénero, por lo tanto, Jesús reconoce solamente dos géneros, e identifica a Dios – no a la sociedad, ni a una construcción social, ni a la psicología humana, etc. – como el Autor y Él que establece esos dos géneros, además de la institución del matrimonio.

La Ley judía, basada en la Ley de Moisés (Lev 18,1-23), rechazó a toda actividad sexual entre personas del mismo género, o entre personas en toda relación fuera del matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, y no existe la menor sugerencia que Jesús haya disputado esa enseñanza. Al contrario, Jesús avanza la enseñanza tradicional judía mucho más lejos, dándole una interiorización radical:

“Habéis oído que se dijo: ‘No cometerás adulterio.’ Pues yo os digo: Todo el que mira a una mujer deseándola, ya cometió adulterio con ella en su corazón. Si, pues, tu ojo derecho te es ocasión de pecado, sácatelo y arrójalo de ti; más te conviene que se pierda uno de tus miembros, que no que todo tu cuerpo sea arrojado a la gehena. Y si tu mano derecha te es ocasión de pecado, córtatela y arrójala de ti; más te conviene que se pierda uno de tus miembros, que no que todo tu cuerpo vaya a la gehena.” (Mateo 5, 27-30).

De acuerdo a la enseñanza de Jesús, entonces, las prohibiciones tradicionales de la inmoralidad sexual aplican también a actos interiores del corazón y de la imaginación. Tener fantasías acerca de actos malos ya de por sí es un acto malo, y el estándar ineludible de la santidad (“sed perfectos como es perfecto vuestro Padre celestial” Mateo 5,48) nos exige, si es necesario, tomar medidas radicales para evitar el pecado – lo cual se expresa de manera hiperbólica con “sácate el ojo” o “córtate la mano”.

Todo esto en realidad no deja espacio para que el discípulo de Cristo se imagine que él o ella tenga algún género distinto del de su sexo biológico. El sentimiento que uno sea de otro género distinto al de su sexo biológico quizás no sea algo que uno mismo elija, pero los discípulos de Cristo tienen que evaluar la verdad de sus sentimientos y sensaciones contra el estándar de la Revelación Divina y de la enseñanza de la Iglesia. La sensación de atracción erótica hacia su compañero de trabajo quizás tampoco sea elegida por uno mismo, y quizás sea “natural” en un sentido biológico. Sin embargo, no justifica que una persona casada actúe sobre esa sensación; más bien, el discipulado cristiano requiere que la persona casada reconozca ese sentido de atracción como un peligro que debe de ser rechazado y suprimido. Del mismo modo, una atracción física hacia un menor de edad quizás no sea algo que uno mismo haya elegido, y quizás sea “natural” biológicamente, sin embargo, el discipulado cristiano nos exige rechazar esos sentimientos y sensaciones, y ni sucumbir a ellos, ni actuar sobre ellos. Del mismo modo, el mero hecho de que tengamos sentimientos o sensaciones hacia el vestirnos, identificarnos o comportarnos de maneras asociados con el sexo opuesto, no justifica el consentir o actuar sobre esas sensaciones. Tenemos que actuar de acuerdo con lo que es verdad acerca de nuestros cuerpos y la verdad revelada en la Escritura.

Jesús enseñaba y llevó a cabo su ministerio entre el pueblo común de Judea a quienes les faltaba la riqueza y el tiempo libre como para consentir formas inusitadas o exóticas de comportamiento sexual. Sin embargo, San Pablo llevó el Evangelio a regiones de gran riqueza en el Imperio Romano, donde formas exóticas de actividad sexual extraconyugal eran comunes y populares. El emperador que condenó a muerte a Pedro y Pablo – Nerón – de hecho, practicaba una forma de transexualismo. Él y su amante de sexo masculino se vestían y se presentaban como jóvenes mujeres cuando mantenían relaciones sexuales juntos. Sin embargo, no era Roma, sino Corinto que tenía la mayor fama por el comportamiento sexual extravagante. El templo de Afrodita (alias Venus), la diosa del sexo, empleaba hasta mil prostitutas sagradas. No es coincidencia que las cartas de San Pablo a los corintos contengan su enseñanza más explícita sobre la sexualidad.

In the previous issue of The Catechetical Review,[1] we took a look at the light Scripture sheds on the modern transgender movement, especially the creation narratives and law of Moses. Now we wish to look specifically at relevant texts from the Gospels and New Testament generally.

Jesus’ clearest teachings on sexual matters arise when the Pharisees press him on divorce in Matthew 19:3-6:

"And Pharisees … tested him, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So, they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Jesus only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and asserts that these have been created by God himself. Further, Jesus asserts that the physical/sexual union between man and wife in marriage is sacred, being established by God: “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” How does he derive this from Genesis 2:24, which describes the union of man and wife using the passive voice: “be united to his wife … the two shall become one flesh”? Jesus authoritatively interprets this as a divine passive, a literary device in biblical and Jewish literature in which the writer does not name God out of religious reverence, but phrases God’s action passively. Thus, the real meaning of Genesis 2:24 is, “a man … is joined by God to his wife … and the two are made one flesh by God.” In relation to modern transgender controversy, therefore, Jesus acknowledges only two sexes, and identifies God—not society, social construct, human psychology, etc.—as the author and establisher of those two sexes, as well as the institution of marriage.

Jewish law, based on the law of Moses (Lev 18:1-23), rejected sexual activity between persons of the same sex, or persons in any relationship outside of the husband-wife relationship, and there is not the slightest hint that Jesus disputed this teaching. On the contrary, Jesus pushes traditional Jewish teaching much farther, radically interiorizing it:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Mt 5:27-30)

According to Jesus’ teaching, then, the traditional prohibitions of sexual immorality apply also to interior acts of the heart and the imagination. Fantasizing about evil acts is already itself an evil act, and the inescapable standard of holiness (“You must be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect” Mt 5:48) requires us, if necessary, to take radical measures to avoid sin—hyperbolically expressed as “plucking out the eye” or “cutting of the hand.”

All of this really leaves no room for the disciple of Christ to imagine that he or she is some other gender than his or her biological sex. The feeling that one is a different gender than one’s biological sex may not be self-chosen, but disciples of Christ have to evaluate the truth of their feelings and sensations against the standard of Divine Revelation and the Church’s teaching. The sensation of erotic attraction towards one’s co-worker may not be self-chosen and may in fact be “natural” in a biological sense. Nonetheless, it does not justify a married person acting on that sensation; rather, Christian discipleship requires the married person to recognize that sense of attraction as a danger that needs to be rejected and suppressed. Likewise, physical attraction toward a legal minor may not be self-chosen and may be biologically “natural”, but Christian discipleship requires us to reject those feelings and sensations, and neither indulge them nor act on them. In the same way, the mere fact that we have feelings or sensations toward dressing, identifying, or behaving in ways associated with the opposite sex, does not justify indulging and acting on those sensations. We have to act in accord with what is true about our bodies and the truth revealed in Scripture.

Jesus taught and ministered mostly among the common people of Judea who lacked the wealth and leisure to indulge in more unusual or exotic forms of sexual behavior. However, St. Paul brought the Gospel to areas of great wealth in the Roman Empire, where exotic forms of extramarital sexual activity were common and popular. The emperor who put Peter and Paul to death—Nero—did, in fact, practice a form of transgenderism. He and his male lover dressed and presented themselves as young women when engaging in sexual activity with each other. Yet it was not Rome but the city of Corinth that was most famed for extravagant sexual behavior. Corinth’s temple of Aphrodite (aka Venus), the goddess of sex, employed as many as a thousand sacred prostitutes. It is not coincidental that Paul’s letters to the Corinthians contain his most explicit teaching on sexuality.

In Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, we are taught that “all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity” (40). If wit and brevity are more your speed, perhaps Mother Angelica said it better: “if you’re breathing and you’ve got two legs, you’re called to holiness.”[1] This is an important thing for every catechist to remember, especially on days when students seem extra bitter, extra ornery, and extra closed-minded. God still loves each of them profoundly and intimately, and he wants to be in relationship with them.

One of the best ways to steer students in the right direction is to bring them to the Sacrament of Confession. After all, the whole power of this sacrament “consists in restoring us to God’s grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship” (CCC 1468). However, those of us who are parents and teachers—especially of teenagers—know that this sacrament is not as frequently sought out as it ought to be. How can we change that? Here are three brief but hopefully effective strategies to integrating sacramental confession into the life of your high school.

En Christus vivit, el Papa Francisco escribe, “La pastoral juvenil sólo puede ser sinodal”. De hecho, este texto, escrito originalmente en lengua española pone aún más énfasis en la sinodalidad al compararlo con la versión en inglés que dice, “La pastoral juvenil tiene que ser sinodal” (206). ¿Qué quiere decir el Papa Francisco con el término “pastoral juvenil”? Y, ¿qué quiere decir con la expresión “sinodal”?

La “pastoral juvenil” en Christus Vivit

Para muchos entre nosotros, la “pastoral juvenil” se refiere al ministerio con adolescentes, es decir jóvenes que cursan la secundaria o la preparatoria (12-18 años de edad). El Sínodo sobre los Jóvenes, la Fe y el Discernimiento clasifica a un joven como una persona entre 16-30 años de edad, un grupo demográfico que anteriormente fuera clasificado por la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de los Estados Unidos (USCCB) como “joven adulto” (16-39 años de edad).

Esta distinción es importante. Francisco no está sugiriendo que una pastoral con chicos de 14 o 15 años de edad [los de la adolescencia media] debiera de ser sinodal. Propongo el argumento que la naturaleza sinodal de una pastoral con las personas que cursen desde los últimos años de la adolescencia [o adolescencia tardía] hasta finalizar la década de los veinte años es lo que la distingue del tipo de pastoral que requieran los adolescentes.

La pastoral con jóvenes adultos en los Estados Unidos ha sufrido cuando las metodologías efectivas con adolescentes (por lo menos en ciertos contextos) también fueran aplicadas a ese grupo demográfico de mayor edad. Aunque los grupos quizás disten de unos pocos años nada más, están en muy diferentes etapas de desarrollo y viven contextos culturales diferentes.

In Christus Vivit, Pope Francis writes, “Youth ministry has to be synodal” (206). The original Spanish text gives this more emphasis: “it is the only way.” What does Pope Francis mean by “youth ministry” and what does he mean by “synodal”?

“Youth Ministry” in Christus Vivit
For many of us, “youth ministry” refers to ministry with adolescents, either in junior high or high school (12-18 years old). The Synod for Youth, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment classifies a young person as 16-30 years old, an age group that the USCCB had previously defined as “young adult” (16-39 years old).

This distinction is important. Francis is not suggesting that a ministry to 14 to 15-year-olds should be synodal. I would argue that the synodal nature of ministry to those in their late teens and twenties is what distinguishes it from the kind of ministry needed by adolescents.

Ministries with young adults in the United States have suffered when methodologies that were effective with teenagers (at least in certain contexts) were also applied to that older age group. Though the groups may only be a few years apart in age, they are at very different stages of development and live in different cultural contexts.