All posts by A M

Uncategorized

Little Red Riding Hood

Leave a comment

Lesson One

Children’s Literature, Ideology and Society

You may like to begin with a two-minute meditation.

  1. Find your relaxed position and, breathing normally, close your eyes and welcome into your space each person you’ve met during this course in Day #1 – your co-participants, your facilitator/moderator and all the people you may have spoken to or included in your assignments.
  2. Continuing to breathe, extend your attention to parents and grandparents around the world – those who right now are getting ready to tell their children or grandchildren a story, a fairy tale, a legend.
  3. On the next in-breath draw into the circle all women and men who are making courageous and creative efforts to heal and transform our world. Extend gratitude and support to each one.
  4. And, finally notice yourself: your presence, your participation, your giftedness and courage are essential to this circle. Draw the healing breath into yourself.
  5. When you are ready, open your eyes and return to the computer monitor and click on the black arrow below.

Buddhist singing bowl (click to listen) The learning circle is now open.

Introduction

Before embarking on the study of those children’s stories which have been chosen because of their specific relevance to female socialization, it is worth spending a little time looking at the immense importance of literature and of narrative in general in forming attitudes, influencing opinions, and especially, within societies of every period, of inducting children into currently desired thought patterns and behavior. In order to illustrate this, particular use will be made of some of the oldest surviving stories of all, fairy tales.

This course is based on English and some Indian literature, but its approach and conclusions apply equally to children’s literature in other countries. In the future we aim to extend the course material with examples and applications taken from children’s stories in various parts of the world. With this inter-cultural experience in mind, this first lesson provides the opportunity to analyze an Italian and a Chinese fairytale as an option (See Exploration 1.8 and 1.9 below).

Lesson One has been designed to explore how and why folk stories [fairy tales] were/are important for understanding ourselves. Prior to the period when we had radio and television, we had story tellers. We will be examining three versions of Little Red Riding Hood that come from the 1500s, 1669, and 1812. There are dramatic differences between each of the three versions and yet a common thread–a young girl in danger. What did parents, in each of these three historical epochs, want to communicate to their young daughters through these oral stories? This you will discover!

[Note: Dr. Pat Pincent is an expert in exploring the deep meanings of children’s stories.  This course content was designed and presented by her.  Dr. Aaron Milavec assisted Dr. Pincent in designing a course where everyone became a Sherlock Holmes bent upon the examination and interpretation of significant clues and probative questions.]

The Importance of Narrative

One of the primary qualities that distinguish human beings from other animals is surely the ability to use language to refer to objects and people who are not present, and to describe events that happened in the past. One of the most important ways of doing this is the use of story. It seems probable that all ages and cultures have used story as a means of telling new generations about the past and educating children about desired codes of behavior. Story telling seems to have been important to human beings even before writing became a means to preserve the tales; the cave-art of the Neolithic people provides evidence of the importance of imaginative material which transcended the immediate physical present, while artifacts and paintings from all over the world give hints of a rich substratum of story which has not been handed down to us. Among the earliest surviving instances of story which have been preserved are the myths about the Egyptian gods, the early tales from the Indian sub-continent, and the classical Greek epics of Homer. In the context of children’s literature we also remember the short fables, with a moral, ascribed to Aesop.

Exploration 1.1 <– Click here to post your reply.
Why do you think that learning by story-telling is so important to human beings? When and how has it become important for you personally? Post and offer feedback.

Having read these questions, you’ll naturally have ideas, hunches, and deep thoughts that you want to share. Imagine that you are sharing these with trusted friends.

How do you share your thoughts with your learning circle? [Note: These functions only work for enrolled participants.]

  1. Begin by clicking on the “Exploration 1.1” that will always be found just prior to the questions. (You can also find Exploration 1.1 listed as “1.1” in a table at the very bottom of this page. You can, as an alternate, click on this as well.)
  2. Step 1 opens a new window in which you will find the questions repeated. Click on “Reply” found in the lower right corner. This opens a blank text box awaiting your response.
  3. Type your reflections into this blank box. Don’t think that you have to do research so that your responses are “perfect.” Rather, risk writing spontaneously what you believe and feel about the issues at hand.
  4. Feel free to experiment with the various features of the textbox editor. Be daring! You won’t be able to break anything. From time to time, you might want to add a JPG picture to embellish your response.
  5. Click on “Post to Forum” when finished. You are free to change the subject line if you wish and to provide, in its place, a short apt title of your choice.
  6. You can always go back and edit your former posts. When it comes to editing your own ideas, however, this is not encouraged. Let your raw self-expression stand. If you need to, add a few lines saying how your mind has changed and why.

In the best of classrooms, everyone has something to teach and everyone has something to learn, including the professor. The most critical role that the professor plays is often to make a safe place in her classroom wherein women can find their true voices and to express them freely. The bonding that takes place in the virtual classroom must accordingly be joined with a shared sense of respect and mystery in the face of co-learners struggling to become their authentic selves even when they have for so long been beaten down and forced to adapt roles that conceal their true voices.

Ideology, Society and Gender

The word ‘ideology’ has often been used pejoratively by those who want to suggest that a political framework (with which they disagree) is being used in a doctrinaire way to influence behavior and, in particular, the way that children are being indoctrinated. [In the social sciences, “primary socialization” is the phrase used to convey the indoctrination of children.] In fact, of course, all of us have our own ideologies that become particularly influential on our words and behavior when we are unaware of them. As well as the beliefs of individuals, all societies, today and in the past, have ideological assumptions which are most powerful when they are not questioned. This often applies most forcefully to assumptions that are made about gender. It seems always to have been in society’s interest to convey specific roles for women and to indoctrinate girls into accepting these roles.

In the post-modern era, story telling was the normal way that parents socialized their children and prepared them to learn the social messages that would be necessary for them as adults. In your own upbringing, your mother almost certainly used fairy tales to accomplish this task. Her choice of fairy tales was undoubtedly influenced by her own recognition that those tales delighted her when her own mother (your grandmother) selected stories told from her own mother (your great-grandmother) going back to the time when such stories were oral treasuries not yet printed in books.

Here are a few of the many reasons which might be suggested for this choice of material:

  • · The fascination of children from all periods for fairy tales, which have the tendency to focus on timelessly relevant symbols rather than everyday settings. This means that they have dated much less than any other form of literature.
  • · Their use of representative characters identified by their functions or relationships (kings and queens, merchants, hunters, stepmothers, sisters, etc.) rather than by any individual quality other than being good or evil means that children can easily be inducted into the listening to stories through them.
  • · They tend to use vividly symbolic colors and settings, such as ‘red as blood’, the ‘dark forest’. This again makes them easy to approach for the young child.
  • · They have been profoundly influential on all subsequent children’s literature, and patterns and characters from them, as well as explicit intertextual allusions, can be identified in virtually every classic children’s text.
  • · Partly because of their antiquity, they frequently raise questions about gender roles and prejudice against certain groups of people; such questions are perennially relevant.
  • · They appear in a number of different versions, and are still being rewritten today; children’s experience of literature is still likely to start with these stories, even though the medium of presentation, through video or CD Rom, may differ from the past.
  • · The similarity between the elements of fairy tale and dream has encouraged the psychoanalysts towards a variety of creative interpretations of these stories, and they are sometimes used in therapy.

Peter Hollindale (1988, summarized in Stephens 1992:9-11) identifies three aspects of ideology as represented in literature:

  • · That which is explicit in the text (and consequently can often be detected, at least by competent readers);
  • · The writer’s unexamined assumptions, which readers may find themselves sharing, unless they are alert to this possibility;
  • · That which is inherent within language, which again may remain invisible to readers, especially if the reader’s language is of the same period and social group as that of the writer.

Purpose: We shall go on to look at a small selection of fairy tales as a particular illustration of how European society undertook the social indoctrination of their children. You will be invited to stretch your powers of examination and to detect the clues necessary to decipher the ideological aspects that prevail in every piece of literature (as noted by Hollindale above). These same skills, needless to say, will equip you to surface the tacit logic and subtle messages that exists in every form of modern media: jokes, movies, plays, advertisements, novels, comics.

Exploration 1.2 Consider your own particular experience.
1.2a What fairy tales or ancient legends were dear to you as a child? Among these, what was your favorite?

Note: Sometimes our experiences of childhood are blocked during our normal daily activity. If you find yourself unable to easily answer these first two questions, you might want to close your eyes, clear your mind, and imaginatively travel back in time to that familiar place with that familiar person reading childhood fairy tales to you. If you try this and it doesn’t work, then skip this for the moment and try this traveling back in time again just as you are close to falling asleep at night. By morning, you usually will find what you need. Then return to post and offer feedback. In any case, go ahead now and return later when some stories have come to mind.

1.2b What was the most exciting moment in the story? What feelings were evoked?
1.2c How was your imagination carried away into seeing yourself within this story?
1.2d What was happening in your life then or later that might help you account for your own special attachment to this story?

History of Fairy Tales

The origins of fairy tales are lost in the mists of antiquity, but there is no reason to think that the tellers of these stories originally had children particularly in mind as their listeners. The earliest collections specifically addressed to the young tend to date from the seventeenth century. Notable amongst collections which are still extant are those of Charles Perrault (1628-1703) and the Brothers Grimm (Jacob, 1785-1863 & Wilhelm, 1786-1859); other early collectors of fairy tales were also French. The original fairy stories of Hans Christian Andersen (1805-75) and Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), and a few others of their contemporaries such as John Ruskin, are also well-known but we shall not be looking directly at them here. We shall however look briefly at a few contemporary versions of fairy tales, to examine the changes that they have made to suit different preconceptions about gender roles.

Red Riding Hood

Exploration 1.3 Recall the story of Red Riding Hood (abbr.:RRH). [Don’t make any attempt to read it. Just let your memory recall what it will.] If you have never heard the story or have forgotten the details, then examine the full text of Perrault RRH or, better yet, enjoy listening to an oral performance of Perrault’s Little Red Riding Hood, click black arrow to listen.

1.3a What appears to you to be the most exciting moment in the story? What feelings are evoked? How does repetition function in the story?
1.3b Try to imagine how parents used this narrative to prepare their daughters to face some real dangers that existed. What might these real dangers be? How were their daughters socialized to save themselves from these dangers?
1.3c What sort of parental messages were being conveyed through this story?

Now here is the fun part–giving and receiving feedback.

  1. Once you post your own reflections for 1.3, the reflections of one or more of your learning partners will appear. Click on them and read them quickly.
  2. Feel free to thank others for what you find helpful, to pose clarifying questions, to link your story to theirs. To do this, use steps 2-5 above.
  3. The best and the easiest kind of feedback is to offer readback lines. To do this, click on the “Reply” button at the bottom right. Then pick out a phrase or sentence in what your co-learner wrote that strikes a resonate cord in you. Highlight it with your mouse and copy it (Ctrl-C). Then move your cursor into your reply box and paste it (Ctrl-V). Repeat this process a second or third time if you feel so inclined.
  4. The beauty of readback lines is that it offers a silent affirmation (a) that these words have special meaning for you as well and (b) that you are thankful that she shared such words with you. Give your feedback lines a short title and post them.
  5. Make it a practice to offer feedback lines for two or three of your co-learners each time you post your own reflections. If you are the first to post, then you will need to come back in a few days to offer feedback lines to those who had not yet posted.
  6. Now you can relish how others have responded to your post. Responding to feedback received with a sincere “thank you” or “that was helpful” note is always rewarding for the one who honored your work enough to puzzle over it. Clarifications or expansions can also be asked for when needed.
  7. For the moment, don’t try to critically analyze or to challenge someone’s post. Limit yourself to using readback lines as the preferred mode of feedback. In subsequent weeks, these alternate forms of feedback will be introduced.

 

Now make yourself a cup of tea or step outside for a moment just to clear your mind. Return and read a much older and much stranger version of this same story: “The Story of Grandmother.” [If you wish, you can read the story out loud and imagine your mother telling this version to you.]

Exploration 1.4 When you click on the title, “The Story of Grandmother,” your browser will jump to the story. Use your back-button to return to this page. In this way, you can move back and forth with ease should you need to reexamine the story while probing the same questions (1.3a-1.3e) that you used above. Instead of RRH, one now has “a little girl.” Instead of a “wolf,” one now has a bzou (=werewolf=man+wolf).

1.4a What appears to you to be the most exciting moment in the story? What feelings are evoked?
1.4b What does “a little girl” do to save herself? Is this a wise or a foolish course of action?
1.4c Does “a little girl” save herself all by herself or does she necessarily call upon the help of someone more powerful? Why is this part of the story so different from Perrault’s later version?
1.4d Try to imagine how parents used this narrative to prepare their daughters to face some real dangers that existed. What might these real dangers be? How were their daughters socialized to save themselves from these dangers?
1.4e How does “The Story of Grandmother” function differently from Perrault’s later version? How does a parent in the 17th century decide what story is best suited from their daughter?

Although it is difficult to be certain about the origins of ‘The Story of Grandmother’, Jack Zipes (1986:229) suggests it may reflect ‘a social ritual connected to sewing communities: the maturing young woman proves she can handle needles, replace an older woman, and contend with the opposite sex.’ Even more to the point, however, the girl keep her cool under pressure to disrobe. Her repeated non-threatening questions stall for time and, not unlike modern programs for disarming the malace/erection of her would-be rapist/killer, engages her assailant in conversation. One could argue that her willingness to follow directions in small things gives her the psychological edge required to press her need to pee outdoors despite the wolf’s reservations. When granted, she is on her way to safety. Against a superior adversary, her cool, her cunning, and her swiftness saved her from a fate worse than death.

Charles Perrault’s version

“The Story of Grandmother” [text printed at the bottom] circulated in various forms in French society going back to the fourteenth century. The story, as yet, has no “red cape” and no near-miraculous rescue by “a woodsman.” These elements came later, as you are now aware.

Charles Perrault (1628-1703) [text printed at the bottom] turned his attention to folk tales only after turning 63. In the fashionable French salons of his day, “for amusement, someone would take a simple traditional tale, such as an old peasant woman might tell in the kitchens, and remake into in a `moralized,’ succinct, witty story purged of all coarseness” (Wikepedia). Perrault, in his turn, took these amusing and anonymous folk tales and published them for the first time in 1669 under the subtitle, “Tales of Mother Goose.” In so doing, he inadvertently began a new literary genre, the fairy tale. Such stories circulated in literary salons and, with time, as literacy advanced, served to reshape the stories that mothers routinely told to their daughters.

You can now see how the little girl gets her familiar name, Little Red Riding Hood, because of the garment her grandmother had made for her. In this narrative, gone is the slow undressing and gone is the request to pee outdoors. Yet, with these elements gone, Perrault had to allow that the foolish girl didn’t have sufficient wits to escape. Thus, the wolf eats her up. And there is no one to rescue her! This is a black tale indeed. According to Catherine Orenstein:

Perrault cloaked his heroine in red, the color of scandal and blood, suggesting the girl’s sin and foreshadowing her fate. Her chaperon [Fr.], or hood [in English], also took on the tale’s lesson, acquiring the meaning in English, which it already possessed in French, of one who guards girls’ virtue. For good measure, Perrault added an explicit rhyming moral admonishing demoiselles — that is, young ladies of society — to remain chaste:

Little girls, this seems to say,
Never stop upon your way,
Never trust a stranger-friend;
No one knows how it will end.
As you’re pretty so be wise;
Wolves may lurk in every guise.
Handsome they may be, and kind,
Gay, and charming — nevermind!
Now, as then, ‘tis simple truth —
Sweetest tongue has sharpest tooth!

Moral: Girls who converse with a wolf come to a bad end. A “wolf” in this case is the sweet-talking, cool-looking guy who has the sexual appetites of a wild animal. “In the French slang, when a girl lost her virginity it was said that elle avoit vû le loup — she’d seen the wolf” ( Orenstein). In the earlier story, the girl meets a werewolf–a man-like creature that can turn into a wolf. Thus, from the very beginning, the reader was not forced to imagine that wolves could speak. Rather, the girl meets a man who has the instincts of a wolf (deception, greed, lust). (www).

The Brothers Grimm’s version

More than a century later, the Grimm Brothers [text printed at the bottom] gathered together German folk stories and published them in 1812. Their emphasis was initially upon authenticity:

The first collectors to attempt to preserve not only the plot and characters of the tale, but also the style in which they were being orally transmitted, were the Brothers Grimm, collecting German fairy tales; ironically enough, this meant although their first edition (1812 & 1815) remains a treasure for folklorists, they rewrote the tales in later editions to make them more acceptable, which ensured their sales and the later popularity of their work.

The Brothers Grimm thus did for German readers what Perrault did for French readers. One might imagine that publishing oral folk tales would have had the effect of standardizing what children heard to the degree that growing literacy increasingly inclined mothers to read the stories to their children rather than to tell them by oral memory (as was the earlier practice). But this was not so for the Grimm Brothers (as indicated) quickly published a freely edited popularization of their collected fairy tales in an attempt to increase the appeal of these narratives to children. Historical authenticity thus yielded to the drive for increased sales. Look in any bookstore today and you will be hard put to find two versions of any fairy tale that are exactly the same.

Exploration 1.5 Now chick here to read the Grimm version and respond to the questions:

1.5a What appears to you to be the most exciting moment in the Grimm revision? What feelings are evoked?
1.5b What does RRH (=Red Cap) do to save herself? Is this a wise or fooling course of action?
1.5c Does RRH save herself all by herself or does she necessarily call upon the help of someone more powerful? Is this a calculated part of her action plan or just a happy accident?
1.5d Try to imagine how parents used this narrative to prepare their daughters to face some real dangers that existed. What might these real dangers be? How were their daughters socialized to save themselves from these dangers?
1.5e What sort of parental messages were being [overtly or covertly] conveyed through this story?
1.5f In view of modern circumstances, what version would you want to read/tell your own daughter or granddaughter? Explain.

The Grimms’ first version in 1812 suggests that the young girl needs protection which can be provided by a suitable man, a kind of father figure, who will defend her from predatory males. It reflects something of the patriarchal assumptions of their nineteenth century background. Magical elements are also increased that further remove the tale from the real world. Real wolves do not eat their victims whole nor do their victims remain alive after they have been eaten. Without the introduction of these magical elements, even the woodsman has no prospect of saving Red Cap.

The Grimms follow this with a second version in 1815: In this revision, Red Cap is on her guard and runs ahead to warn her grandmother that a wolf is on his way. The wolf cannot open the door, so he jumps on the roof, but the grandmother places water in which sausages have been boiled into a big trough in front of the house, and the wolf, enticed by the smell, falls into it and is drowned. Thus, in the second version, cunning and quick action by the grandmother are affirmed, and Red Cap ends up combining her forces with her grandmother to win the day. The second Grimm version does away with magical elements and demonstrates that an old woman may have accumulated some wisdom which she can pass on to a younger generation.

The fact that the Grimms’ first version is probably the best known suggests that until recently, this kind of protection of the young female, rather than either letting her develop her own resources or learn from female wisdom, seemed the most true to life. The Perrault version in which the girl and her grandmother perish is surprisingly long-lived, however, perhaps reflecting the childish desire to be frightened by ‘the big bad wolf’.

Versions by James Thurber and other modern writers reflect the much greater degree of independence of females today, and a dislike for implying that they need men to deliver them –- incidentally thus reverting to the situation in the earliest of these stories. Other modern versions of note include Roald Dahl’s verses in his Revolting Rhymes (1982), Angela Carter’s ‘The Company of Wolves’ (1981; not for young children), James Garner’s version in Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) and Lane Smith’s ‘Little Red Running Shorts’ in The Stinky Cheese Man (1992). Finally, we have `Little Red Riding Hood Redux’ (2002) wherein the girl is more than prepared to protect herself and to put her would-be-protector in his rightful place. This also has inspired a video gaming version.

Exploration 1.6 In 2004, Ms. Magazine published an article, “Dances with Wolves: Little Red Riding Hood’s Long Walk in the Woods” by Catherine Orenstein. Click on the title and read the article (10-15 minutes). As you do so, take note of what discoveries you make that are important for you. When finished, post your two most important discoveries.
1.6 Optional alternative: Does your own culture have a story that parallels Little Red Riding Hood? If so, copy the story here or write a summary from memory. What is your gut response to this version?

When finished, take a break. Make some tea for yourself or take a five-minute walk or dance to your favorite music.

Summary 1.7: Then, coming back refreshed, quickly review your entire experience. Share your experience in four parts:

1.7a How many minutes did you use to complete Lesson One? Was this more/less time than you had expected? What changes can you make on your side to increase the satisfaction that you find in this learning circle?
1.7b In Lesson One, you experienced many processes: the opening ritual, the introduction (story telling and ideology), comparing and contrasting various versions of RRH, RRH Redux, the Ms article, feedback from co-learners. Name the three, in the order of their importance, that were most beneficial for you. Explain. Name any technical difficulties encountered. How did you solve them? For difficulties with chime or the video, click here. What help/improvement do you still require?
1.7c Are you at ease with giving and receiving readback lines? For how many participants did you offer readback lines? If more than 8, this is great. If less than 5, then please return to some interesting posts above and offer readback lines for a half-dozen more participants after posting this.
1.7d Overall (on a scale of +1 to +10), what is your satisfaction with Lesson One? Is there anything that the Instructional Team should include or remove from this lesson? Please explain.

As a closing treat, click twice on the image below to view a five-minute animated feature prepared by a student of l’école Supinfocom Arles based upon “Chaperon Rouge” (=RRH).  Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTDRzV9IcM to view.

[Reflections by Moderator: I found this little gem about a month ago. The animated film demonstrates great artistry with varied points of view, shadows, construction of the landscapes. RRH appears to pass through ruins (perhaps, exploring her past). Then as the sun begins to set, she falls into a troubled sleep and the phantoms of her past show up as “black snakes.” She is startled awake by her dream, but then the “black snakes” become real, frighten her (now in the waking state), and set her to running. The “black snakes” appear only to menace her while she is in the woods. In the end, she appears to find a refuge–but then suddenly, she is engulfed (perhaps, a symbol of the danger in grandma’s house, if, indeed, that is where she sought refuge).]

Congratulations!
With this, you have finished your first session. If no one has posted their writings as of yet, return in a few days, meet new members and post your responses to their writing.

Buddhist singing bowl (click to listen) The learning circle is now officially closed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~end of case 1

Officially we are going to stop here. For those who might be interested and want to learn something more, I would suggest one or both of the following cross-cultural experiences:

  1. Read “The Young Slave,” (a much older Italian fairy tale that resembles “Sleeping Beauty”) and compare it with the Grimm narrative. See Exploration 1.8 below.
  2. Learn how children in Somalia are introduced into their cultural identity using memorized geneologies and the narrated stories of their grandmother. Click on the play arrow to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali tell her personal story. Notice that Ayaan grew up in a predominantly oral culture wherein “memorized geneologies” served as her “identity card” and source of protection when traveling. Stories, meanwhile, gave her a “moral compass” to guide her on her way.

Sleeping Beauty

“Sleeping Beauty” and “Cinderella” represent two familiar children stories that deal with unjust oppression and ultimate vindication. This is a deep-seated and oft-repeated theme interwoven within the oldest narratives of every world religion. In our own day, this is the theme repeated in endless variety in our sitcoms and in our feature films. Stated briefly–virtue will triumph (even when, for the moment, the heroine is despised, beaten down, and overwhelmed with sorrow).

Your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to select either “Sleeping Beauty” or “Cinderella.” Having made your choice, you will then choose two versions of this narrative. Then you will be asked to do a comparative analysis of the two versions and to surface the ideological assumptions undergirding each. If you select “Sleeping Beauty,” just keep reading. If you select “Cinderella,” jump ahead to the heading with that name below.

Exploration 1.8 Read “Sleeping Beauty” as presented by Perrault (ignore the moral) and contrast it with the Grimm version. As a challenging cross-cultural alternative, you might want to read “The Young Slave,” (a much older Italian fairy tale that resembles “Sleeping Beauty”) and to compare it with the Grimm narrative.
1.8a Name two elements in each story that clearly indicate that it was oriented toward a culture different from our own?
1.8b Contrast the two versions from the vantage point of the rescue of the “sleeping beauty.” Explore how each version satisfies and/or annoys you.
1.8c Compare and contrast the two versions from the vantage point of the implied socialization of young women in traditional society? . . . in modern society?

Most readers of Perrault’s story are likely to feel that the section with the ogress-queen doesn’t really belong; it seems to have been adapted from an earlier story which provided a clearer link between it and the more familiar first section. I have included it here for completeness, but the chief reason for reproducing the story here lies in the role of the prince in appearing just when the sleeper needs him.

Apart from the trivial matter of whether there are 8 or 13 fairies/wise women, the main differences seem to me to be that in Perrault’s version (a) the king and queen are not enchanted but leave the castle in order to carry on their reign; and (b) the prince just happens to be there as the princess wakes up, rather than being an active agent in her reawakening. This may indicate that in Perrault’s more courtly society, he envisaged rulers as having an important role which could not be set aside simply because of their daughter’s situation. The less active role of the prince also seems to indicate his subordination, not yet being an active agent.

Both stories reflect the assumptions of their societies that a woman’s fulfillment is to be found in marriage, and that it is worth waiting until ‘Prince Charming’ comes along. This passivity (compare also ‘Snow White) has not been welcomed by modern writers, but in most instances rather than rewriting this tale they have produced other stories with princesses who are far from passive, sometimes rejecting princes who seem to have this expectation from them. See Zipes’ Don’t Bet on the Prince for examples of this.

Bibliography

Video

Red Riding Hood

Redux Riding Hood (Disney short)

Primary Texts

Any faithful version of the stories of Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty as retold by the Grimm Brothers and by Charles Perrault. Particularly interesting collections are:

Opie, I. & P. (ed.) (1974) The Classic Fairy Tales, Oxford: University Press

Philip, N. (ed.) (1989) The Cinderella Story: The Origins and Variations of the Story known as Cinderella, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Tatar, M. (ed.) (1999) The Classic Fairy Tales, New York & London: Norton

Zipes, J. (ed.) (2nd ed. 1993) The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood, London: Routledge

Secondary Texts

 

Lombardi, Esther, “Top 10 Books About Little Red Riding Hood”

Stephens, J. (1992) Language and Ideology in Children’s Fiction, London: Longman

Warner, M. (1994) From the Beast to the Blonde, London: Chatto

Zipes, J. (1986) Don’t Bet on the Prince, Aldershot: Scolar

Zipes, J.(1997) Happily Ever After, London: Routledge

Optional Additional Reading

Garner, J.F. (1994) Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, London: Souvenir Press

Lurie, A. (1980) Clever Gretchen and other Forgotten Folktales, London: Heinemann

Storr, C. (1967) Clever Polly and the Stupid Wolf, Harmondsworth: Penguin

[1] Here and elsewhere in this section I am making use of ideas also presented in material I wrote for the Distance Learning MA in Children’s Literature, and for the Foundation Certificate in Children’s Literature, both of Roehampton University.

The Story of Grandmother

unknown author

 

THERE was once a woman who had some bread, and she said to her daughter: “You are going to carry a hot loaf and a bottle of milk to your grandmother.

The little girl departed. At the crossroads she met the bzou [=werewolf] who said to her:

“Where are you going?”

“I’m taking a hot loaf and a bottle of milk to my grandmother.”

“What road are you taking,” said the bzou, “the Needles Road or the Pins Road?”

“The Needles Road,” said the little girl.

“Well, I shall take the Pins Road.”

The little girl enjoyed herself picking up needles [that had fallen from pine trees].

Meanwhile the bzou arrived at her grandmother’s, killed her, put some of her flesh in the pantry and a bottle of her blood on the shelf. The little girl arrived and knocked at the door.

“Push the door,” said the bzou, “it’s closed with a wet straw.”

“Hello Grandmother; I’m bringing you a hot loaf and a bottle of milk.”

“Put them in the pantry. You eat the meat that’s in it and drink a bottle of wine on the shelf.”

As she ate there was a little cat that said: “A slut is she who eats the flesh and drinks the blood of her grandmother!”

“Undress, my child,” said the bzou, “and come and sleep beside me.”

“Where should I put my apron?”

“Throw it in the fire, my child; you don’t need it anymore.”

“Where should I put my bodice?”

“Throw it in the fire, my child; you don’t need it anymore.”

“Where should I put my dress?”

“Throw it in the fire, my child; you don’t need it anymore.”

“Where should I put my skirt?”

“Throw it in the fire, my child; you don’t need it anymore.”

“Where should I put my hose?”

“Throw it in the fire, my child; you don’t need it anymore.”

[Upon getting into bed she said,]
“Oh, Grandmother, how hairy you are!”

“It’s to keep me warmer, my child”

“Oh, Grandmother, those long nails you have!”

“It’s to scratch me better, my child.”

“Oh, Grandmother, those big shoulders that you have!”

“All the better to carry kindling from the woods, my child.”

“Oh, Grandmother, those big ears that you have!”

“All the better to hear you with, my child.”

“Oh, Grandmother, that big mouth you have!”

“All the better to eat you with, my child!”

“Oh, Grandmother, I need to go outside to pee [urinate].”

“Do it in the bed, my child.”

“No, Grandmother, I want to go outside.”

“All right, but don’t stay long.”

The bzou tied a woolen thread to her foot and let her go out, and when the girl was outside she tied the end of the string to a big plum tree in the yard. The bzou got impatient and said: “Are you making cables?”

When he became aware that no one answered him, he jumped out of bed and saw that the little girl had escaped. He followed her, but she arrived at her house just at the moment she was safely inside.

Little Red Cap

By Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

ONCE there was a dear little girl whom everyone loved. Her grandmother loved her most of all and didn’t known what to give the child next. Once she gave her a little red velvet cap, which was so becoming to her that she wanted to wear anything else, and that was why everyone called her Little Red Cap.

One day her mother said: “Look, Little Red Cap, here’s a piece of cake and a bottle of wine. Take them to grandmother. She is sick and weak, and they will make her feel better. You’d better start now before it gets too hot; walk properly like a good little girl and don’t leave the path or you will fall down and break the bottle and there won’t be anything for grandmother. And when you get to her house, don’t forget to say good morning, and don’t go looking in all the corners.”

“I’ll do everything right,” Little Red Cap promised her mother. Her grandmother lived in the woods, half an hour’s walk from the village.

No sooner had Little Red Cap set foot in the woods than she met the wolf. But Little Red Cap didn’t know what a wicked beast he was, so she wasn’t afraid of him. “Good morning, Little Red Cap,” he said.

“Thank you kindly, wolf.”

“Where are you going so early, Little Red Cap?”

“To my grandmother’s”

“And what’s that you’ve got under your apron?”

“Cake and wine. We baked yesterday and we want my grandmother, who’s sick and weak, to have something nice that will make her feel better.”

“Where does your grandmother live, Little Red Cap?”

“In the woods, fifteen or twenty minutes’ walk from here, under the three oak trees. That’s where the house is. It had hazel hedges around it. You must know the place.”

“How young and tender she is!” thought the wolf. “Why, she’ll be even tastier than the old woman. Maybe if I’m crafty enough I can get them both.” So, after walking along for a short while beside Little Red Cap, he said: ” Little Red Cap, open your eyes. What lovely flowers! Why don’t you look around you? I don’t believe you even hear how sweetly the birds are singing. It’s so gay out here in the wood, yet you trudge as solemnly as if you were going to school.”

Little Red Cap looked up, and when she saw the sunbeams dancing this way and that between the trees and the beautiful flowers all around her, she thought: “Grandmother will be pleased if I bring her a bunch of nice fresh flowers. It’s so early now that I am sure to be there in plenty of time.” And when she had picked one, she thought there must be a more beautiful one farther on, so she went deeper and deeper into the wood.

As for the wolf, he went straight to grandmother’s house and knocked at the door. “Who’s there?” ” Little Red Cap, bringing cake and wine. Open the door.” “Just raise the latch,” cried the grandmother, “I’m too weak to get out of bed.” The wolf raised the latch and the door swung open. Without saying a single word, he went straight to grandmother’s bed and gobbled her up. Then he put on her clothes and her nightcap, lay down in the bed, and drew the curtains.

Meanwhile Little Red Cap had been running about picking flowers, and when she had as many as she could carry she remembered her grandmother and started off again. She was surprised to find the front door open, and when she stepped into the house she had such a strange feeling that she said to herself: “My goodness, I’m usually so glad to see grandmother. Why am I so frightened today?” “Good morning,” she cried out, but there was no answer. Then she went up to the bed and opened the curtains. The grandmother had he cap pulled way down over her face, and looked very strange.

“Oh, grandmother, what big ears you have!”

“The better to hear you with.”

“Oh, grandmother, what big eyes you have!”

“The better to see you with.”

“Oh, grandmother, what big hands you have!”

“The better to grab you with.”

“But, grandmother, what a dreadful mouth you have!”

“The better to eat you with.”

And no sooner had the wolf spoken these words than he bounded off the bed and gobbled up poor Little Red Cap.

When the wolf had stilled his hunger, he got back into bed, fell asleep and began to snore very very loud. A hunter was just passing, and he thought: “How the old woman is snoring! I’d better go and see what’s wrong.” So he stepped into the house and went over to the bed and saw the wolf was in it. “You old sinner!” he said, “I’ve found you at last. It’s been a long time.”

He levelled his musket and was just about to fire when it occurred to him that the wolf may have swallowed the grandmother and that there might still be a chance of saving her. So instead of firing, he took a pair of scissors and started cutting the sleeping wolf’s belly open.

After two snips, he saw the little red cap, after another few snips the little girl jumped out, crying: “Oh, I’ve been so afraid! It was so dark inside the wolf” And the old grandmother came out, and she too was alive, though she could hardly breathe. Little Red Cap ran outside and brought big stones, and they filled the wolf’s belly with them.

When the wolf woke up, he wanted to run away, but the stones were so heavy that his legs wouldn’t carry him and he fell dead.

All three were happy; the hunter skinned the wolf and went home with the skin, the grandmother ate the cake and drank the wine Little Red Cap had brought her and soon got well; and as for Little Red Cap, she said to herself “Never again will I leave the path and run into the woods when my mother tells me not to.”

Little Red Riding Hood

by Charles Perrault

ONCE upon a time there was a little village girl, the prettiest that had ever been seen. Her mother doted on her. Her grandmother was even fonder, and made her a little red hood, which she loved so well that everywhere she went by the name of Little Red Riding Hood.

One day her mother, who had just baked some cakes, said to her: “Go and see how your grandmother is, for I have been told that she is ill. Take her a cake and this little pot of butter.”

Red Riding Hood set off at once for the house of her grandmother, who lived in another village.

On her way through a woods she met old Father Wolf. He would have very much liked to eat her, but dared not to on account of some wood-cutters who were in the forest. He asked her where she was going.

The poor child, not knowing that it was dangerous to stop and listen to a wolf, said: “I am going to see my grandmother, and I am taking her a cake and a pot of butter which my mother has sent to her.”

“Does she live far away?” asked the Wolf.

“Oh yes,” replied Little Red Riding Hood; “it is yonder by the mill which you can see right below there, and it is the first house in the village.”

“Well now,” said the Wolf, “I think I shall go and see her too. I will go by this path, and you by that path, and we will see who gets there first.”

The Wolf set off running with all his might by the shorter road, and the little girl continued on her way by the longer road. As she went she amused herself by gathering nuts, running after the butterflies, and making bouquetes of the wild flowers she found.”

The Wolf was not long in reaching the grandmother’s house.

He knocked. Toc Toc.

“Who is there?”

“It is your granddaughter, Red Riding Hood,” said the Wolf, disguising his voice, “and I bring you a cake and a little pot of butter as a present from my mother.”

The worthy grandmother was in bed, not being very well, and cried out to him: “Pull out the peg and the latch will fall.”

The Wolf drew the peg and the door flew open. Then he sprang upon the poor old lady and ate her up in less than no time, for he had been more than three days without food.

After that he shut the door, lay down in grandmother’s bed, and waited for Little Red Riding Hood.

Presently she came and knocked. Toc Toc.

“Who is there?”

Now Little Red Riding Hood on hearing the Wolf’s gruff voice was at first frightened, but thinking that her grandmother had a bad cold, she replied:
“It is your granddaughter, Red Riding Hood, and I bring you a cake and a little pot of butter from my mother.”

Softening his voice, the Wolf called out to her: “Pull out the peg and the latch will fall.”

Little Red Riding Hood drew out the peg and the door flew open.

When he saw her enter, the Wolf hid himself in the bed beneath the counterpane.

“Put the cake and the little pot of butter on the bin,” he said, “and come up on the bed with me.”

Little Red Riding Hood took off her cloak, but when she climbed up on the bed she was astonished to see how her grandmother looked in her nightgown.

“Grandmother dear!” she exclaimed, “what big arms you have!”

“The better to embrace you, my child.”

“Grandmother dear, what big legs you have!”

“The better to run with, my child.”

“Grandmother dear, what big ears you have!”

“The better to hear with, my child.”

“Grandmother dear, what big eyes you have!”

“The better to see with, my child.”

“Grandmother dear, what big teeth you have!”

“The better to eat you with!”

With these words, the wicked Wolf lept upon Little Red Riding Hood and gobbled her up.

 

Moral

From this story one learns that children,

Especially young lasses,

Pretty, courteous and well-bred,

Do very wrong to listen to strangers,

And it is not an unheard thing

If the Wolf is thereby provided with his dinner.

I say Wolf, for all wolves

Are not of the same sort;

There is one kind with an amenable disposition

Neither noisy, nor hateful, nor angry,

But tame, obliging and gentle,

Following the young maids

In the streets, even into their homes.

Alas! Who does not know that these gentle wolves

Are of all such creatures the most dangerous!

Dances with Wolves

Little Red Riding Hood’s Long Walk in the Woods

Walter Crane, 1875

by Catherine Orenstein

 

These days the social and sexual messages of fairy tales are no secret. Feminists in particular have long recognized that fairy tales socialize boys and especially girls, presenting them with lessons that must be absorbed to reach adulthood.

But what exactly are those lessons? We tend to think of fairy tales as timeless and universal, but in fact they express our collective truths even as those truths shift over time and place.

Take the story of Little Red Riding Hood, for example — a tale we all know well, though not as well as we think.

Once upon a time, “Little Red Riding Hood” was a seduction tale. An engraving accompanying the first published version of the story, in Paris in 1697, shows a girl in her déshabille, lying in bed beneath a wolf. According to the plot, she has just stripped out of her clothes, and a moment later the tale will end with her death in the beast’s jaws — no salvation, no redemption. Any reader of the day would have immediately understood the message: In the French slang, when a girl lost her virginity it was said that elle avoit vû le loup — she’d seen the wolf.

Penned by Charles Perrault for aristocrats at the court of Versailles, “Le petit chaperon rouge” dramatized a contemporary sexual contradiction. It was the age of seduction, notorious for its boudoir histories and its royal courtesans, who rose to power through sexual liaisons and were often celebrated at court; those who made it to the King’s bed might earn the title maîtresse-en-titre, official mistress.

Nonetheless, chastity was the feminine ideal, demanded by the prevailing institution of marriage — not the “fairy tale wedding” of modern fantasy, but the mariage de raison, orchestrated by parents for social or financial gain and often no more than a crass exchange of assets.

Hence the age of seduction was also an age of institutionalized chastity: Girls were raised in convents. By law a man could sequester daughters (or any female relatives) until marriage. Men and women alike could be disinherited, banished or even sentenced to death for the crime of rapt — meaning seduction, elopement or rape (among which the law made scant distinction). And young women were repeatedly warned of the dangers of unscrupulous suitors.

Perrault cloaked his heroine in red, the color of scandal and blood, suggesting the girl’s sin and foreshadowing her fate. Her chaperon, or hood, also took on the tale’s lesson, acquiring the meaning in English, which it already possessed in French, of one who guards girls’ virtue. For good measure, Perrault added an explicit rhyming moral admonishing demoiselles — that is, young ladies of society — to remain chaste:

Little Red Riding Hood
Perrault, 1697

Little girls, this seems to say, Never stop upon your way, Never trust a stranger-friend; No one knows how it will end. As you’re pretty so be wise; Wolves may lurk in every guise. Handsome they may be, and kind, Gay, and charming — nevermind! Now, as then, ‘tis simple truth — Sweetest tongue has sharpest tooth!

Though Perrault’s moral would eventually be eliminated from the fairy tale, his metaphor has survived to this day. Today we still use the term “wolf” to mean a man who chases women.

In the 19th century Red Riding Hood grew more discreet, and also acquired a man to safeguard her. A fatherly woodsman rescues Red from the beast’s belly and gives her a second chance to walk the straight path through life in “Little Red Cap,” published in 1812 by the German brothers Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. This is the version of the tale that most people know today.

The Grimms did not faithfully preserve the lore of common folk, as they claimed in the preface to their first edition of Children’s and Household Tales. Rather, they adapted the tale for a new children’s audience, excising all erotic content along with Perrault’s incriminating moral. Their revision suggested spiritual rather than sexual danger, and stressed the most important lesson of the day: obedience. That lesson easily found purchase in the social landscape of Victorian Europe.

 

1953 Max Factor ad in Vogue

Not until the 20th century was the bowdlerized Red Riding Hood defrocked, so to speak, and redressed. Advertisements transformed the heroine, once a symbolic warning against the female libido, into an ode to Lust. Ripe young “Riding Hood Red” lipstick would “bring the wolves out,” Max Factor promised, in a poster-sized ad appearing in Vogue in 1953. A 1962 advertisement in The New Yorker offered Red as a glamorous femme fatale, on her way to Grandma’s in her “little Red Hertz.”

And, “Without red, nothing doing,” said a 1983 French advertisement for Johnnie Walker Red Label Scotch whisky, which showed a wolf bypassing a crestfallen girl clad in white. (Who wants to buy a drink for bleached goody-two-shoes?)

Storytellers from the women’s movement and beyond also reclaimed the heroine from male-dominated literary tradition, recasting her as the physical or sexual aggressor and questioning the machismo of the wolf. In the 1984 movie The Company of Wolves, inspired by playwright Angela Carter, the heroine claims a libido equal to that of her lascivious stalker and becomes a wolf herself. In the Internet tale “Red Riding Hood Redux,” the heroine unloads a 9mm Beretta into the wolf and, as tufts of wolf fur waft down, sends the hunter off to a self-help group, White Male Oppressors Anonymous.

The 1996 movie Freeway cast Reese Witherspoon as a tough runaway in a red leather jacket who is more than a match for the serial killer she meets while hitching her way to grandma’s trailer park. And about that macho wolf? A 1989 “Far Side” cartoon by Gary Larson cast the beast on a psychiatrist’s couch, in a floral nightgown. “It was supposed to be just a story about a little kid and a wolf,” he says, “but off and on I’ve been dressing up as a grandmother ever since.”


Modern fairy tales with strong heroines have abounded since the 1970s, when second-wave feminists such as Simone de Beauvoir, Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller pointed out how the classic fairy tales of Perrault and the brothers Grimm showcase passive, helpless, beauty-queen femininity. Such tales, they argued, made little girls long to become “glamorous victims.”

Since then, men and women alike have rewritten many of the classic tales to reflect more modern ideas about women. But few outside the field of folklore know that some of our most popular stories have oral roots that are strikingly different from the literary tradition and feature heroines who are far from passive. Little Red Riding Hood is such a case.

Folklorists trace the origins of tales the same way paleontologists study the origins of species: by collecting, dating and comparing samples, noting common traits that suggest common ancestry, and attempting to construct a lineage. In the mid-20th century, scholars and collectors found a substantial body of stories from France . All were remarkably similar in plot and many shared an abundance of details, including cannibalism, defecation, a striptease, and a bedroom encounter with a beast.

They lacked, however, the usual fairy tale moral scolding the heroine. And most of them shared one more remarkable element: a clever heroine who escapes by her own wits. One memorable version of the story genre ends like this: Lying in bed with the villain — this time, a bzou, or werewolf — the heroine pretends she has to relieve herself. The bzou tells her to do it in the bed, but she refuses —“Oh no, that will smell bad!” she says in another variation —so the bzou ties a cord around the heroine’s ankle and lets her out on the leash, tugging periodically to ensure she does not get away.

Once outside, however, the girl unknots the cord and ties it around a tree. With the bzou in belated pursuit, she escapes. Folklorists are now reasonably certain that this is how Little Red Riding Hood’s adventure was told many years ago, around the fire or in the fields, long before she found her way to print. . . .

 

But oral fairy tales were often told by women, to the repetitive rhythms of work, until spinning a yarn and telling a tale were one and the same. Spinning and sewing terms often appear in fairy tales — Rumplestiltskin spins straw into gold, Sleeping Beauty pricks her finger on a spindle, and in the oral ancestor of Red Riding Hood, the heroine meets her adversary at “the path of pins and needles.”

Such terms, symbolic of women’s work and skills, serve to remind us that these stories were once wives’ tales — that is, stories told by women — before that term came to mean a lie. Should it be surprising that a woman storyteller would cast her heroine as more clever than her adversary? Or represent female maturity in different terms from male authors of history?

If these stories came only from one city or country, perhaps one would begin by searching for a particular explanation in that particular locale. But as it turns out, Red Riding Hood’s empowered sisters have been found all around the globe — not only in France but throughout Europe and in lands as far away as China — which ought to make us broadly question our so-called timeless and universal stories about women, and our very notion of a heroine.

 

Catherine Orenstein is the author of Little Red Riding Hood Uncloaked: Sex, Morality and the Evolution of a Fairy Tale (Basic Books, 2002).

 

Uncategorized

UMATT in Steve Canyon Comics–Mike Stimac in Africa

Image Leave a comment

By Aaron Milavec

When Milton Caniff learned of the work being done by Mike Stimac in Africa, he was intrigued and inspired.  Only once did he meet Mike, thanks to the connections of his chief promoter and fund raiser[1], Jane Hamilton, a woman who was an explorer and adventurer in her own right.[2]  She took a personal interest in Wings for Progress, received ten hours of flight training from Mike Stimac, passed her flight test, and then went to Kenya to experience first-hand the daring feats Mike Stimac who, with his “can do” orientation, was moving people and supplies between the missionary outposts scattered in eastern Africa.

Steve Canyon was an easygoing adventurer with a soft heart. Originally a veteran running his own air-transport business, the character returned to the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War.  Caniff was intensely patriotic, and he used the story of a fictitious trouble-shooter in the Air Force as a way to alert his readers to Cold War intrigue and the hazards faced by American citizens in developing countries.

You might be asking yourself why Caniff would introduce a real person, Mike Stimac, and a real organization, UMATT, into his comic stories.  In effect, Caniff’s characters were products of his own imagination.  Caniff was famous for inventing colorful villains and intriguing female characters, such as Madame Lynx and the lovely exiled ruler, Princess Snowflower.  These characters, however, were not purely imaginative.  Madame Lynx, for example, was based on Madame Egelichi, the femme fatale spy played by actress Ilona Massey in the Marx Brothers movie Love Happy (1949). This character stirred Caniff’s imagination so much that he hired Ilona Massey herself to personally pose for him in his studio so that his comic strip would successful evoke her likeness. Besides casting Ilona Massey as Lynx, Caniff patterned Pipper the Piper after John Kennedy, and Miss Mizzou after either Marilyn Monroe or actress Bek Nelson-Gordon. The character of Charlie Vanilla (who would frequently be drawn with an ice cream cone in hand) was based on Caniff’s longtime friend Charles Russhon.  In sum, for the millions of readers of the comic strips syndicated across the United States, it was no surprise that a real person, Mike Stimac, and a real organization, UMATT, would enter into his comic stories.

In this Appendix, you will have the opportunity to explore the artistry and imagination of Milton Caniff as he weaves into the life of Steve Canon comics an adventure in Africa.  In the opening story, Poteet Canyon, a feisty cub reporter for the High City Herald, takes a personal interest in Henry M. Rize, a local industrialist who is reported missing in a fictitious rebel takeover somewhere in Africa.  Her boss has assigned her to write the society column (the “tea-party beat”).  She tries to persuade him to assign her to go to Africa and ferret out the truth about Mr. Rize.  She explains that she knows a bush pilot who would be able to ferry her around.  The bush pilot is named, Bitsy Beekman, and she is identified as flying planes as a relief pilot with “Wings for Progress” during her summer vacations.  “Wings for Progress,” as you may know, is the official name for UMATT in Kenya.[3]

Caniff Inserts UMATT into his Sunday Comic Strip

Caniff knows full well that UMATT would be unintelligible to his readers so he uses “Wings for Progress” instead and characterizes them as “flying Peace Corps people” and “mercy-flight people.” Here’s a key frame in the second comic strip:

 

This frame is filled with amazing information:

  1. To the left, you see a small table with four persons are in the process discussing an urgent situation. To the right, you see the UMATT logo (the white peace dove).  In Kenya, “the flying Peace Corps people” are legally registered as “Wings for Progress.”  In the USA, the legal name is UMATT (United Missionary Aviation Training and Transport).  Caniff gets all the details right here.
  2. Behind them is the first of the four UMATT planes, a Super Cub (Cessna 206) parked at the end of their make-shift runway. In fact the Super Cub was orange with a white underbelly and wings.
  3. Person #1 is a woman with her hair covered. This woman has the distinct profile of Sister Michael Therese Ryan aka “the Flying Nun.”  The headdress and blouse should be “white.”   But, in the shade, Caniff rightly needs to display the whites as grays.
  4. Person #2, who is holding a clipboard, is Bill Saint Andre, a U.S. Navy pilot who was the first volunteer pilot.
  5. The man leaning over the table and speaking is none other than “Mike Stimac.” Remember that Caniff has  seen Mike.  My hunch is that Mike’s profile was taken right from this photo [shown left] that was supplied to Caniff for background info.  Notice that Mike’s right shoulder comes down directly from the peak of his chin in both depictions.  The haircut in both pictures can also be seen as identical.
  6. Person #4 has either a deep tan or, then again, he may have black skin. Can it be that one of the team was an African?    This is none other than Shadrach Sainepu, a tall Masai warrior who received his flight training from Mike Stimac.  When Wings for Progress was formed, Shadrach accepted an invitation to join the team of pilots.  He was considered an “ace pilot” by the group and always took “the most treacherous assignments.”[4]  Caniff demonstrates here again his attention to details.

The Identity of Bitsy Beekman Continue reading UMATT in Steve Canyon Comics–Mike Stimac in Africa →

health issues

Health Insurance, Health Care, and Health Costs in the USA

Leave a comment

Reflections on the Status Quo of Health Insurance in the USA

By Prof. Aaron Milavec

  1. The United States is the only industrialized country where medical insurance is regarded as a benefit of employment.  In this system, employees lose this benefit as soon as they are laid off.  Accordingly, at the very time when unemployment compensation abruptly reduces their income by half, families have to decide whether to scrimp in order to pay monthly insurance premiums on a Cobra Plan or to put their family at risk by dropping health insurance.  If they decide to shop around for a less expensive health insurance plan, they quickly discover that insurance companies are in the business of making profits and they routinely refuse to insure persons with a history of poor health or a disposition toward cancer or kidney failure.
  2. One major difficulty in reforming our healthcare system is the fact that four hundred different plans for healthcare insurance create enormous bureaucracies whose sole purpose is to revise and interpret changes in their plans.  Even among federal employees, there are nearly three hundred distinct insurance plans being funded by the federal government.  Meanwhile, every local doctor has to have a billing office that is able to manage the four hundred different forms and the four hundred different set of requirements for coverage.  In a 200-bed hospital in the United States, a staff of ten to twelve persons is employed full-time to negotiate the complexity of billing.  In a comparable hospital in Canada or Europe, two persons manage the entire billing department.
  3. The business of insurance companies is to make money and, like any other business, chief executives and stockholders are rewarded on the basis of gross annual profits.  The quest for increased profits, unfortunately, runs headlong into the pledge of the company to provide a comprehensive healthcare package to its clients.  Fewer people are getting to the doctor of their choice.  Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage.  Fine-tuned restrictions are being dictated to physicians as to how they must treat patients if remuneration is to be forthcoming.  All in all, the bottom line is that insurance companies increase their profits whenever they are able to restrict or deny medical coverage.
  4. Medical doctors are frequently forced to order diagnostic tests and use procedures covered by the patient’s insurance carrier while, all the time recognizing that, if the patient’s health were the prime consideration, they would act otherwise.  This conflict of interest is felt by some doctors so acutely that they ultimately leave their profession because they feel that insurance carriers have dictated the course of medicine to such a degree that physicians can no longer act for the well being of their patients.
  5. The lobby against healthcare reform is keen to frame the debate as entailing “Government bureaucracy vs. free choice.” This is a false opposition since, as things now stand, the big HMOs routinely curtail a patient’s choice of doctor and choice of treatment.  For doctors to return to the practice of medicine focused upon the health of their patients, the redundant bureaucracy of four hundred different insurers needs to be eliminated.

We Know the Real Cause of the Crisis in Our Hospitals. It’s Greed.

By Lucy King and Jonah M. Kessel•January 19, 2022

===================================================

Big Pharma will have to answer to the American people

One of my top priorities is to substantially reduce the price of prescription drugs in America

By Sen. Bernie Sanders, January 31, 2024 5:00am EST

It is no great secret that millions of Americans feel that Congress is more interested in protecting large corporations than looking out for ordinary people.

That is never clearer than when we talk about our broken health care system, and the outrageous price of prescription drugs in this country.

The truth is, if you ask most Americans – Democrats, Republicans, independents, progressives, conservatives – they will agree: we are getting ripped off, big time, by the pharmaceutical industry.

As a nation, we spend almost twice as much per capita as any other country on health care – over $13,000 for every man, woman and child. Even for those with insurance, costs are so high that medical bills are often the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States.

And one of the major reasons for the high cost of health care in America is that we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

You tell me: why does Merck charge diabetes patients in the United States $6,900 for Januvia when the exact same product can be purchased in Canada for $900 and just $200 in France?

Why does Johnson & Johnson charge Americans with arthritis $79,000 for Stelara when it can be purchased for just $16,000 in the United Kingdom? And why does Bristol Myers Squibb charge patients in our country $7,100 for Eliquis when the same product can be purchased for just $900 in Canada and just $650 in France?

On and on it goes. Almost every prescription drug costs far more in the United States than it does in other countries.

The good news is that we are beginning to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry. Medicare, for the first time ever, is negotiating the price of some drugs, including Januvia, Stelara and Eliquis.

The bad news is that the pharmaceutical industry is doing everything it can to stop these negotiations, and prevent Congress from making prescription drugs affordable for all Americans – not just those on Medicare.

The giant pharmaceutical and health insurance lobbies have spent huge amounts of money over the past decades to ensure that their profits come before the health of the American people.

Over the past 25 years, the drug companies have spent $8.5 billion on lobbying. Today, they have some 1,800 well-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. – including former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties. Unbelievably, that is more than three lobbyists for every member of Congress.

=================================================

The working principles found in the Physicians’ Working Group for Single‑Payer National Health Insurance

Four principles shape our vision of reform.

  1. Access to comprehensive health care is a human right. It is the responsibility of society, through its government, to assure this right. Coverage should not be tied to employment. . . .
  2. The right to choose and change one’s physician is fundamental to patient autonomy. Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care professional.
  3. Pursuit of corporate profit and personal fortune have no place in caregiving and they create enormous waste. The U.S. already spends enough to provide comprehensive health care to all Americans with no increase in total costs. However, the vast health care resources now squandered on bureaucracy (mostly due to efforts to divert costs to other payers or onto patients themselves), profits, marketing, and useless or even harmful medical interventions must be shifted to needed care.
  4. In a democracy, the public should set overall health policies. Personal medical decisions must be made by patients with their caregivers, not by corporate or government bureaucrats.

We envision a national health insurance program (NHI) that builds upon the strengths of the current Medicare system. Coverage would be extended to all age groups, and expanded to include prescription medications and long term care.[i]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~notes~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[i]..             “Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single‑Payer National Health Insurance” http://www.physiciansproposal.org/embargoed/angell.html

Some would argue that a National Health Insurance program should cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment.

Uncategorized

Seeking my Last and Final Love

Leave a comment
Not yet exceptional. When the exceptional rating is reached this is highlighted
Why I bought a $1207 Ticket to China

by Aaron Milavec

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I felt that my time was running out.

I had been teaching for over thirty years.

And, when I finally retired,

I could now give attention to the things of the heart.

 

I am a very heady guy.  I write books.

And now I felt an acute sense of loneliness.

 

It was just around the time that I was getting ready to celebrate Christmas,

And I said to myself, “Gosh, it was lovely to have my family,

But I really don’t have my Lover.  Where is my Lover?”

So I began writing some poems to my Lover.

 

She’s the one that I was going to meet–

I knew that she was somewhere out there.

 

And I began looking for my last and final love.

I even started dating online.  I found twenty women

That I thought I would like to get to know.

And I only got three responses.

 

I thought, “Gosh, I put a lot of time into that.”

I felt ignored.  But guess what?  Three was enough.

[Upon reflection, I’d say] “One was enough.”

Yes, indeed, as things turned out, one was exactly enough!

 

The one that I am talking about is the one who began by saying,

“La vita e bella.”  It’s Italian.  It means, “Life is beautiful.”

What a neat way to begin.

Then she went on to say that she had been travelling.

 

Then she did something that most women would not do.

She said that there was something in her life that was unfinished:

It had something to do with a box of letters stored up in her attic

That she was afraid to look at.

 

“Wow!  What kind of women is brave enough

to talk about the fear in her life before a perfect stranger.”

Both of us felt the willingness to let down all our barriers,

To let ourselves be seen just as we are.

 

Not perfect.  Not totally imperfect either.

Not trying to impress each other—that was good–

Not trying to impress each other, but to just be who we are.

Noting more.  Nothing less.

 

We came across one of two crises,

But even these were overcome.

Meanwhile, I wasn’t just going to disappear either.

I bought a ticket!  I bought a ticket to go to Shanghai!

 

Just before Valentine’s Day.

Oh!  Was that pure fantasy?  No.

Was that pure hope?  Yes, but more than hope.

La vita e bella!

 

And I wanted to be sure.  I wanted to be sure that she was the one.

I had to be there. I was like a happy Chinese dragon in the sky,

Jumping from cloud to cloud, crossing the ocean to be with my Beloved.

 

Oh, it was a voyage of boundless anticipation

And I was that dragon racing to find my last, true love.

 

 

 

memoirs, Uncategorized

Following my Star

Leave a comment

When I was attending St. Joseph High School in 1955, I became fascinated by the “radio lab” where, every weekday and weekend, one could find high school boys busy (a) with learning the Morse Code, (b) with building a one-tube (6L6) 25-watt transmitter on a discarded TV chassis, (c) with taking government exams that authorized the use of a transmitter to contact amateur radio operators in and outside the USA.

 

Mike Stimac, a visionary teacher, was the spirit and the organizer of this dynamic Radio Club. Everyone had something to learn; everyone had something to teach.  I spent thirty to forty hours in the lab each week.  I was being fed on the notion that I could learn electronic circuitry (no matter how complex) and that I could modify and use surplus radio receivers and transmitters taken from the B29s decommissioned after WWII.

Today, Mike is living in a retirement home in the outskirts of Columbus, OH.  I am living half-way around the world with my wife [see pic] in the outskirts of Shanghai, China.  Mike is losing his short-term memory.  He doesn’t remember even half of what we discussed on FaceTime just a week ago.  Surprisingly, however, his long-term memory is entirely intact (as will be shortly demonstrated).

So I offer you, dear reader, a transcript of ten minutes taken from our FaceTime chat that we had five days before Christmas.  With good reason, I am calling it “Following my Star.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~transcript begins here~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A [=Aaron]: What are the changes that you would want to make in your autobiography?  [Note: Mike has repeatedly told me that he is dissatisfied with his autobiography that he is holding in the pic above.]

M [=Mike Stimac]: Well, I don’t like the entire first chapter that is filled with “baby stories.”

A: Oh, O.K.  From what it’s worth, I very much enjoyed your story of how you received a mild electric shock when listening to your crystal set during a thunder storm.  What I heard in this story is how you first encounter radio waves.

M: Yeah, it all started with Jimmy and Johnny coming to live with us on our farm just outside of Cleveland.  The boys were nephews of mine who were escaping the outbreak of smallpox in Chicago.

A: How old were you then?

M: I was between 10 and 12.  Jimmy was a few years older than me.  Johnny was a few years younger.  Both of them, however, were “city boys” and had experience with using a selenium crystal to construct a primitive radio receiver.

A: Did they now?  Tell me about that.

M: My Dad was a part-time engineer with the railroad.  In our attic, he had collected lots of boxes filled with odds and ends of parts used to repair train engines.  The three of us would go through his collection by way of amusing ourselves.  One day, Jimmy recognized a selenium crystal (set in a lead base, it was the size of a dime).  He immediately recognized what it was and what it could be used for.  I helped him find a spool of bare copper wire and a pair of ear phones.  That’s all that was needed.  Jimmy mounted the crystal on a small board and attached it to thirty-foot antenna.  Then he made a “tickler” that allowed him to turn the crystal into a diode that would separate out the audio from the AM radio waves coming off the antenna.  The audio signal was then passed through the head phones allowing the audio signal to be heard in my ears.  Once everything was set up, we heard WTAM transmitting loud and clear from Cleveland, maybe twenty miles due West from our farm.

A: Wow!  That was quite a discovery.  Jimmy showed you how simple it was to design, to build, and to use a crystal receiver.

M: He sure did. I was amazed!

A: I bet you were.

M: After four months, Jimmy and Johnny returned to their family in Chicago.  After that, I had the crystal receiver all to myself.  At night, tucked into bed, I would wind down by listening to WTAM.  On one such night, a thunder storm was brewing.  Now, for the first time, I got some mild electrical shocks from my head phones.  I noticed that I would get a shock every time there was a lightning flash.

A: Hey, what a discovery that was.  [In 1887, the German physicist Heinrich] Hertz was the first man to create a radio transmitter.  It was no more than a spark gap connected to a tank circuit.  I just bet that Hertz, in his youth, had an experience like your own.  He noticed that each time that there was a lightning flash in the clouds, his radio receiver received a strong signal that was experienced as a mild electrical shock in his earphones.

M: Maybe so.

A: Another thing that may be true.  Of all the things that made a deep impression on you, my hunch is that the electrical shocks helped to make certain that you would remember that crystal receiver.  As a boy of ten, you had hundreds, thousands really, of other experiences that have been long-forgotten.  But not “those shocks” that came from your crystal receiver.

M: Yeah!  Now that you mention it.  The shocks that came through the head set were in tandem with the lightning flashes.  This gave me a renewed fascination with the mysteries of Nature.

A: And, let’s face it.  I notice that you remembered “WTAM,” the “selenium crystal,” and “the propagation of radio waves” as well.  All of these associated memories were registered deeply in your long-term memory due to the electric shocks.  Thus, while you might have trouble remembering what you had for supper last night, all of the events surrounding the electrical shocks are fixed in your memory after ninety years.  It’s wonderfully strange how our memory works.

M: I have to agree with you.

A: Let’s go back to your embarrassment at telling “baby stories” in the first chapter of your book.

M: Say more.

A: Well, to begin with, I am in awe that you were able to remember so many stories and to put them into their proper order in your autobiography.  To be sure, you were selecting and deselecting what stories to tell at every point in your writing. Many were left out due to your editing.  I remember that.

As it so happens, Matthew in his Gospel was doing exactly the same thing.  Scholars today believe that Matthew had two reliable sources for his writing: the Gospel of Mark and collections of random sayings of Jesus.  Mark’s Gospel does not have any “baby stories” as you call them.  Matthew, however, had one “baby story” that he wanted to tell.  That’s the story of how three wise men from the East had studied the stars and noticed that a new, bright star had arisen that indicated to them that “a great king has been born.”  This made such a strong impression upon them that they packed their bags and loaded them on camels and set out to follow that new, bright star.“Following a star” is just a fiction invented by Matthew for those [like himself] who do not quite understand astrology or astronomy.  Matthew has the wise men say, “we observed his star at its rising” (Matt 2:2).  Hence, when they started out each evening, the new star was right in front of them.  But, in any given night, this same star would be overhead in five hours and behind them after ten hours (when it was setting).  So, if they literally “followed the star,” they would be reversing their direction during the course of any given night.

Matthew also says the the star “stopped” when they got to Bethlehem: “It [the star] stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child” (Matt 2:9-11).  Here is another fiction.  No star ever stops (save the North Star).  All the other stars are constantly on the move—including the star that induced them to find Jesus.  Thus, only someone ignorant of astronomy could talk about a star “stopping” and allowing them to “enter the house” where the infant-king was to be found.

Yet, you and I know that the bible does not teach us astronomy or astrology.  We overlook these fallacies because the bible is telling us a wonderful story.

M: Yes, I agree.  This was a striking baby story in Matthew’ Gospel.  Who cares that the star movements were all fictionalized.

A: But the story doesn’t end there, as you know.  In Matthew’s story, the three wise men are told by an angel that Herod was not to be trusted.  So they avoided Herod on their way home.  Herod, needless to say, was expecting the wise men to give him the information he needed.  Finally, in a fit of anger, he sent his armed troops into the small village of Bethlehem with orders to kill every male child under two years old.

Many scholars today think that this reported killing of infants never took place.  A Jewish king could be ruthless but not so ruthless as to have a hundred innocent babies killed.  History books that tell about Herod have nothing to say about such a horrendous crime.  Surely the ancient biographers would not easily overlook this ruthless crime?  As I see it, “the killing of the innocents” was put into the story by way of giving “a mild shock” to those who heard the story so that they would never forget it.  So the story in Matthew has the same dynamics that floods your story about the crystal receiver.

M: OK, I get it.  Mark did not tell any baby-Jesus stories.  Matthew and Luke did.  So what now?

A: As I see it, Mike, your story of how you got your first radio receiver and how you discovered that a lightning flash emits powerful radio waves prepares the reader for discovering how, from these very humble beginnings, you would eventually start-up a Radio Club at St. Joseph High School. No one told you to do this.  You were teaching “electricity” to boys in the tech track.  To those who were college-bound, you decided to teach them “electronics.” As a result, over a hundred young men would gain official government licenses that allowed them to build simple one-tube radio transmitters and to send out radio waves that invited other “amateurs” to chat with them using Morse Code. At 06:00, I would fire up my rig because I knew that the atmospheric bounce was just right for chatting with amateurs in CA.

Radio Club tracking the beeps of Sputnik IBut this was only the beginning. There were field trips to examine the cyclotron at Ohio State, parents’ nights, road shows for Catholic grade schools, tracking Sputnik, retreats with Thomas Merton, etc.  So, your little “baby story” of discovering radio waves served to enable nearly two hundred young men to do the same—and I am mightily pleased to count myself among them.

M: In a nutshell, you liked my crystal set story.  It got you ready to hear a much larger story.

A: Exactly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~transcript ends here~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS: After our chat, I did some fact checking.  I looked up WTAM.  They are still broadcasting the news from East Cleveland.  Mike got it right!  He was not inventing this part of the story.

PPS: Here’s a little secret of mine.

Now and then I have the chance to do some electronic repairs here at the house.  I recently took apart my back-up power supply for my home computer and replaced the large battery.  As I did the work, I played “Victory at Sea” using my computer’s loud speakers.  This music transports me physically and spiritually right back into the radio lab at St. Joes on a Saturday morning.

I can still feel “you guys” [Radio Club members] working on all sorts of projects right alongside me.  It gives me a wonderful feeling of being ALIVE!

 

change in the Church, family issues

When denial of Communion is blasphemy

Leave a comment
By David M. Knight | United States
Published in La Croix International, 14 Aug 2020

Cardinal Burke and his allies have made many attempts to box Pope Francis into a corner by asking him whether the “doctrine” on denying Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics is still part of the unchanging Catholic teaching.  Pope Francis refuses to boxed in by Burke.  This article by Fr. Knight will demonstrate why Pope Francis will never back down on this position.

Jesus said, “If you love me, feed my sheep.” But every time I hear confessions I realize many of the sheep are not being fed with what is most necessary for them—the Body and Blood of Christ—because they were taught false doctrines growing up, and are afraid to receive Communion. And one of those errors is what they were taught about mortal sin. It is blasphemy.

When Is Sin Mortal?

The bishops at Vatican II admitted we were taught error (Church in the Modern World 19):

 

Believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.

 

This statement has personally poignancy for me, because my 93-year-old brother has been, not an atheist, but an avowed agnostic all his life because of the false teachings we received as children.

 

We were told God would send a small child to hell for all eternity for things like missing Mass on a single Sunday. My brother drew the obvious conclusion: God is unbelievably cruel — and therefore unbelievable. He has been an agnostic ever since.

 

A few years ago he wrote me:

 

Religious belief – which I do not have – provides us with an explanation for our existence. And I do often wonder – Why am I here? Is there any purpose to human existence? The inability to come up with answers makes me uncomfortable.

 

The Catholic Church provided me with a raison d’être– but, as you know, it was not palatable. Each of us was put on earth to go through an ordeal, to be tested, to run a gauntlet. And if we scrupulously obeyed each and every edict of the Church, we would probably get through life without alienating God and having him consign us to damnation. That never appealed to me.

 

For my brother, God was like a pitcher standing on the mound, just waiting for him to take one step off first base so he could throw him out and cast him into hell forever. We taught him – yes, the Catholic Church taught him – that God was a monster.

 

That teaching was blasphemy. It “concealed rather than revealed the authentic face of God.” And every teaching that makes sins “mortal” when they are not is unintentional blasphemy against the true nature of God.

 

A pastor in my diocese asked an altar server at Sunday Mass where his ten-year-old brother was.

 

“He didn’t want to come to Mass this morning, Father,” the boy replied.

 

“Well, when you go home, you tell your little brother he has committed a mortal sin, and if he doesn’t come to Confession, he is going to hell.”

 

Who committed the greater sin: the boy who missed Mass, or the pastor who blasphemed by perverting the truth about God’s love for that little child?

 

The most common and destructive single error in the Church may be our centuries-long teaching about mortal sin.

 

We were given the impression we could easily distinguish mortal sin from venial sin. Mortal sin required three things: serious matter, sufficient knowledge, and full consent of the will.

 

That sounds clear enough. But in reality, it is almost impossible to identify anything as a mortal sin by using these three criteria.

 

When is knowledge “sufficient,” and when is consent “full”? More basically, what “matter” is serious enough to make God withdraw “grace,” the gift of divine life? In practice we were taught it was a mortal sin to miss Mass on one Sunday, or to eat a hamburger on Friday. Every sexual sin was “serious matter”—impure thoughts and touches, passionate kissing, masturbation, and contraception.

 

Married people were denied Communion for years because of “birth control.” According to the common teaching—and admittedly in the metaphorical language of the time—anyone who did any of these things and died without repenting, would be cast by God into the fires of hell to burn for all eternity.

 

To “conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God” like this makes our loving Father a monster. Is that not blasphemy?

 

The truth is, to be “mortal,” a sin has to be, not just bad, not just real bad, but evil; so evil that a normal father or mother whose son or daughter did that act would have to say it would be right and just to burn their child at the stake.

 

That would be much less than the punishment we say God inflicts in hell.

 

The truth is, the Church has never defined, with all her dogmatic authority, any particular act as the “serious matter” required for mortal sin. But from the pulpit, in the classroom, and in sacramental preparation, all sorts of offenses are blithely defined as mortal sin. This has to stop.

 

A good, practical rule of thumb for recognizing mortal sin would be to ask, “If my daughter did this, would I drive her from the house, refuse to let her eat at the family table—and yes, to be consistent with the doctrine we were taught—agree that she deserves to be burned in hell for all eternity?” If you answer “No” to any of these questions you do not really believe the girl is guilty of “mortal sin” as the Catholic Church defines it.

A Current Pastoral Failure

Up until 2016, when Pope Francis wrote his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), approving the findings of the Synod on Family Life, it was almost universally taken for granted that those married “out of the Church”—that is, invalidly, because in a way contrary to the rules—were living in mortal sin, and were not allowed to receive Communion.

 

But in The Joy of Love the pope declared officially in paragraph 301:

“It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

 

And in paragraph 243:

“It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union [without an annulment] should be made to feel part of the Church. They are not excommunicated, and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community. These situations require careful discernment and respectful accompaniment.”

 

There used to be a decree that declared them excommunicated, but it was abolished in 1977. And a 1984 article in US Catholic magazine quoted Father James Provost of the Canon Law Society of America:

 

Divorced Catholics enjoy the same good status of any other Catholic in regard to the Mass, Eucharist, and any liturgical function. Catholics who remarry without annulment have an irregular status, but “they are not excommunicated, are under no special penalties, and are not excluded from receiving the Eucharist if they believe they should receive it.” Father Edgar Holden, director of the tribunal of the Seattle archdiocese, agrees.”Nothing in Church law forbids a person with irregular status from receiving the Eucharist. This is a personal decision of conscience. We suggest that if people feel unable to reach a decision on their own, they ask their pastor or spiritual director for assistance” (emphasis added).

 

In other words, the only thing new about the teaching of The Joy of Love is its authoritative promulgation by the Pope and Synod.

 

No general rule exists or should be made either forbidding or allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Communion. This must be decided on a case-by-case basis. And the most important factor in every case is the conscience of the individual.

 

But in spite of the fact that the words of Pope Francis are available on the Vatican’s internet site (http://w2.vatican.va), this may be one of the best-kept secrets in the Catholic Church. I have yet to meet a Catholic who has heard this teaching of the Synod on Family Life, or the words of Pope Francis about it, proclaimed and explained from the pulpit.

 

Undoubtedly, there are pastors who have done so, but they must be few and far between. The great majority of Catholics are left in ignorance—and many are deprived of Communion who have a right to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

 

This is a serious, serious pastoral failure. The “Great Commandment” of pastoral ministry is what Jesus said to the first pope—and through him to all subsequent popes, bishops, and pastors, “If you love me, feed my sheep.”

 

The teaching in The Joy of Love should be shouted from the housetops. Why is that not happening?

 

David M. Knight is a senior priest of the Catholic Diocese of Memphis (USA) and the leader of Immersed in Christ, a movement for spiritual growth based on the five mysteries of Baptism. A former Jesuit, he has a doctorate in theology, 50 years of ministerial experience in 19 countries, and 40 books in print. He speaks four languages.

Source: https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/an-issue-unaddressed-when-is-denying-communion-blasphemy/12883

===================================================

Here is how things stood in 2014 when the bishops were discussing pastoral options prior to the Synod on the Family:

In February, Pope Francis tapped one of his favorite theologians, German Cardinal Walter Kasper, to address a meeting of all the cardinals.

Kasper argued that the church must show more mercy to people whose first marriages have failed and who want to remain within the church.

“With respect to the divorced and the remarried people, the church does not give them absolution, [does] not give them Holy Communion. And many people say this is not the God of Jesus, because Jesus was very merciful — he forgives us — and the church does not,” he said.

Kasper spoke to NPR after his address. He said it provoked sharp exchanges among some of the cardinals.

“Of course there was a heated debate, but there were not only cardinals who were against it, there were also cardinals who were in favor,” he said. “And so the voices are divided. The pope himself was very grateful for the discourse.”

Many Catholic conservatives rejected Kasper’s proposals. On the eve of the current gathering of bishops, known as a synod, five cardinals published a book of essays, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ.” In them, they described Kasper’s permissive attitude toward Communion as “fundamentally flawed.”

One of the authors is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican’s top court. In an interview with Catholic News Service, he dismissed the viability of Kasper’s proposal.

Vatican Synod Tests The Pope's Vision Of A More Merciful Church

“I cannot see how it can go forward if we are going to honor the words of our Lord himself, through which he said, ‘the man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,’ ” Burke said.

Catholic doctrine stipulates that a second marriage without the complex and often lengthy annulment of the first amounts to adultery, and that anyone married in a civil ceremony is living in sin and therefore ineligible to receive the sacraments.

But Kasper says there is no such single category as “the divorced and remarried.” For example, he says, a woman who is abandoned by her husband is different from the man who abandoned his wife.

“So we have to distinguish the cases,” he says.

 

change in the Church, sins of our fathers

Unwed Mothers Allowed to take Communion

Leave a comment

Unwed mothers allowed to take Communion, Vatican insists
The Vatican’s doctrinal office reminds “rigorist” priests and other Catholics that unwed mothers are permitted to receive the sacraments and their children can be baptized
By Loup Besmond de Senneville | Vatican City
Published in La Croix International, 15 December  2023

The Vatican’s doctrinal office has issued a new statement to remind “rigorist” Catholics of Pope Francis’ insistence that women who have had children out of wedlock can and should be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

“Pastoral work should be done in the local Church to make people understand that being a single mother does not prevent that person from accessing the Eucharist,” says Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), in a letter to a bishop in the Dominican Republic that was made public on Thursday.

The bishop expressed concern over single mothers who “abstain from communion out of fear of the rigorism of the clergy and community leaders”, the cardinal re-states at the beginning of his letter.

“It is noted that in some countries, both priests and some lay people prevent mothers who have had a child outside of marriage from accessing…

Read more at: https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/unwed-mothers-allowed-to-take-communion-vatican-insists/18868

change in the Church, invalid ordination, priestly celibacy

Christ’s Idea of Authority in the Church–book review

Leave a comment

John Wijngaards, Christ’s Idea of Authority in the Church: Reflections on Reform. Wipf and Stock Publishers.  187 pp.  $23 for pb.  $10 for Amazon Kindle.

 

John Wijngaards provides us with his pastoral reflections on the use and abuse of authority within the Catholic Church.  He tells us, right from the start, that this is not a systematic study.  Rather, it is “food for thought” designed to empower Catholics who are intent upon joining with Pope Francis in providing a much-needed revision of how our Church exercises authority in the modern era.

Wijngaards tells us that he will be presenting “reality learning” rather than “systematic learning.”  Being an educator myself, I would say that Wijngaards is intent upon using a “case study” methodology.  In so doing, he offers us 28 short chapters.  Each chapter has (a) a title page with a biblical citation, (b) a cartoon, (c) a case study based on his rich pastoral experience, (d) relevant reflections from the Gospels and Acts, and (e) a few questions for personal reflection.  Wijngaards idea is that users would set aside a short period each day (perhaps 15-20 minutes) to contemplate the themes (chapters) day-by-day during an entire month.

 

There are two unique ways in which Wijngaards expands upon the “case study” methodology:

  1. He introduces each chapter with a cartoon. I know of no other person who does this.  Wijngaards describes his use of this feature as therapeutic:

At the start of each chapter you will find a comic drawing, a cartoon, a caricature. It depicts a particular situation in a funny way. It exaggerates. It distorts. It makes you laugh, or at least smile. Yes, this is comedy. But do not underestimate it. The best kind of comedy makes fun of a serious issue. (p. 12)

  1. Relative to the questions for personal reflection, I note that Wijngaards is using a variation on the Observe, Judge, and Act progression that was used within Catholic Action circles during my youth. Here are the words of Wijngaards into which I have inserted the Catholic Action terminology:

Take time to reflect. Ponder on the message in the story, the Gospel texts, the caricature. Ask yourself: “Do I agree? Do I [Observe] recognise the web of cultural beliefs and practices that foul and smudge the authority Jesus gave? If so, [Judge] how does it affect me? How can the anomaly be remedied? What can I do [Act] to bring about the required reform, if reform is called for?”(p. 17)

This is where Wijngaards sets himself apart from those who provide “pietistic meditations” or “bible studies.”  The goal of each chapter is to enable the reader to discern what effective actions are required in order to promote a more transparent and more accountable use of authority as exemplified by Jesus and the early church.

In order to enable readers of this review to decide whether this book is designed for them, I will now provide a brief synopsis of what I found to be “the most engaging chapter” and “the most disappointing chapter.”

 

The most engaging chapter for me was Chapter 14: Latent spiritual authority shared by all.  Here is the cartoon and key excerpt from the case study:

 

In 1991 I visited Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. . . . There I met a religious sister whom I shall call ‘Amelia’.  She ministered as a hospital chaplain and she talked to me about her work:

“One day I was on the emergency ward of a large hospital when a young man was carried in. His motorbike had collided with a car. He had broken both legs and, apparently, he also suffered from internal bleeding in the stomach area. A nurse told me they did not expect him to last long . . .  I approached his bed. When he saw me, he clenched my hand and whispered: ‘I need to go to confession’.  I was in shock. I realised that I would never be able to call a priest in time. What should I do? Then I remembered that in the past even ordinary Christians had heard the confession of other people . . . So I took a bold decision. ‘I can hear your confession’, I told him. He trusted me. I heard his confession and gave him absolution. Then I handed him holy communion which I always carry with me.”

“Marvellous!,” I said. “And what about your bishop?”

“Yes, that was my worry too. Had I done the right thing?” (p. 90-91)

Wijngaards narrates this event simply and directly.  The words and the gestures (“he clenched my hand”) bring forward the urgency of the young man’s plight.  Then follows the “shock” of Amelia and her quick thinking (“in the past . . .”) that leads to her resolve: “So I took a bold decision.”  For this to work, however, there was one essential: “He trusted me.”

In the biblical reflections, Wijngaards draws attention to an early church practice: “Confess your sins one to another,” the Apostle James prescribed (Jas 5:16).”  Without going into details, he also says, “The practice of the sacrament of penance has gone through a long and convoluted history.”

  • He could have mentioned that “confessing ones sins to an ordained priest” did not emerge prior to the fifth century and that this practice was introduced (or re-introduced into the wider church) not by the Vatican but by Irish monks living at the ends of the earth.
  • He could have added Roger Ellsworth’s expansion on Jas 5:16: “If we have sinned secretly, we should confess it to God (1John 1:9). If we have sinned against someone else, we should confess it to God and to the person whom we have wronged (John 20:23, Eph 4:32, Matt 5:23-24). And if we have sinned publicly, we should confess it to God and in public (Acts 19:18)” (Day One Publications, 2009, p. 162).

Then, by way of expanding this to include presiding at the Eucharist, Wijngaards draws our attention to the fact that (a) no one in the early churches is ever “ordained” as the “exclusive presider” and (b) at the Last Supper (a modified Passover), when Jesus (acting like a rabbi) says, “Do this in remembrance of me,” he never clarifies that “this mandate” applies only to “apostles.”  Wijngaards thus arrives at a very carefully phrased conclusion:

Jesus addressed “Do this in memory of me” to all disciples. In principle all are empowered to preside at the eucharist. Yes, normally ‘elders’ or ‘overseers’ will preside, but if they are not present, any competent member of the community can, and should, fulfil that function. (p. 93)

The famous Dutch Dominican, Edward Schillebeeckx, first alerted me to this historical truth in the 60s.  For extended details, go to <https://www.churchonfire.net/jesus-and-priesthood/>

For the vast majority of American Catholics over fifty; however, Wijngaards suggestion will be blasted as “pure nonsense.” Let me explain why.

When I was attending Holy Cross Grade School in Euclid, Ohio, my sixth‑grade teacher, Sr. Matilda, an Ursuline Sister, explained this to me in a riveting story which I remember to this very day.  It ran something like this:

When the priest says, “This is my body,” over the host (i.e., the small wafer of unleavened bread) at Mass, it is changed.  It continues to have the appearance of bread, but, in reality, it has become the sacred body of Christ.  Only a priest has this supernatural power to consecrate.  Anyone else could recite the words of institution a hundred times over a host and nothing would happen.  The priest has only to say it once.  In fact, if a priest would go into a bakery and quietly say the words of institution over all the loaves on the shelf and really mean it, all at once, every one of those loaves would become the body of Christ.  No priest, of course, would do such a thing.  But the truth remains that he could, by virtue of his powers as a validly ordained priest, effect such a change if he really wanted to.

 

The hypothetical case of the priest in the bakery is clearly a pious exaggeration; however, within it original setting, this kind of narrative served to emphasize for a young boy like myself the supreme importance that Catholics in the 50s placed upon the ordained priest. This sort of retoric also served to enforce an unhealthy anti-Protestant bias.  Even as a lad of ten, I could easily understand why the Protestant celebration of the Lord’s Supper had nothing to do with the “true Mass” that Jesus instituted at the Last Supper.  In simplified terms, the argument would have been that the “defective intention” and “defective rites” used by Protestants in their ordinations could never have produced any “validly ordained priests.”  As a consequence, Protestant ministers were perceived as merely “going through the motions” when they celebrated the Lord’s Supper.  True sacraments (save for the exceptional case of emergency baptism and matrimony), Catholics wanted to insist, always and everywhere required validly ordained priests.

In Cleveland, Ohio, situated on the shores of Lake Erie, a typical winter will bring 20-30 snowfalls of six inches or more.  I’m telling you this because a certain convent of nuns in Cleveland had to makes use of an elderly retired priest in order to have their Sunday Eucharist.  When it snowed, however, he dared not go out.  So what was this convent of nuns to do?  After consultation and deliberation, they decided that when their priest could not come, one of their charismatic Sisters would become their “alternate presiders.”  No one in the community was adverse to this arrangement.  If asked, the Sisters might well have agreed with Wijngaards: if the Church allows non-ordained persons to administer “emergency baptisms” and “lay confessions,” then, it follows, as night follows day, that, in emergency situations, a gifted Sister could validly celebrate their Sunday Eucharist. To say anything less would be a sin against the Holy Spirit.

 

The most disappointing chapter for me was Chapter 12 The authority of the community.  The case study in this instance narrates how, in the 50s, Catholics in the village of Huissen, the Netherlands, had become attached to Dominican priests and attended the Sunday Eucharist at their amply priory.  The bishop had built and staffed a diocesan church, but it was sparsely attended.  So the bishop decided to padlock the doors of the Dominican church on Sundays so as to force them to go to the church he built.  Catholics were outraged at this strong-arm tactic.  Nearly a thousand gathered at the Dominican church and hacked off the padlocks.

Wijngaards makes the point that the Catholics have the right to choose where they go to Mass on Sundays, and that the bishop had overstepped his “authority” by running rough-shod over their preference for the Dominicans.

Wijngaards missed an opportunity here.  His case study has limited scope.  The much more universal issue that he overlooks is that of “priestless Sundays”:

[Fr.] James Dallen, in his book The Dilemma of Priestless Sundays (2007), demonstrates conclusively that the issue is not one of priestless parishes but, much more fundamentally, one of parishes prevented from being eucharistic.  According to Vatican figures alone, some 50 per cent of parishes or quasi-parishes world-wide have no resident priest and no ready opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist. . . .  Dallen shows that resolving the problem by the practice of what is known as SWAP (Sunday Worship in the Absence of a Priest) . . . is not only second best, it is clean contrary to the ancient traditions and teachings of the Church. . . .

The bishops, of course, complain that their hands are tied by the small number of seminarians that present themselves for ordination.  But is this the whole story?  Not nearly.

  • Roughly 200,000 priests world-wide left the ministry to marry following Vatican II. Did any bishop welcome some of them back into active ministry along with their families?  None.
  • Remember that these same bishops warmly welcomed those Anglican priests who deserted their church because they were unwilling to collaborate with ordained women. Many priests were angry that the bishops bent the rules in favor of the “Anglican deserters” at the same time when they were totally unwilling to bend the celibacy rule for long-suffering and faithful Catholic priests
  • In my 25 years in priestly formation, I met young seminarians who demanded to know “why God graciously gave them a vocation to priesthood at the same time that he gifted them with a yearning for marital intimacy.” Did any bishop decide to relieve their pain by making celibacy optional?   None.
  • Did any bishop invite priestless parishes to identify a trusted, mature, and charismatic elder in their midst, to present him for candidacy and, following a year of formation, to ordain him as their “interim” parish priest?   None.

Dallen carefully notes: “We often fail to experience and understand that it is the Body of Christ that celebrates the Eucharist.”  The subtext here is that the bishops and priests do not “own” the Eucharist; rather, this is the precious possession of the spiritual community itself!  Wijngaards, of course, could jump in here and remind us that “the bishops created an inadmissible situation” and “given this emergency, any parish without a priest had the right and the duty to select their candidate and to see that he is properly trained.”  And, if any bishop would run rough-shod over such a proposal, resourceful community members would be entitled to ‘hack off the padlocks.’

The biblical precedents for this are many.  The one that stands out most is when the Hellenists (“Greek-speaking Jews) complained to the Hebrews that their widows were being neglected.  The twelve responded by placing a proposal before the entire community: “Friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this task” (Acts 6:2).  And, after considering this proposal, “What they said pleased the whole community” (Acts 6:5). So they went forward united in their shared pastoral solution.

This precedent fits well here because it begins with a serious grievance.  The Twelve do not try to dismiss the merits of this grievance.  They formulate an alternative solution.  All sides of the issue find merit in this solution.  As a result, the Hellenists select seven solid candidates, and the Twelve lay their hands on them and pray over them—a standard Jewish rite for inducting someone into a public ministry.  The merit of this solution is that it enables the “complainers” to take charge and to solve the issue according to their own standards. No one is left out, frustrated, and forced to hack off padlocks.

 

Stepping back, I want to personally thank John Wijngaards for creating an inviting and innovative book.  His “case study” methodology enables everyone to enter easily into the nitty-gritty of the issues at hand.  Real people are doing things that matter.  Finally, the Observe-Judge-Act reflective questions allow the reader to make sense of the issue at it plays itself out in their own parish and among their own ministers.

The Gospels show Jesus as very capable of being stern whenever his disciples tried to coax him into giving them special privileges, whenever they tried to impose their own agendas upon women, whenever they failed to show compassion.  Prophets in our church today mercifully draw our attention to those who act with the same carelessness and authoritarianism displayed by the first-generation disciples.  These same Gospels give the faithful the right–nay, even the obligation–to call to task misbehaving bishops and priests.

 

John Wijngaards is precious to us because he is not afraid to give voice to his prophetic message.  His little book provides training for how to spot and how to deal with common abuses of church authority.  I come away encouraged and supported in tackling those abuses that have come my way.  I’m quite certain that this little book will do the same for you.

Read it.  Discuss it with trusted friends.  Pray for yourself and for those who are healing.  Give copies during the time of this Advent to those harmed by abuses of ecclesial power.  Maranatha!

=============end of text: 2620 words==================

For a synopsis of the author’s life, go to <https://www.churchonfire.net/2022/02/06/the-case-of-fr-john-wijngaards-a-book-review-of-a-priest-who-protested-the-ban-on-women-priests/>

For an overview and publicity on the book, go to  https://Wijngaardsw.churchauthority.org/

 

 

Uncategorized

Give Me a Hug, Bro.

Leave a comment
Exceptional
This work has reached the exceptional level
merit score received from other writers at FanStory
subtitle = Two brothers, two views of God and sex

by Aaron Milavec

Author Tools:  Edit This Promote This My Portfolio Registered

The author has placed a warning on this post for sexual content.

My father had two sons.  The first he named “Aaron.”  The second he named “Kevin.”

They loved each other fiercely.  They distrusted each other entirely when it came to God and sex.   They had two opposing views of love and romance as well.

Kevin always had a certain insecurity because he was always #2.  Hence, he was prone to compete with his older brother in almost everything.  When it came to climbing trees, using a sling shot, hitting a home run, Aaron always exceeded Kevin.  Aaron tried to encourage Kevin, “Don’t take it so hard, Kevin.  In three years, you will be doing all the things I do and more.  Just wait and see.”

But Kevin was not consoled.  He urgently needed to be #1, and it grieved him that he was not able to do so.  But, then, God heard his prayer, and Kevin, just after his marriage, finally found an arena wherein he could excel over his brother.  Kevin became a “Providentialist.”

“A Providentialist,” he was proud to remind me just about every time we met, “is someone who does not practice any form of birth control—not even Natural Family Planning (NFP) that is permitted by the Catholic Church. This person simply trusts God to give him and his wife as many children as God wants for them—no more, and no less.”

It made me sad to see my brother swallowing the doctrine of the Catholic bishops hook, line, and sinker.  His position would fit well in the 12th century, but it was patently absurd today.  So the next time that Kevin boasted of being a Providentialist, I said to my brother in a very quiet voice, “What kind of father would say, ‘My first child was born with a cleft lip.[i]  God must have known what he was doing; hence, as a Providentialist, I will accept this as God’s will and not interfere’”?

On the second occasion of his boasting, I said this: “What kind of father would say, ‘My second child was born with myopic vision.  God must have known what he was doing; hence, as a Providentialist, I will accept this as God’s will and not interfere’”?

On the third occasion, I said this: “What kind of father would say, ‘My third child was born with chickenpox.[ii]  God must have known what he was doing; hence, as a Providentialist, I will accept this as God’s will and not interfere’”?

My brother was visible shaken every time I said these things. I was raining on his parade.  On one of these occasions, he grew furious and blurted out bitterly, “You are always winning.  You can’t even let me win an argument from time to time.  I hate you!”

There, he finally said it. His rage had boiled over. I stayed absolutely silent. I calmly looked straight into his eyes, gave him a big smile, and said in a whisper, “Even when you’re wrong, I still love you.”  Then, I hugged him and held him in my embrace.  This disarming gesture caught him completely off guard.  As I held him, I could feel his pent-up rage dissipating like the end of a thunderstorm.  Hot tears spilled out of his eyes and fell upon my neck.

We never talked about this.  Neither of us had the right words to say about such an unprecedented event.  If fact, looking back, I would say that something powerfully changed between us.  Words would have only banalized the power of that unique event.

After that event, I realized that I had no interest in upsetting Kevin’s core beliefs.  He had a right to his beliefs, just as I had a right to mine.  Every man puts his life and his future on the line when he confesses his beliefs about God and love.  That’s the way things are.  No two men handle this in the same way.

I clearly saw the flaws in my brother’s beliefs; but, upon reflection, I realized that I was blind to the flaws in my own beliefs.  Kevin claimed that he saw the flaws in my beliefs, but, at the same time, he was afraid to listen to me for fear that I might sow some doubt in his mind.  As Michael Polanyi taught me, “Every belief works in the eyes of the believer”

Even when it comes to deciding when to have sex with his wife, how could Kevin decide whether God wanted them to have sex every day of the week or just on certain days (e.g., on Sundays or on birthdays).  Does this matter?  It sure does!  If Kevin insists that God is totally in change, then God must be seen as exerting his control over the process (how often to have sex) in order for him to better control the outcomes (how many children are conceived).  If God had no rules regarding the frequency of sex, therefore, it must be supposed that even God wanted each set of parents to come to their own decisions as to when and how often they had sex.

The same thing holds for the position of the partners during ejaculation.  Since God has no rules regarding the advantageous and disadvantageous position of the partners during the time of ejaculation, it must be supposed that even God wants each set of parents to come to their own decisions in this matter. What decisions they implement, however, necessarily has the effect of either increasing or decreasing the probability of conception.  Thus God cannot be said to be the sole determiner of when a conception takes place.

Kevin maintains that he wants to place his family planning entirely in the hands of God.  To maintain this illusion, he has to abandon all attempts to keep track of his wife’s fertility cycle. Furthermore, he and his wife need to have intercourse at random times using random positions so as to convince themselves that they are not trying to influence the outcome.

But what if God is not in the business of doing family planning for those who fail to take the time and effort to do it for themselves?  Then my brother’s family is cooked!  He is like a man who takes his hands off the steering wheel because he believes that God will take over the driving of his car.  This would invite unwanted accidents to happen. God, after all, does not have a driver’s license, and he has no record of being a safe driver.  So one cannot count on God to do something that he is not prepared to do.  Because of this, I am afraid for Kevin’s future.  This is a reckless way to live.  This invites unwanted accidents.

Even Pope Francis would agree with me.  In 2015, he visited the Philippines and met with the bishops there.  The bishops were taking a tough stand against the government’s new Protective Health Law of 2012 that permits clinics and hospitals to make contraceptives available for the first time.  Prior to this, only NFP was allowed.  The bishops tried to invalidate this Law, but the Supreme Court upheld its legality. At the time of the Pope’s visit, the bishops were busy conducting seminars that were designed to prepare Catholic health care workers to defy the government on the grounds that “on the basis of conscience . . . a health worker is not obliged [to make contraceptive available] and may refuse to refer a patient to anyone else from where the contraceptives may be obtained.”

Pope Francis was not happy with the initiatives of these bishops.  On the plane trip back to the Vatican, Pope Francis held his usual press conference.  “Catholics,” the pope said, “should be speaking of responsible parenthood.”  “How do we do this?” Francis asked. “With dialogue,” he said.  “Each person with his pastor seeks [for him/herself] how to do that responsible parenthood.”

“God gives you [Catholics] methods to be responsible,” he continued. “Some think that — excuse the word — that in order to be good Catholics we have to be [breeding] like rabbits. No [way].” (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/20/)

I just love it when Pope Francis breaks free of all the stuffy papal etiquette that surrounds his office.  I broke out laughing when I read that he was associating “good Catholics” and “breeding like rabbits.”  He was right on target, to be sure.  Most Catholics in my generation routinely associate the “holiness of parents” with “the size of their family.”

I was tempted to tell my brother of this papal interview.  In discussing this with my wife, she cautioned me saying, “Don’t you think that Kevin is suffering enough with the realization that he is a dying breed and that even his own children will someday be laughing at him behind his back whenever he begins one of his rants about being a ‘Providentialist’?”  I agreed with her entirely.

Some years later, Kevin was in a stable marriage, and his wife had just birthed his second daughter.  I, meanwhile, had discovered the love of my life and, our daughter, Jessica, was thriving in kindergarten.  In this period, I decided to write out my philosophy of living and loving.  This was so satisfying that I decided to write a letter to my brother in the hope that we might be able to discover some common understanding of God and love.  Here is my very first letter to my brother:

Dear Kevin,

When my wife and I together decided to go off contraceptives, we checked her vaginal mucus each night and, when it got slippery, we knew this was the beginning of the fertile segment of her menstrual cycle.  That night, we had a very long and very delightful sexual exchange  because together we imagined that we were creating (with God’s help) our future daughter.

The next three nights were the same.  The great sex that was our constant gift to each other was there, but now it was infused with a special urgency because we were anticipating our future daughter. . . .  We fucked like rabbits throughout the night.  We laughed and played and kissed for hours. This was like the unrestrained sexual ecstasies that we had for the first two weeks after our wedding. . . .  It was glorious.

But we were mistaken.  A conception did not take place. And don’t you dare ever trying to tell me that God was punishing us because we had used contraceptives for four years in order to allow Linda to finish her studies and to get a firm foothold in her profession.

So, when our daughter was not conceived, we were not in the least bit discouraged. In discussing this with our friends, they told us that “this was not unusual.”  So when the sign of the slippery mucus came again on the following month, we rushed into our marital orgy just as we did in the first month.  It came upon us with the naturalness of dew falling off of the morning leaves.  Again, we felt our future daughter was palpably there with us, and we loved her along with loving each other nonstop.

But again no conception took place.  After six months, we suspected that something was not quite right, so we consulted a specialist in fertility studies. We didn’t do a novena or have Masses said for our intention because we were fully aware that God was on our side and that he wanted us to have a daughter as much as we did.

The medical expert told us that we both were “marginally fertile.”  Hence, we continued our monthly orgies of sex for two full years.  Near the end of the second year, the vision of our daughter had grown dim.  In its place, our love making now was drenched in tears of pain and loss.  Good sex, believe it or not, can mix with tears that heal memories and mend wounds that life imposes on those who love God.  I wonder whether you have ever known good sex mixed with bitter tears.  If so, I’d enjoy hearing your story.

Then it happened.  We did not get pregnant.  No.  But the love that we had so faithfully generated for our future daughter had mysteriously moved a complete stranger from Guatemala who had crossed the Rio Grande and was being detained by the INS awaiting deportation to beg my friend Margaret a special favor: “I’m pregnant.  I need to find a couple in the USA who would take me in and love my baby.”

And so Margaret called me in the middle of the night and told me her “good news.”  She was like the angel who said, “Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy” (Luke 2:10). And so we gave Zoila the residency rights that she needed, and she gave us the beloved daughter, Jessica, that we were ready to love even more than a child conceived within our own flesh. Who could have anticipated such an amazing story that left all of us blessed.

Your beloved brother, Aaron

When Kevin had digested my letter, he responded in only twenty-five words:

You took the short route, Aaron.  If you had faithfully entrusted your future to God as I did, he would have performed an even greater miracle for you.

I wanted to shout back,

Hey, bro.  You don’t get it.  God did perform the “greater miracle” when Zoila came to live with us. . . .  In any case, despite all our differences, I still love you.  Give me a hug, bro!

memoirs

Financial fraud and stonewalling at Liturgical Press

Leave a comment

No one likes to be caught red-handed when they are being lazy, neglecting professional duties, or showing their incompetence.  Hence, from the very beginning I adapted the attitude that I might be able to gently win over my would-be adversaries and to reveal to them serious flaws in their current system that needed to be corrected.  My motto was: “You attract more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a barrel of vinegar.”

Who am I?

I am a research theologian who published two books with Liturgical Press: (a) THE DIDACHE (2003) and (b) SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS (2007).  My Didache book (110 pp.) is affectionately called “my mouse.” My thousand-page volume (“the elephant”) published with Paulist Press is the powerful protector of “my mouse.”  Thanks to my online forums and online blogging, “my mouse” continues to attract roughly the same level of sales today as it did when first published in 2003.  My annual royalties are roughly $1000.  I estimate that, over a period of twenty years, I have contributed roughly $60,000 to the operating costs of the Press.  When my next and final Didache volume (“my kangaroo”) appears, I anticipate a surge in the sales of “my mouse.”

Mini-Biography: Aaron Milavec began his career as an innovative teacher and oral story teller.  After devoting twenty-five years to the training of future priests and lay ministers, Aaron turned his attention to creating online courses in gender studies and the empowerment of women.  Aaron has gained an international reputation as a Didache scholar.  He has published eighteen books, eight chapters in collected works, and seventy journal articles.  His two most recent books are occupied with the graced power of love: The Red String Chronicles (2017) and What Jesus Would Say to Same-Sex Couples (2019).

Prof. Aaron Milavec, theologian, author, public speaker, advocate, Didache and Polanyi interpreter, Current research fellow with the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research

My Purpose

I am writing this narrative for the authors and the staff within Liturgical Press. I believe in your mission and your role in bringing a big dream into reality.  I fear, however, that the arrogant and authoritarian leadership style exhibited by Sandra Eiynck, the CFO, and by Therese Ratliff, the CEO, are bound to inflict harm upon the staff and authors of the Press.  As I wrote to Abbot John:

In brief, the two most powerful persons at Liturgical Press show themselves quite easily inclined to be authoritarian and brutal, not only to me but to all those others who, like me, have had and will have the audacity to question their hidden financial irregularities.  In brief, we are dealing with systemic mismanagement.

I am writing this to alert authors and the Board of Directors that Sandra Eiynck, the Chief Financial Officer, has sanctioned and promoted policies from 2017 onward that are ineffectual and self-serving.  As a result, authors who share their research and talents in the form of books for sale (a) fail to receive their royalty payments in a timely fashion and, when they do receive such payments, (b) the number of eBooks is underreported and the calculation of the net sales is invariable flawed.

Some of my readers may imagine that I have a vendetta against Sandra Eiynck and that I am intent upon embarrassing her by exposing her rudeness and incompetence.  Far from it.  From the very beginning, I presented myself as a research scholar, as a productive writer, and as a concerned friend and collaborator.  Moreover, even after receiving repeated and undeserved abuse, I still had goodwill toward all concerned.  Here is what I wrote to Sandra:

In closing, I want to say that I honor you as a resourceful and just Director of Finance.  Your resistance to my appeal to justice can be dismissed as a momentary lapse of judgment. My intention is not to scare you or to belittle you.  On the contrary, I want to save your legacy of honor that you have built up so far.  I want you to [someday   be able to] retire with honor.

My final hope was to bring a greater efficiency and economic justice within the operating procedures surrounding the computation and distribution of royalties.  As it turned out, my innocent discoveries and my reporting of financial irregularities were met with disbelief and dismissal.  Then, when I endeavored to bring this to the attention of Therese Ratliff, the Director and CEO, and Abbot John Klassen, President of the Board of Directors, I was met with either open hostility and stonewalling or an inappropriate silence.

In the end, even my spoonful of honey failed to attract the least bit of interest in investigating how and why authors failed to receive timely and just royalties.  Thus, as things now stand, the conduct of Sandra Eiynck from 2017 to the present goes unnoticed and uninvestigated.  No one knows how many authors have been cheated of their just remuneration.  Furthermore, due to the open hostility and stonewalling of Therese Ratliff and due to the uncritical support she receives from Abbot John Klassen, President of the Board of Directors, there is little or no prospect that Liturgical Press will ever be transparent and just when it comes to computing and distributing royalty payments.  Is this a harsh judgment?  It may appear to be so.  All I can do is narrate the events, and to allow you to decide for yourself.

The positive and supportive relations of 2003

5 Things Geese Can Teach Us About Teamwork. By: Len WilsonAs the Canadian geese honked during their V-formation as they flew over my home in Cincinnati to escape the bitter cold of another Canadian winter in 2002, I was removing the passenger seats from my Mazda and packing all of the clothes, books, and camping equipment that I would need during my nine-month stay on Vancouver Island in Canada. I was fortunate enough to have received a Research Fellowship on the Interface of Science and Religion at the prestigious University of Victoria.

This fellowship came at just the right moment.  My life in Cincinnati had surrounded me with a whirlwind of activities.  Now I was heading off to a life of peace and quiet and contemplation.  In order to save money and to satisfy my life-style as a nature lover, I would be camping on each of the six nights along the way.  The total driving distance is 4000 km.  Driving six hours each day would suffice to get me to the ferry that will bring me to Vancouver Island.

Two books were in the process of being prepared for the printers.  “My mouse” was being handled by the staff of Liturgical Press.  I remembered, before falling asleep at night, how the Liturgical Press staff was so helpful and informative.  I had suggested to them a cover design and, without missing a beat, they accepted my ideas enthusiastically.  They consulted with me when designing advertising copy as well.  Our give and take relationship was a joy to behold.

In contrast, Paulist Press staff was very secretive and resistant to my suggestions.  Their mantra was, “Just relax, Aaron.  Let us do what we know best.”  But, truth to say, they chose a very  blurred image of Jesus taken from a primitive ossuary for use on the cover.  A friend of mine told me that the blurred image appears to be a man walking a circus bear.  Furthermore, they wanted to change my text in more than a dozen places in order to harmonize my narrative with popular devotional prejudices upheld by most Catholics. My senior editor, a scholar in early Christianity, happily silenced these uninformed “editors” on my behalf.  If it had not been for him, I would have completely backed out of my contract with Paulist.

I share there things because I want to show how positive and supportive my relations were with the Liturgical Press staff in 2002-3.  In 2023, all this goodwill was squandered and turned around.

The conduct of Sandra Eiynck, Director of Finance

Here are the seven emails that detail how I gained the ire of Sandra Eiynck. The opening email comes from her assistant, Lynn Tamm.
#1

From Tamm, Lynn on 2022-11-03

Hello Aaron,

I hope this email finds you well.

Your inquiry about royalties was brought to my attention.  We encountered an issue with our software program, which has since been corrected and we are in the process of getting the payments out.  [Notice that Lynn acknowledges that there was some unspecified problem with “our software program,” but that this has been corrected and “we are in the process of getting the payments out.” This is good news.]

I noticed in our notes that you prefer your payment to be paid by EFT.  But I’m not sure if we have the correct banking information for you.  Could you please confirm where it should be transferred to, please?  [I respond by sending out my banking information = router number for bank + my account number]

Also, let me know if there are any other questions or concerns that I can help you with. [This is a welcome invitation.  See #2]

With warmest regards,
Lynn Tamm

#2

From: Aaron Milavec <milavec@churchonfire.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022
To: Tamm, Lynn <LTAMM@litpress.org>
Subject: Re: Royalty Payments

Dear Lynn,

It distresses me to hear that for all these years, the royalties were being returned and no one was making the effort to contact me and to correct the problem with the defective wire transfers.

Do you recognize that the dollar in 2022 is worth less than the dollar in 2017?  Using the inflation calculator [https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2017?amount=1], I get the following result:

$777.48 in 2017 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $945.24 today, an increase of $167.76 over 5 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.99% per year between 2017 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 21.58%.

Thus, for the six royalty payments (rounded off to the nearest whole dollar):

2017    777–>945
2018    1014–>1203
2019    1068–>1245
2020    958–>1103
2021    1079–>1187
2022    962–>962
—————
$6645 = total amount due adjusted for inflation

In addition, the LitPr [abbr. Liturgical Press] might want to consider imposing a voluntary fine for each year that the monies wired were returned but no “due diligence” was taken to correct this.  Since I have been injured by this lack of due diligence, this fine would also be added to the required royalty payments adjusted for inflation.

I want to emphasize that I hold no animosity toward LitPr.  I do expect, however, that LitPr will continue to act honestly and promptly in repairing what is my due.

Peace and joy,
Aaron

#3

From Tamm, Lynn on 2022-11-18

Dear Aaron,

I cannot make any decision on this. I have brought your request to the attention of Sandy Eiynck and she will be in touch with you in the next few days.  [Lynn provides a response that is informative.]

Thank you,
Lynn

#4

From Eiynck, Sandra on 2022-11-19

Dear Mr. Aaron,

Lynn Tamm forwarded your message to me concerning your royalty payments.

We are not in a position to pay you the additional amount your [sic] are requesting.  There is nothing in the contract you have with us that addresses the non-receipt of payment or a fine for the non-receipt.  [Sandra completely dismisses my appeal to the injustice of paying a 2017 debt with an equal amount of 2022 dollars. Sandra falls back entirely on the fact that the contract does not address how to deal with late payments. Since the contract presumes that annual payments of royalties are being paid, it is no wonder that the contract saw no purpose in addressing such a question. Sandra seemingly has no ability to think outside the box. Alternately, it is quite possible that Sandra was shaking in fear that all her financial irregularities would be exposed once an investigation was underway. Hence, her hiding behind the letter of the contract was her lifeboat in her moment of danger.]

We do our best to get in touch with authors when payments are returned, but do not always have current information.  Oftentimes we need to wait for the author to reach out to us in order to get payments made.

Sincerely,
Sandy Eiynck

#5

To Eiynck, Sandra, 1 more… on 2022-11-20

Dear Sandra and Lynn,

When you say, “We are not in a position to . . . ,” I hear you to be saying, “We are not in a position to act justly.”

You say that I was contacted.  Help me understand this.  On what dates and by what means and by whom?

The U.S. Bishops pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All” calls us to act thusly:

Justice has many nuances.(9) Fundamentally it suggests a sense of what is right or of what should happen. For example, paths are just when they bring you to your destination (Gen 24:48; Ps 23:3), and laws are just when they create harmony within the community, as Isaiah says: “Justice will bring about peace; right will produce calm and security” (Isa 32:17). God is “just” by acting as God should, coming to the people’s aid and summoning them to conversion when they stray. People are summoned to be “just,” that is, to be in a proper relation to God, by observing God’s laws which form them into a faithful community. Biblical justice is more comprehensive than subsequent philosophical definitions. It is not concerned with a strict definition of rights and duties, but with the rightness of the human condition before God and within society. Nor is justice        opposed to love; rather, it is both a manifestation of love and a condition for love to grow.

The US Department of Labor stipulates the following interest tables when calculating back pay:

  1. Purpose and Rate of Interest. The purpose of applying interest on back pay awards is to compensate the victim(s) for the loss of the use and purchasing power of their income. Interest on back pay is calculated at the same percentage rate as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) underpayment formula. Interest on back pay must be compounded quarterly under the laws OFCCP enforces.

  2. Rate Adjustments. The IRS may adjust its rate on a quarterly basis. The interest rates applicable to various periods are available on the IRS website at https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/federalRates.html.

I urge you not to act rashly.  Seek the advice of those who cherish justice.

Fraternally,
Aaron

#6

To Eiynck, Sandra, 1 more… on 2022-11-23 13:54

Dear Sandra,

At this moment, I have a grievance.  You say that there is nothing in the contract that addresses my grievance.  Hence, some exploration is required.

Here are the qualities that you identify in yourself: “Critical Thinking, Microsoft Office, Grant Writing, Leadership, Public Speaking, Editing, Event Planning, Research.”  For our task here, critical thinking and research are called for.  You take pride in having such skills.  With this we can securely go forward.  [I wanted to learn more about Sandra.  I did a Google search.  Among the items I found were Sandra’s self-evaluation.  I accept her self-evaluation and honor it by way of implementing what follows.]

Three questions:

Q1. Do you recognize that the dollar in 2022 is worth less than the dollar in 2017?

Q2a. If so, do you think that there would be some merit in taking into account the devaluation of the 2022 dollar when paying out the royalties that were calculated in 2017 dollars?  [For the moment, do not factor in any praise or blame for the delay in the payments.]

Q2b. My book, THE DIDACHE, is currently listed as costing $19.95.  What if a customer came in with an add that listed my book as costing $12.95 (printed in 2013) and insisted that he should be able to buy my book for that amount today?  How would you respond to him?

Q3. You say that I was contacted when the bank money transfer of 2017 failed to go through.  Help me understand this.  On what dates and by what means and by whom?  [As Director of Finance, it might be of interest to you to discover just how well your staff is functioning.]

Peace and joy,
Aaron

SANDRA OFFERED NO RESPONSE TO THIS EMAIL.  SHE DID NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING IT.

#7

To Tamm, Lynn, 1 more… on 2022-11-30 11:12

Dear Sandra,

For twenty years, my little book, THE DIDACHE, has been selling steadily.  In the years to come, this steady seller will be the Liturgical Press’ golden goose.  Most books taper off after the first five years.  Not so for THE DIDACHE.  Every year, without fail, it continues to lay golden eggs.

What I liked about the production staff [in 2002-2015] is that they were open to innovative ideas.  They let me design the front and back cover.  After ten years, they encouraged me to update and to expand this golden goose.

Now all of this good will and mutuality built up over twenty years is in danger of being dwindled away because you have chosen to ignore my appeal for economic justice.  Your case, as I see it, is exceedingly weak.  You argue that the contract says nothing about how to handle cases where the bank returns royalty payments for a period of five years.  That’s why I cited the US Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter on economic justice.  That’s why I cited the ruling by the US Department of Commerce regarding how they require justice when making late salary payments.

Maybe you think that by ignoring me, I will just eventually go away.  I am sorry, but I will not do this.  Here is what I will do.  I will begin by going to your Supervisor at LitPr.  Then I will explore whether LitPr has a mediation process that resolves such disputes. If none exists, then an outside mediator will need to be found.  Finally, if all else fails, I will go to the Small Claims Court.  At this point, however, my patience with you will have been exhausted.  I will, in the end, be awarded the $794  (plus interest) that is my due, but I will be bitter that I had to waste so much time in order to achieve the justice that you denied me.  Meanwhile, nearly all the good will and mutuality built up over twenty years will be dwindled away.  You will be retiring with a legacy of shame.  I will be telling the story of how I was mistreated by LitPr.

My intention is not to scare you.  On the contrary, I want to save your legacy of honor that you have built up so far.  I want you to retire with honor.

For the moment, however, the ball is in your court.  You can continue to ignore me, but you will know what is coming. Your eyes are opened.  You can answer the three critical questions that I sent in my last email.  That will put us back into dialogue.  That will allow that I have something to learn from you and that you have something to learn from me.  If we remain in dialogue, we will find a mutually acceptable solution somewhere down the line.  You take pride in being intelligent, resourceful, and a problem solver.  If so, please respond to my three questions in a timely fashion. You will find that I am a gentle and loving person but that I do not tolerate anyone who functions as a dictator.

Maybe you don’t have the time to dedicate to dialogue and mediation.  Then, in that case, I would advise sending $794 as quick as possible.  If you do this now, (a) you won’t have to defend yourself and (b) you will miss out on the adventure of staying with this issue until it is mutually resolved.  On the other hand, sending $794 will get that “pest of a theologian off your back.”  More importantly, the good will and mutuality built up over twenty years will remain intact, and it will continue to grow for the next twenty years.  You will retire with honor.

I myself do not want to be a dictator.  Hence, I give you permission to share my emails with those whom you regard as trusted advisors.  You are free, at any point, to take their advice or to reject it.  The ball is in your court.  If you choose to ignore it, you will thereby be enabling me to win “the game.”  You get to decide.

In closing, I want to say that I honor you as a resourceful and just Director of Finance.  Your resistance to my appeal to justice can be dismissed as a momentary lapse of judgment. My intention is not to scare you or to belittle you.  On the contrary, I want to save your legacy of honor that you have built up so far.  I want you to retire with honor.

Fraternally,
Aaron

cc:Lynn

SANDRA OFFERED NO RESPONSE TO THIS EMAIL.  SHE DID NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING IT.

The conduct of Dr. Therese Ratliff, Director and CEO

Therese L. Ratliff New Director, CEO of Liturgical Press | Shelf AwarenessAs for starters, I wish to note that Therese Ratliff did not allow her email address to be listed and that when I finally did get it [due to a personal contact within LitPr], I noticed that she had taken TRatliff001@litpress.org  To my knowledge, the other 34 employees have taken an email address which consists in the first letter of their given name followed by their family name without the “001”.   Peter Dwyer had taken PDwyer@litpress.org  Hence, I presume that Therese Ratliff had deliberately added the “001” by way of affirming her rank as #1 and by way of preventing outsiders from being able to contact her because they would wrongly presume that TRatliff@litpress.org is her email address.

All in all, Therese Ratliff never responded to any of my emails.  She never even acknowledged that she was receiving them.  Behind the scenes, however, Therese Ratliff contacted the company lawyer and directed him to write a letter of complaint to me that ended with a “cease and desist” warning.  Here it is:

Here is my reply transmitted on 27 March 2023:

Dear Therese L. Ratliff, PhD, Director and CEO

It pains me that you, as yet, have never written a single email to me. This is a very unorthodox way of doing business with one of your distinguished authors.

It is doubly-painful in so far as you evidently reported to your lawyer that you were being “repeatedly harassed” by me.  Does it not occur to you that I was awaiting a simple acknowledgement that you have received my complaint?  I wrote in my emails, “I do not know whether you have received my complaint.”  A single email saying, “I have received your complaint and am considering the merits of your case,” would have halted any repeated attempts to contact you.

If this explanation seems plausible to you, please tell me and we can then mutually drop the accusation of “harassment.”

Your lawyer also prejudices my letters to Sandra Eiynck by characterizing them as “defamatory communications.”  In matter of fact, my letters have been respectful. I needed to alert you to the impoverished notion of justice and civility manifest by one of your cherished employees.  Read in the context of my expressed hope to safeguard the reputation of Liturgical Press for the future, I am surprised that you completely overlook my good intentions to improve the performance level of the Press.

If this explanation seems plausible to you, please tell me and we can then mutually drop the accusation of “character assassination.”

Your lawyer makes a case for placing the blame entirely on my shoulders, by referring to calling to mind the case of “a bank account, insurance policy, credit card account, magazine subscription” where “it is your responsibility to notify the paying party or vendor of any change of address.”  Except for the case of payouts of an “insurance policy,” your lawyer is correct in his observations.  However, the text of his letter implies that I had changed my mailing address and/or my email address without notifying Liturgical Press.  This is completely erroneous. No such changes had ever taken place.  Even when I moved to China, I maintained my USA mailing address on 2739 Queenswood Drive.

Three points:

#1 Royalties are a contractual obligation made to remunerate authors.  Not to employ due diligence to pay such royalties constitutes a breach of contract.  This is not the case for “a bank account, insurance policy, credit card account, magazine subscription.”  Would you agree with me, therefore, that David W. Koehser is making the error of not separating the apples from the oranges.  Paying royalties in a timely fashion is a requirement of the contract.  If electronic payments are not going through, then the contract argues strongly in favor of requiring that the royalty checks be mailed to my home address as was the former practice for fourteen years.  No one seems to notice this.  Here again, the absence of fail-safe procedures leads to breaches of contract. Would that the lawyer had been consulted as to whether there was a contractual obligation to pay the royalties due even if that meant reverting back to mailing out checks.

#2 LitPress [abbr. for “Liturgical Press”] was diligent in sending out the annual royalty checks from 2003 to 2016.  They were faithfully mailed to my family home on 2739 Queenswood Drive [and later sent to 1649 Sutton Ave.]

Then [in 2017] the treasurer made preparations in order to expedite delivery of royalties using electronic bank transfers.  Notified of this, I contacted my bank and obtained the routing number and the checking account number for my PNC Bank.  They correctly informed me that these numbers were clearly printed on the bottom of every check that I use. Hence, from my side, no error was possible. I sent these to LitPress. I am 100% certain that I trusted them to implement their new system in a way that would not leave me hanging.

My trust was misplaced.  For six consecutive years, the treasurer knew or should have known that my royalty checks were being returned.  No evidence has been put forward demonstrating that notices were sent to my email and home addresses.  No investigation was made to track down how a clerical error might have altered my routing number or my checking account number when they were being transcribed into the new system.  No attention was given to the possibility that, after a simple five-minute phone conversation with my PNC Bank, the error might have been easily corrected.

#3 I hold Sandra Eiynck responsible for not drafting and implementing fail-safe procedures from the very first moment when electronic payments were first being introduced.  More especially, she should have employed the widely used fail-safe procedure whereby major companies, after transcribing the numbers, they make an electronic transfer of $.47 by way of alerting authors that “the system is working correctly for you.”

In cases when the $.47 was returned, further procedures would be necessary to determine whether transcription errors were somehow introduced into the numbers that I originally sent.  If an in-house error is not verifiable, then further procedures would entail sending out notices to my email and home addresses on record requesting that a voided check be sent to the Press.  On the bottom of a voided check, the correct routing number and the checking account number are printed. This insures immediate success.

It does not bode well for the future of LitPress to have a treasurer who is blind to the importance of drafting fail-safe procedures. It is solely the responsibility of LitPress to detect and correct the bugs in their system.  Authors have no competence or responsibility to do this (contrary to the opinion of your lawyer who wants to hold authors as entirely responsible). Going further, it does not bode well to have a treasurer who is so self-assured as to be certain that she has nothing to learn from my sad story. How many others suffered as I did?  You will never find out the truth in this matter.  But have you even tried to do so?

I am sure that Sandra Eiynck functions quite well in most areas of her professional life; yet, this should not blind you to the fact that there are at least three areas that I would judge as needing improvement: (1) Drafting and implementing fail-safe procedures for electronic transfers of royalties; (2) Acquiring skills to listen to and to appropriately respond to persons who disagree; and (3) Leaving room for self-improvement, admission of shortcomings, and being able to say, “What can I do to make up for the pain I caused you?”

O.K.  Now the ball is in your court.

#1 What are the merits and short-comings in your lawyer’s analysis?

#2 What are the merits and the short-comings of Sandra Eiynck in this case?

#3 How can we move together toward a mutual understanding and a financial settlement that allows me to continue to sing the praises of LitPress and allows you to redeem this whole sordid affair in your favor?

[Notice here that, in #3, Aaron shows himself ready to arrive at a mutual understanding and a financial settlement despite the supreme lack of civility and fair play on the part of Sandra Eiynck and Therese Ratliff.]

Your devoted servant,

PS: The U.S. Bishops pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All” calls us to act thusly:

Justice has many nuances. Fundamentally it suggests a sense of what is right or of what should happen. For example, paths are just when they bring you to your destination (Gen 24:48; Ps 23:3), and laws are just when they create harmony within the community, as Isaiah says: “Justice will bring about peace; right will produce calm and security” (Isa 32:17). . . Biblical justice is more comprehensive than subsequent philosophical [or legal] definitions. It is not concerned with a strict definition of rights and duties, but with the rightness of the human condition before God and within society. Nor is justice opposed to love; rather, it is both a manifestation of love and a condition for love to grow.

The US Department of Labor stipulates the following interest tables when calculating back pay:

  1. Purpose and Rate of Interest. The purpose of applying interest on back pay awards is to compensate the victim(s) for the loss of the use and purchasing power of their income. Interest on back pay is calculated at the same percentage rate as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) underpayment formula. Interest on back pay must be compounded quarterly under the laws OFCCP enforces.

  2. Rate Adjustments. The IRS may adjust its rate on a quarterly basis. The interest rates applicable to various periods are available on the IRS website at https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/federalRates.html.

How would you rate (using a scale going from A+ to F) the conduct of Therese Ratliff relative to her [   ] Christian civility and her [   ] pursuing justice? How would you rate (A+ to F) the conduct of Aaron relative to his [   ] Christian civility and his [   ] pursuing justice?  Any reflections?

The conduct of Abbot John Klassen, President of the Board of Directors

Father John Klassen OSB, Elected 10th Abbot of Saint John's AbbeyAs President of the Board of Directors, Abbot John Klassen was a major player in identifying and in vetting Therese Ratliff as the future Director and CEO for Liturgical Press.  Here is the press release:

COLLEGEVILLE, Minn. — Abbot John Klassen, OSB, is pleased to announce that Therese L. Ratliff, PhD, will be the next director and chief executive officer of Liturgical Press, the publishing apostolate of Saint John’s Abbey. Ratliff will succeed Peter Dwyer, who is set to retire in June 2022 after 33 years of service to the Press, 21 years as director.

Ratliff will be the second layperson and the first woman to lead Liturgical Press in its 96-year history. . . .

“We are thrilled to have Therese Ratliff come on board as director of Liturgical Press,” said Klassen. “She is an energetic, vibrant person who brings a rich set of leadership experiences in the world of Catholic publishing. I am confident that she will continue the Benedictine mission of the Press as it seeks to serve today’s believers in exciting new ways.”

“I am thrilled to be joining a talented, top-notch team and look forward to building on the extraordinary reputation of Liturgical Press,” said Ratliff. “We in Catholic publishing must meet the moment our world faces in diverse new ways, and I’m confident that, together, we will find new pathways and explore new directions for the Gospel to take root and flourish.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~end~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am pleased that Abbot John finds Therese Ratliff to be “an energetic, vibrant person.”  Therese, for her part, speaks boldly about the “new ways” she intends to introduce: “We will find new pathways and explore new directions for the Gospel to take root and flourish.”

I wonder if Abbot John asked Therese Ratliff about her experiences with “social justice in the workplace.”  When I finally get the opportunity to meet Abbot John, this will be one of the areas that I would like to explore with him.  I already know that “pursuing justice” and “seeking to heal those deprived of justice” is high on the list of Abbot John’s priorities.

But how about Therese?  She speaks enthusiastically of  “new directions for the Gospel to take root and flourish.”  Do you imagine that Therese was imagining, as Director and CEO, that she would examine the strengths and weaknesses of the already present “conflict resolution procedures” among the staff of Liturgical Press?  Do you think that Therese had any prior experience in conflict resolution in her rich background?  Do you think that Abbot John asked about such things when he was vetting Therese?  One can’t be sure.  The only evidence we have in this area is how she responded to Aaron when he brought to her attention the abysmal conduct of Sandra Eiynck.  Instead of reaching for “conflict resolution procedures,” Therese’s impulse was to silence the messenger by threatening him with a lawsuit.  Do you think that Abbot John will do much better when Aaron comes knocking at his door?  Let’s see.

#1 email sent to Abbot Klassen on 24 May 2023

Dear Abbot John Klassen,

Here is what I wrote to one of my colleagues:

I have made nine attempts[i] to contact Abbot John Klassen using his email address = jklassen@csbsju.edu.  My purpose is to present evidence of financial irregularities, abusive conduct, and stonewalling on the part of two employees of Liturgical Press.  At this point, I cannot be sure whether Abbot Klassen has inadvertently not opened my emails or whether he is deliberately avoiding having to deal with a messy affair that involves serious misbehaving.

Here is another email I have sent:

I am trying to assess Abbot Klassen’s record regarding misbehaving monks.  Did he promptly inform the police?  Or did he encourage misbehaving monks to turn themselves in?  Did he encourage misbehaving monks to take steps to make restitution?  Did any monks actually serve prison sentences?  Why or why not?

I find it noteworthy that Abbot Klassen has not dismissed behaving monks but that they work out the consequences of their crimes while staying in their abbey.

Here is the testimony of one of the victims:

“It was time for someone to step up, and he did,” he said.  Abuse victim Allen Vogel said the abbey rebuffed him when he told his story 12 years ago. But things went differently with Klassen. “He’s the leader St. John’s has been looking for for decades,” Vogel said.

I also want to applaud your investment of time and energy to enter into dialogue with the Native Americans whose children were incarcerated in learning institutions deliberately designed to give them a passport to the American dream by destroying their way of life, forbidding the use of their native languages, and indoctrinating them into becoming Roman Catholics (for the benefit of their immortal souls).  The theme of turning enemies into friends and seeking restorative justice show up consistently in this setting.  I honor your insightful and courageous endeavors in this arena.

[Notice that 85% of my first email is spent honoring Abbot John for his courageous efforts to reach out to the victims of horrendous crimes.  This is deliberate on my part.  I want to signal that his “turning enemies into friends and seeking restorative justice” gives me hope that he will extend to me this treatment as well.]

For all these reasons, I now ask you to come forward and begin the dialogue with me and with those others like me who have been sorely mistreated by two of your high-ranking and invaluable employees at Liturgical Press.

Your servant and Brother,

Aaron

Response to #1 email = total silence

As the days turned into weeks, Abbot John’s silence tightened my gut and gave me the sinking feeling that I am of no importance to him.  I have installed software that indicates if and when Abbot John reads my email.  So I am assured that I have his correct email address.

Why this silence?   I am a “servant and Brother” reaching out to him.  So how do I account for his cruel silence?   Even my attempts to confirm his email address in the opening weeks of May were met with a total silence.  Thus, I am forced to conclude that Abbot John was disposed to entirely ignore me even before he had received for me any details of the crimes committed by his cruel Sisters.  I must presume therefore that Sandra Eiynck or Therese Ratliff had already poisoned his mind against me.

The poison had already blinded him.  He was unable and unwilling to receive me either as a Brother or as a whistle-blower.  All in all, I am dismissed without a hearing.  I am a throw-away person of no consequence. Lazarus is my middle-name.  Thus, I use Lazarus as the theme for my next email.  I sent it to all three of them.

 

#2 email sent to Abbot Klassen and his cruel Sisters on 12 June 2023

Case of Lazarus  (a midrash)

Lazarus and the Rich Man (5 Lessons) — Parables of JesusPoor Lazarus.  His body is covered with sores. His health is in a rapid decline. No one will hire him now.  So, what does he do?  Each day, he gets up at the crack of dawn, and he parks his sorry ass in front of his former employers’ home.  It turns out that he worked as a butler for twenty years for the three brothers who were prosperous and lived in their family home.

During an evening supper, the three brothers voiced their favorite opinions:

The older brother said,

“We dismissed Lazarus just in the nick of time.  He was in good health when he left us; hence, no one is holding us responsible for those ugly sores that now cover his body.”

The second bother chimed in saying,

“Right you are, dear brother.  As I see it, he brought his bad fortune upon himself.  Had he consulted a doctor when the first sore showed up, he might have hoped to be cured.  As it is now, his savings have run out and the poor guy cannot ever dream of finding a doctor willing to take him on as a charity case.”

The youngest brother broke into the discussion saying,

“Brothers, let’s stop all of this useless discussion regarding Lazarus.  Each one of us has a God-given and God-approved calling.  These are the things of consequence that the Lord will require of us on the Last Day.  Lazarus is of no consequence.  Hence, I refuse to cave in to his current silent protest in front of our home.  The best way to deal with such trouble-makers is to entirely ignore them.  Don’t even give them a greeting.  Don’t even be willing to give them the time of day.  To give them any notice, at this point in time, would only serve to encourage a host of other malcontents to begin imitating his example.”

After some heated discussion, all three brothers firmly concurred with the youngest brother’s assessment.  Hence, from that moment forward, the brothers never spoke of Lazarus.  They saw Lazarus as of no consequence whatsoever.  

But Mary raised her Son to believe that God saw things differently and that those who are now seemingly “of no consequence” are indeed of first importance when it comes to God’s concerns.  [For details, see Luke 1:52-55.]

Thus, Jesus continued his parable with a sober reminder of this:

16:22 The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.16:23 In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.16:24 He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’

Notice here that the eldest brother dies first and that he addresses Abraham as “father.”  This is a habit formed during many years of being a pious Jew who relished reading the story of Abraham.  Notice, too, that even in Hades, the eldest brother treats Lazarus as though he were still employed as his butler.  But he is also aware that Abraham might not like him doing so.  Hence, with his shrewdness still intact, he calls upon Abraham to bring him relief from his suffering by forcing Lazarus to again become his servant-boy.

16:25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.

Notice here that Abraham honors the eldest brother by acknowledging him as his disciple.  The translation fails to capture this by using the term “child.”  But the eldest brother cannot be thought of as a literal “child.”  Rather, he is a “spiritual child of his father Abraham.”  The severe problem, however, is that the eldest brother relies upon establishing his ancestral kinship with Abraham as his advantage when, in fact, it is not (Luke 3:8).

Notice, too, that Abraham does not belittle the eldest brother, nor does he shame him for his past conduct.  Rather, he simply draws attention to the great reversal in God’s way of judging things as expressed first by Mary in Luke’s Gospel and later by Jesus (Luke 16:15.).  Those who are “of no consequence” are exalted while those who were formerly exalted are now humiliated by suffering (presumably due to their lifelong indifference to their suffering brothers and sisters).

16:26 Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’16:27 He said, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house‑16:28 for I have five [two] brothers‑‑that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’16:29 Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’

Notice that, at this point of time, the parable of Jesus presumes that everyone will be carried by angels into Hades [not to be confused with the medieval “hell”].  In Hades, however, some are suffering and some are resting with Abraham.  As of yet there is no provision for the saints to be “carried into Heaven” for the beatific vision.  To explore how the nature of Hades shifts in the 2nd century and later gives rise to a geographic separation of the elect and the damned, see https://www.academia.edu/101467439/Whatever_Happened_to_Hell_and_Going_to_Heaven_Why_Churches_Promoting_
Going_to_Heaven_Are_Soon_to_Disappear

Notice that the elder brother does not give up easily—when Lazarus does not get sent to relieve his torments, then a new request is directed toward sending Lazarus to alert his two brothers who have no idea of the consequences of their way of life.  Father Abraham replies to this second request by noting that “Moses and the prophets” have already delivered this message to the children of Abraham.  Thus the slim hope is that the remaining brothers will reform their lives by reading and putting into practice what one finds in Moses and the prophets.  The surmise, at this point, is that the message of Jesus does not significantly differ from what one finds in the message of Moses and the prophets.  Catholic commentators can easily miss this.

A little while after this parable of Lazarus, Jesus is reported to be saying to his disciples:

17:3 Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.17:4 And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.”

This is the message that the Lord addresses to me.  I am ready to forgive.  Are you ready to repent?

P.S.: My dear wife gently admonished me yesterday in words somewhat like this:

How can you threaten your three adversaries with jail sentences and steep fines?  Is there not the danger that they will comply with the law because they are unwilling to suffer the shame of being incarcerated and of paying fines?  Where is the power of the Gospel in all of this?

So I beg your pardon for not appealing to the Gospel first.  This was my failing.  I hope that my biblical reflections and midrash based on Jesus’ parable might provide the nourishment needed for your souls.  Moreover, I hope that you would return to  thinking of me and treating me as a cherished Brother who has suffered due to the shameful conduct accorded me during the last six months.

 

Response to #2 email = total silence

#3 email sent to Abbot John Klassen on 16 June 2023

Dear Abbot John Klassen,

Last June I pledged to you to do all in my power to lead Saint John’s monastic community through a period of healing and reconciliation, and all 183 of our confreres joined me in that pledge. Because you are an important and valued member of Saint John’s extended family, it is important to me and Fr. Gordon Tavis to keep you posted from time to time on our progress. . . .

Much of the groundwork for our work today was laid by Abbots Jerome Theisen and Timothy Kelly long before I became Abbot. They set in place a successful process to provide for assistance to victims of abuse, treatment for offenders and extensive education on related issues for all of our monks. As Formation Director during some of that time, I helped implement the changes and I can testify to their effectiveness. To my knowledge, not a single additional monk has offended since our monastic formation process was changed by the new policies and procedures.

The Abbey has had success responding to victims’ concerns. Last June attorney Jeffrey Anderson accepted our invitation to join in a mediation process to settle all of his firm’s cases alleging abuse without going through a judicial process that might be lengthy, uncertain, traumatic and more costly for survivors and for the Abbey. Assisted by mediators Margo Maris and Michael Ciresi, we met August 12-15 and reached a settlement that included compensation and non-compensation components. Mr. Anderson joined me in a press conference October 1 in the Abbey Chapter House to announce the settlement. I am grateful to Mr. Anderson for his assistance during the mediation process, and I was pleased by his public praise for the Abbey’s role in achieving a settlement that was agreeable to everyone involved.

I note likewise your determination to bring those first nation parents who saw their children violently captured and brutally indoctrinated by priests and sisters who violated the right of parents to raise their children according to their own faith and their own traditions.  Your objective to turn these embittered parents into friends seems a step of vital transformation in this process of healing.  The steps toward restitution are bold and unprecedented.

To whom much has been given, much is expected.

It pains me therefore to see how you are collaborating in the stonewalling and in the silences of Therese Ratliff and Sandra Eiynck.  By collaborating with them, you sanction their grievances and their inability to listen to a brother in pain at the mistreatment received.  Do not fail to miss this.  Regardless of the merits of my grievances, I have not been treated as a thoughtful and respectful brother/scholar/collaborator calling them to take notice of some financial irregularities. I am the “Lazarus” that they treat shamelessly “as of no account.”

So, dear Brother, is the time of your silence nearly over?  Are you ready to bring a new order of transparency and accountability to those whom you have entrusted the inner workings of Liturgical Press.

Fraternally in Christ,

PS: My own personal grievances do not stand in isolation.  I was not the first to receive the rough treatment that Sandra Eiynck was able to dish out to those who disagree with her.  Likewise, Therese Ratliff’s ability to overestimate the inconveniences that she suffered and her willingness to resort to having her legal “dogs” threaten me with further harm serves to reveal her propensity for mistreating anyone who calls into question the unsearchable ways of her employees.  In brief, the two most powerful persons at Liturgical Press show themselves quite easily inclined to be authoritarian and brutal, not only to me but to all those others who, like me, have had and will have the audacity to question their hidden financial irregularities.  In brief, we are dealing with systemic mismanagement.

Response to #3 email = total silence

#4 email sent to Abbot Klassen on 23 June 2023

23 June 2023

Dear Abbot John,

I am curious as to why you have not contacted me.  Is this “hiding” a positive virtue on your part?  Is there something in the Rule of St. Benedict that supports this practice?  Is this the way to treat a Brother? What do you think?

Perhaps you think that “if I ignore him, he will go away.”

This was the strategy used by Sandra during the past five months.  Sandra’s logic is the following: “If it’s not written into the contract, then I am under no obligation to take into account the devaluation of the dollar.”  In saying this, she completely overlooks the fact that the contract requires that royalty payments be made in a timely fashion—once each year.  She completely overlooks the fact that, year after year, the electronic transfers were returned. She knew this, but did nothing to correct it. She completely overlooks the fact that, when she switched from sending out paper checks to making electronic transfers, she had the obligation to make sure that the new system was working.  There was a sure-fire way to insure that the bank numbers were correct, but Sandra failed to use it or, more probably, she was not even aware that there was such a simple sure-fire solution.  So the failure of the system to deliver the annual royalties was due to her lack of knowhow and her lack of due diligence.  Thus any investigation of the case of Aaron inevitably leads to a series of embarrassing errors and the absence of due diligence.

How does Sandra resolve this? Quite simply: she hides everything. Because I don’t agree with her twisted logic, she has nothing more to say to me.  I am a person of no consequence.  Thus, she refuses to read my emails.  Quite possibly, she reroutes them into her junk email box.  Everything is hidden.  She boasts that she is a resourceful problem solver.  I threaten her self-understanding.  So she give me her silent treatment.

This reminds me of how Eve hid herself in the Garden. This reminds me of how some of your monks tried to hide their sexual abuse of minors.  This reminds me of how the US Catholic bishops tried to recycle misbehaving priests into new parishes while concealing their former crimes. This reminds me of how the “good Sisters” running the tribal schools resorted to using progressive violence against recalcitrant children and how they diligently hid this from outsiders.  Yet, in every one of these cases, the truth finally emerges in one way or the other.  When it does emerge, the strategy of “hiding” and stonewalling shows itself to be an additional crime/sin that destroys personal integrity and erodes trust of those in authority.

So I am curious as to why you have not contacted me.  Can you really justify this “hiding” as a positive and constructive virtue?  Is this what St. Benedict practiced?  Is this what your Board of Directors advised you?  Or was it your lawyers? When the whole story becomes public knowledge, will your community members think more highly of you?  Will the other authors give you high marks when they learn of your stonewalling? And, last but not least, what would Jesus, the Son of God, say to you?

[When I make contact with the Board of Trustees, I will be asking them whether Abbot Klassen’s inability or unwillingness to deal with the grievances of authors makes him unfit to be a member of the Board.]

Let the truth-telling begin,
Aaron

How would you rate (using a scale going from A+ to F) the conduct of Abbot John Klassen relative to his [   ] Christian civility and his [   ] pursuing justice? How would you rate (A+ to F) the conduct of Aaron relative to his [   ] Christian civility and his [   ] pursuing justice?  Any reflections?

Q1. Can you suggest any course of action at this point that might win back Abbot John as my Brother? 

Q2. Is there any prospect that I and other authors like me will find a fair hearing and restorative justice within Liturgical Press?  

Q3. Joe advised me, “The US Bishops learned accountability only after they were being sued by their victims and their families.  Within Liturgical Press, unfortunately, you are meeting the same patterns of denial and secrecy. Stop wasting your energy on them. Bring a court case against all three of the stonewallers.  Only then will they begin to respect you as a person of consequence.”  To what degree would you agree or disagree with Joe?  

Authors who wish to contact me privately on this issue can reach me by writing to Milavec9@churchonfire.net   Authors willing to share their own story of grief are especially welcome.

I have strong evidence to believe that Liturgical Press is underreporting sales of eBooks and is miscalculating the net price of such eBooks.  This will effect the royalties for every author who is selling their eBooks with Liturgical Press.  I don’t want to display my evidence here just yet because this is a research in progress.   Authors who wish to contact me privately on this issue can reach me by writing to Milavec8b@churchonfire.net 

 

To: Abbot John

From: Aaron M

Date: 29 June 2023

You can see what’s coming down the road for you.  Your fame will be turned to infamy.  The Board of Trustees will call you on the carpet.  Your monks will snicker when they discover your dark side.  When you give your next talk on “the role of justice in the rule of St. Benedict,” no one will think you have any right to talk about “justice.”  Etc.

If you were a man of honor, you would do something like this:

  1. Sit down and have a long talk with Therese.  In preparation, ask her to rate the performances (A+  to F) as indicated above and to make comments as well in writing.  Talk about her past experiences of justice and injustice. Talk about “Christian standards of civility” and “procedures to address grievances.”  At the end of your exchange, ask her what would be her game-plan if she had a chance to do it all over again. Ask her to write this out and send it to you within seven days.

  2. If Therese shows a capacity for self-reform, have a second talk with her that is directed toward having her evaluate the performance of Sandra in detail. Create a climate of trust by confessing to her one or two instances in which you acted unjustly.  Then, once a climate of trust is present, encourage Therese to explore with you how and when Sandra might have acted with more civility and justice toward Aaron.  Then, maintaining the climate of trust, encourage Therese to explore with you how and when she might have acted with more civility and justice toward Aaron.  At the end of your exchange, ask her what would be her game-plan if she had a chance to do it all over again.

  3. Prepare Therese to have an exchange with Sandra following the general lines of your initial talk with her in #1 above.  If she feels hesitant to do this, appoint a trained facilitator to accompany her.  If she still balks, then explore with her how her position as CEO requires her ability (a) to investigate possible financial irregularities and (b) to challenge and to “retrain” staff who have acted improperly. . . .  Bend over backwards to offer her any help she might need to be able to perform in this capacity.   If she is unable and unwilling to do this, then talk about redesigning her job description and conducting a search for a trained facilitator and trouble-shooter that would “clean up the mess” that Sandra has left behind. This might entail a pay reduction.

  4. If Therese is ready and willing to interview Sandra, then let this take place with an audio and video recorder running “as part of my training to become a facilitator.”  Near the end of this exchange, Therese will ask Sandra what might be her game-plan if she had a chance to do it all over again. Ask her to write this out and send it to you.

  5. After the interview, have Therese walk through the interview with you paying attention to body language, to hesitations, to moments of discovery.  If you feel incapable of effectively doing this, bring in a trained facilitator to help both of you to “see” and to “feel” the tacit components within the exchange. Examine Sandra’s game-plan together. What are the merits and deficiencies?  Decide together how to go forward. . . .

  6. Somewhere down the line, a full-day workshop on “conflict resolution” should be planned that would bring together all the staff significantly involved in person-to-person relations.  The big three, Abbot John, Therese, and Sandra, would be ready to reenact their “initial responses” to the grievances reported by Aaron. A trained facilitator and an expert in “role playing reenactments” would be at hand.Sandra might well begin by describing her annoying emails from Aaron. Then she might explain how, at a certain point, she decided to ignore him completely. Then the facilitator would invite small-group analysis leading to a big-group reporting and consensus building. Sandra would then come forward saying, “I’m glad that you were able to see the serious flaws in my treatment of Aaron. Here are a few things that you didn’t notice. . . .”  Then later, “Thanks to Therese, I was able to learn a style of conflict resolution that was much more humane and just. . . .”After a short recess, Therese would dramatize her earlier annoyances: “Aaron was bombarding me with emails asking whether this was my correct email address”  & “Aaron (male privilege?) was badmouthing Sandra.”  So I called our company lawyer and asked him to put “the fear of the Lord” into him.  Here, on the screen, is what he sent. . . . Then the facilitator would invite small-group analysis leading to a big-group reporting and consensus building. Therese would then come forward saying, “I’m glad that you were able to see the serious flaws in my treatment of Aaron. Here are a few things that you didn’t notice. . . .”  Then later, “Thanks to Abbot John, I was able to learn a style of conflict resolution that was much more humane and just.  Let me tell you about this. . . .”

In the afternoon, you, Abbot John, might briefly explain how you responded to Aaron. “I didn’t know what to do or to say, so I did nothing and I said nothing.”  “What do you think?  Was this a successful strategy?”  Then, after a few minutes, ask: “Why is Aaron coming to me?  What does he want from me?”  Project my first detailed letter of 24 May 2023 on a screen or have someone read it dramatically.  “Here you can hear Aaron speaking for himself.  Why is Aaron coming to me?  What does he want from me?”

At some point, someone will say something more or less like this, “Aaron is in pain because his grievances have been ignored.”  With this, the role-playing expert takes over.  “Who here can feel Aaron’s pain?”  “Stand up and come forward.  Imagine a “pain intensity scale” on the floor here.  On one end (go there), the pain is slight.  Then it rises.  At this end (go there), the pain is severe.  Very quickly, place yourself on this scale.”  Using this, the facilitator will thereby find the person ready to role-play Aaron.  “Here is Aaron’s hat. Would you want to wear this as a symbol that you are speaking for Aaron?”  In this way, the scene is set for someone to give voice to Aaron’s pain.  “Here is the Abbot’s chair.  It is empty.  It is waiting for one of you to come forward and give a response to Aaron’s pain.”  The facilitator will interrupt Abbot#1 after 20 seconds.  Then a second chair for Abbot#2 is prepared.  An alternative response is heard.  “What do you think?  Does Abbot#1 or Abbot#2 best connect with Aaron’s pain?  Why so?”   “Let’s ask Aaron.”

The upshot of the whole workshop will be (a) to create an atmosphere of communal safety wherein everyone’s contribution is valued; (b) to enable the big three to have an occasion to acknowledge their earlier short comings and to show off their new skills for “conflict resolution”; (c) to use role-playing as a dynamic and playful way to examine tough issues; (d) to move toward a community consensus as to what guidelines are to be used and expected in future instances of “conflict resolution”; and (e) to provide a forum wherein the use of “name calling,” “threatening,” “bullying,”  etc. are seen and experienced as destructive in almost all situations.

The genius of this solution is that (a) your faith in broken people will be rekindled and (b) those who did the tearing down will become, with a little help, those who are building up.  Think here of the case of Saul/Paul.  He started by arresting Christians and turning them over to the temple police; he ended up being a promoter of the very movement that he formerly hated.  This is a case of  “restorative justice.”

The mercy in this solution is that the big three get a rare opportunity (a) to reflect on their bad conduct and (b) to design a game-plan that allows them to do it all over again – but this time with Christian love wedded to humility and investigative justice.  Think here of an imaginative revision of the Jesus parable where Abraham says to the eldest brother, “O.K. I’m going to send you back to your brothers on Earth for two weeks.  Let’s see how successful  you can be in turning things around.”

So, following this imaginative retelling of the Lazarus parable, I’m going to give you two weeks to think through your options.  You will either create for yourself a game-plan (a variation on my 6 points above) or you will immediately draft your letter of resignation to the Board of Trustees explaining that you are incapable and/or unwilling to carry through the investigations that would result in the rectification of the defective processes whereby royalties are calculated and distributed.

Send one or the other or both to me at Milavec7@churchonfire.net on or before 13 July 2023.  Meanwhile send me immediately a few words indicating what future most attracts you.

After all the disappointments, I still believe in you,

Aaron, your Brother

 

to: Sandra Eiynck, Therese Ratliff, Abbot John Klassen, OSB

from: Aaron Milavec

date: 08 June 2023 (original); date today: 12 July 2023

re: wage theft ==== Your time is running out.  Either move to open dialogue as befits Christians or face the consequences. . . .

From 17 Nov 2022 to the present, I have tried to encourage open dialogue and common-sense economics to demonstrate (a) that my royalties/wages were unlawfully withheld for one to six years and then, later, (b) that my wages were unlawfully underpaid because no account was taken of the devaluation of the dollar.

The US Department of Labor stipulates the following interest tables when calculating back pay:

  1. Purpose and Rate of Interest. The purpose of applying interest on back pay awards is to compensate the victim(s) for the loss of the use and purchasing power of their income. Interest on back pay is calculated at the same percentage rate as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) underpayment formula. Interest on back pay must be compounded quarterly under the laws OFCCP enforces.

  2. Rate Adjustments. The IRS may adjust its rate on a quarterly basis. The interest rates applicable to various periods are available on the IRS website at https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/federalRates.html.

My efforts to come to a resolution in a just and charitable manner were met with stonewalling, misrepresentation, an abusive legal ploy, and stoney silences.  Thus, you give me no option but to bring my grievances to the attention of persons that you will not be able to abuse and ignore.  See Matt 5:24-26 and Luke 12:57-59.

Misdemeanor violations (amendments to Minn. Stat. § 177.32)  
Under existing law, an employer found to have hindered or delayed the commissioner in the performance of duties required under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act or the Prevailing Wage Act was guilty of a misdemeanor. The new Wage Theft Law adds that any employer hindering or delaying the commissioner in the performance of duties required under Minn. Stat. §§ 181.01 to 181.723 or 181.79 is also guilty of a misdemeanor (New).

New:  Crime of “wage theft” and criminal sanctions for committing “wage theft” (amendments to Minn. Stat. § 609.52) 
The crime of “wage theft” occurs when an employer, with intent to defraud:
•  Fails to pay an employee all wages, salary, gratuities, earnings or commissions at the employee’s rate or rates of pay or at the rate or rates required by law, whichever is greater.
•  Directly or indirectly causes any employee to give a receipt for wages for a greater amount than that actually
paid to the employee for services rendered.
•  Directly or indirectly demands or receives from any employee any rebate or refund from the wages owed
the employee under contract of employment with the employer.
•  Makes or attempts to make it appear in any manner the wages paid to any employee were greater than the
amount actually paid to the employee.
“Employer” is defined as “any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any person or
group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.”
“Employee” is defined as “any individual employed by an employer.”
“Wage theft” has been added to the criminal definition of theft under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(19), and
sanctions for committing wage theft are as follows:
•  Imprisonment for not more than 20 years, payment of a fine of not more than $100,000 or both if the value
of the wages stolen is more than $35,000.
•  Imprisonment for not more than 10 years, payment of a fine of not more than $20,000 or both if the value
of the wages stolen exceeds $5,000.
•  Imprisonment for not more than five years, payment of a fine of not more than $10,000 or both if the value of wages stolen is more than $1,000 but not more than $5,000.

[Using the IRS interest rates, I compute my lost wages as $1021 as of 01 July 2023.]

•  Imprisonment for not more than one year, payment of a fine of not more than $3,000 or both if the value of
the property or services stolen is more than $500 but not more than $1,000.

Having read all of the key emails that were exchanged in this case, what observations or judgments do you want to share in the comment box below?   Your participation is appreciated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~end note~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[i] My initial emails to Abbot John during the first half of the month of May were by way of confirming that jklassen@csbsju.edu was the email address that I should use to contact him regarding the misbehaving of two high-ranking members of Liturgical Press.  Since Abbot John is President of the Board of Trustees, I assumed that he would want to be advised of the exact nature of their misbehaving.  Sad to say, Abbot John has not acknowledged me as a Brother or as a whistle-blower.  To date, he has not sent a single word to me.

Even my attempts to confirm his email address in the opening weeks of May were met with a total silence.  Thus, I am forced to conclude that Abbot John was disposed to entirely ignore me even before he had received for me any details of the crimes committed against me.  I must presume therefore that Sandra Eiynck or Therese Ratliff had already poisoned his mind against me.

Be that as it may, I still believed that Abbot John had a remarkable record of dealing with victims and their abusers found within his own abbey.  With each of my emails, I expressed my hope in him at the same time that I offered him strong medicine to shake him out of his lethargy.  I failed.

The poison had already blinded him.  He was unable and unwilling to receive me either as a Brother or as a whistle-blower.  All in all, I am dismissed without a hearing.  I am a throw-away person of no consequence. Lazarus is my middle-name.