"One of the oddest questions I get asked in interviews, and I get asked a lot of questions, is: Is faith important to your politics? It's like asking someone whether their health is important to them or their family. If you are someone 'of faith,' it is the focal point of belief in your life. There is no conceivable way that it wouldn't affect your politics."
- former Prime Minister of the UK Tony Blair, in a speech detailing the role of faith in his political career. (Source: Los Angeles Times)
For this final blog, I actually want to turn away from national news and toward The Cowl. In particular, I was struck by a “Tangents and Tirades” article written by Mark Scirocco entitled pope Reminds us of the Foundation of Our Nation. In discussing Benedict’s recent trip to the US and his message for the Church, Scirocco came to the conclusion that “Benedict’s visit has served as a great reminder of American exceptionalism and the important role that God plays in American life.”
Really? The last time I checked Benedict was not a modern John Winthrop. Somewhere in his condemnation of aggressive American wars, the relativism that is taking root in the country and his feeling ashamed of the American clerics who abused their calling by acts of pedophilia, Benedict proclaimed America as exceptional, the pinnacle of world civilization. Sarcasm aside, I’d like to make a couple comments regarding Scirocco’s statement. It seems Benedict’s trip to the US was by no means a journey to affirm the goodness of its culture and political institutions as ends in and of themselves. Simply, he came to tend the flock, a flock that is part of a global church, the Roman Catholic Church. He came to challenge a Church that is not American, and thus to challenge members of the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of Heaven… not the Kingdom of American Democracy.
Yes, Benedict and the Church may have some things to affirm in the US regarding its political system. But, it is by no means a praise of America that focuses on the nature of the country’s institutions – it is not praise for them inherently or as ends of themselves. Rather, this nation’s institutions and culture are good only insofar as they align themselves to what is good – American policies and its democratic institutions are good so far as they respect human rights, provide religious freedom, etc. They are not exceptional because they are.
If anything, he came to challenge the American Catholics and their relationships to the American political system. It seems his trip to America was to remind American Catholics of their membership in a global church, one that knows no borders. Yes, they are American citizens, but the Body of Christ is universal, regardless of gender, nationality, or race, all its members are the children of the Lord. If anything, then, he seems to be undercutting American exceptionalism. For clearly, there are some good things about this country, but there are some bad things as well. Thus, American democracy is not a self-justifying, exceptional good. He simply came to remind American Catholics they are part of a global church that transcends the borders of the US, members of a Kingdom called to the reconciling love of the cross. A church called not to the American dream, per se, but to the cross.
Dating - a strange phenomenon today - has taken on a new meaning for some dedicated Christians. Through conversations with friends I have become aware of some strange motivations for dating. It's important to understand how the world of dating is exercised for individuals in college. The basics are that there is no "dating". You meet someone, go to lunch with them, have dinner with them, study together, realize you like each other and decide to "date", but really you jump into a relationship. All of a sudden, instead of taking time to get to know this person through various interesting encounters, you spend all your time with them because they have become engrained into your daily schedule. Not that spending time with a significant other isn't important; however, you must remain aware of how we are called to answer a vocation to marriage. Why should Catholic's date, and what should be there motivation?
I want to share a story:
Today at lunch I was sitting with a good friend who shared that she was interested in getting this boy, let's call him James, to ask her out. She was seeking guidance from me and another male involved in the conversation. She expressed that the important "faith" aspect was missing from his qualities. Instead of saying, I want to be friends with him and encourage him to come with me to Church, the statement was more like: By dating I want to bring him the truth revealed through Jesus Christ. Now, this is not bad, it should always be our goal to bring Christ to people through our actions and words. However, as Catholics, we are called to experience dating as a preparation for marriage. If we are not willing to marry a non-catholic, then dating one isn't proper preparation. In my opinion, I feel that strong friendship and a good effort at sharing faith and your motivation for living a Catholic life is the more appropriate response to this situation.
I'm hoping that my friend prays over this decision and understands that yes, God had brought you into this persons life for a reason, but also realize the beauty of dating and learning about other people. Don't enter into a friendship or potential dating opportunity with the mindset of already changing a person. Your lack of appreciation for who they are and the choices they could prevent a solid friendship. Be open to differences and be aware that we are meant to struggle with faith and acceptance of God's will.
The Philadelphia Inquirer carried an editorial today that pointed out the frightening direction that "justice" is turning. The April 16th Supreme Court ruling re-opened the door to allow states to use lethal injection and ended the temporary national moratorium on the death penalty. This, in and of itself, is frightening. Lethal injection is not a perfected means of execution. In an NPR article from last week, we learned that
In Florida, no one has been executed since a lethal injection went wrong in 2006. Sterling Ivy, spokesman for Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, says "the inmate did not pass away for 16 minutes after the execution had started."
But within hours of the Supreme Court's decision, several states had signed death warrants in order to get the process rolling again for those inmates on death row.
Before the sun went down on the Supreme Court ruling, officials in several states — including Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia and Georgia — took steps to move ahead on executions.
The okay to torture, the rush to execute inmates on death row, and now another case that could extend capital punishment to non-homicide crimes? It's downright scary. Where are we heading as a country? Just when I think that we're getting something right (most Americans' disapproval for the Iraq war or New Jersey's repeal of capital punishment), there's a whole bunch of evidence to the contrary.
The editorial from today's Philly Inquirer mentions the fact that several people are wrongly convicted and then executed in this country. They cite an organization called the Innocence Project, a non-profit law firm that works to get inmates freed from prison, based on DNA evidence. I had the privilege of knowing some folks from IP-NO, as it was called for short in New Orleans. The agency has done a tremendous job granting release for 12 innocent, wrongly-convicted individuals since its inception 7 years ago. The other organization in their building, the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center's A Fighting Chance program works on the flip side of the coin. They work to reduce capital punishment sentences to life imprisonment. They work with the guilty, but recognize that no matter how heinous the crime, that a life is worth saving. I also knew an employee at this program, and he had to read case files full of the gory details of these crimes. He was invited into the homes of the families, as he tried to piece together the case and work toward releasing these individuals from death row. Talk about commitment to all life. Neither of these agencies are faith-based, but they embrace the church's teaching on life and human dignity. And they are saving lives each day. This gives me just a bit of hope within this "justice" system that is embracing the culture of death.
In the opening sections of the Dalai Lama's How To See Yourself As You Really Are, he discusses the importance of the recognition of our common human desires, and their connection to the potential for world peace.
He begins:
"Happiness is a combination of inner peace, economic viability, and above all, world peace. To achieve such goals, I feel it is necessary to develop a sense of universal responsibility, a deep concern for all, irrespective of creed, color, sex, nationality, or ethnicity" (5-6).
I really love this idea of universal responsibility, because it necessitates treating the people around us like community members rather than the "public," which is a distinction made in Wendell Berry's Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community. Being a community means issues of like "justice" and "rights" ("I have a right to this cookie!") rarely come up, because, like in a family, sharing and being generous come naturally. As we discussed in class when Meg used the example of the stolen camera in New Orleans, it is also through conversation that this community is built, not through fighting or worrying about "just" distribution of goods. Justice becomes unnecessary when its advantages come naturally.
As we discussed after my presentation on just war, it is also conversation that begins to prevent the necessity of war. The Dalai Lama continues,
"If the twentieth century was the century of bloodshed, the twenty-first has to be the century of dialogue" (9).
He recognizes that it is through discussion that people work out their differences, acknowledging them without needing to reconcile them. We don't need to combine our religions in order to prevent problems, we simply need to listen. Also, by noting similarities, most importantly the recognition of the humanity of the other, we open the door to peace.
The Dalai Lama writes,
"Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering" (6).
He says our ignoring this fact is what allows for such suffering, because we forget that we are all human, and to thus treat each other as we want to be treated. The Dalai Lama writes, "we really are part of one big human family" (7). Thus, we must recognize our oneness to begin to converse about our similarities and differences, so that rather than falling into a trap, the pattern of war, we can instead live in peace, a hope of the Dalai Lama and of Jesus Himself.
One of themes that I have noticed being mentioned a great deal on the news programs is the cost of living and the devastating effects it is having on those of lower means. I saw this reported on three different news programs in the past four days. I had trouble finding news articles that outlined the same points, but I took some notes on the programs I saw and will base the post on those notes. One of the things I will mention, gas prices, was taken from a ProJo article I read yesterday.
The Providence Journal reported yesterday that gas prices hit an all time high in Rhode Island with the average price being $3.48. This price is staggering, especially considering that I can remember a time when gas was under a dollar. With the price of gas at such a high level, it is only one contributor to an increasing problem of the sky-rocketing price of living. It is not a mistake that in America our cost of living is rising and our percentage of those categorized as living in poverty simultaneously increases. Gas prices are only one part of the picture. The price of education is increasing out of control. In order to attend Providence College this year we had to pay about $30,000 in tuition and roughly $1o,000 for room and board if we lived at school. These numbers are extraordinary. Even for an instate education at University of Rhode Island the tuition for last year was $7,000, only a fraction of our own tuition, but still a large amount of money for a person living in poverty. The problem of education is also exacerbated by the fact that lower education is vastly unequal based on neighborhood. The school systems in lower income neighborhoods are often inadequate and provide little opportunity for advancement, academic or otherwise. Clearly, the cost of private schools is out of the question for these families, so they have no choice accept to send their children to these inadequate schools.
Along with gas and education the cost of social services and programs is also on the rise. The costs of health-care, insurance, and social services are all either too expensive or too difficult to obtain for those without proper means. The heath-care crisis is one that we are all aware of, and the situation is an economic one. If health-care is going to be so pricey, wages need to increase, otherwise, families are going to continue to go on without health-care, living in fear of health problems. If a family is forced to choose between groceries for a week or health-care, they will choose the groceries, and we can't blame them for that.
The cost of housing is another crisis at the moment. The cost of renting an apartment is incredibly expensive, and the cost of buying one's own home is even more difficult. It is nearly impossible to rent or buy with only one income, making the situation of single parents that much more difficult. Of course the only apartments that are available for a reasonable cost are those in poor, rundown neighborhoods, causing the cycle of problems that I alluded to above. Once a family is forced into these neighborhoods their problems are doubled due to poor education, poor neighborhood efficacy, and lack of social resources and services.
The cycle of poverty is one that is almost impossible for many families to overcome. This cycle is exacerbated by the steadily rising costs of living which encompasses a variety of factors including gas price, social services, health-care, and cost of housing. This is not even including the steady inflation that causes the increase of prices of everything, including food, clothing, and the like. As inflation takes place, minimum wage does not make the proper adjustments to keep up with it. Therefore, everything costs more but people continue to make the same amount of money. America is one of the richest countries in the world, we need to learn how equalize this wealth and give all people the the same opportunities for success.
After doing a little more research I found that the Yale Student's project was all a hoax. It was "creative fiction." The article brings into question whether or not we should believe that this was a hoax. Legitimate concern, I think.
I was quite disturbed when I heard about the senior thesis project of a Yale undergrad. She artificially inseminated herself as frequently as possible and then induced miscarriages. The article I found most relevant was from the Yale Daily News.
Whether or not this senior wanted her project to shock people the way it has, she has raised questions that Americans didn't really face before. Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" Americans alike are upset about this situation. The fact that both sides are up in arms about this is significant to me. Life is life and creating it just to destroy it is absolutely horrendous.
I don't know what else to say other than the fact that I am disgusted by the whole situation. I pray that this situation will not be acknowledged and let go, but that the intrinsic problem that we are faced with here will be addressed.
If this election has revealed anything about the state of the American political community, it that it is stricken with division. Republicans and democrats, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, those for and against a continuation of the war…the division is seemingly endless. Yet, despite the claims of hope that each candidate brings, is there really any hope for change with the current rules of the game? Simply put, all the candidates say they are offering a new approach, but is it really enough to change the political community? Their campaign tactics have largely been the same, their voting records in the Senate are nothing “revolutionary”, and, after the release of their tax records, they in reality are the proto-typical multi-million dollar candidates. I’m beginning to doubt that these same old rules and norms in the campaign and political community can really bring about any substantive “change”, at least the type that the American people are looking for.
This said, pope Benedict XVI’s visit has been a remarkable witness to the true path to reconciliation and change, for this essentially is what the nation’s political community is looking for. Earlier in the week I saw a clip on CNN of the head of an American Atheist group saying she would be picketing the pope’s arrival. Her argument was that his trip was purely political (is she that unimaginative?) and that he was trying to push the “Catholic agenda” on Bush. At first I wrote her off, but I think in a lot of ways she was right…
However, she was right in a different way. Nearly mirroring the division of American society, there really is a split in the Catholic church between its various communities. People are becoming evermore “cafeteria-ized”, and due to the sins of some of the clergy’s past, there are incredibly deep wounds that need to begin the process of healing. Where American politics seems to be in the habit of offering an “alternative” when there is an obvious problem in the community to heal it (take Obama’s campaign centered around a new hope or change, or even McCain’s “Straight talk express”), Benedict offered a new path to reconciliation, to unity.
He listened; he wept; and he prayed. Simply, he loved. Three abuse survivors shared their stories with Benedict after his Mass in Washington D.C., and their reactions on CNN were testament to the healing power of reconciling love. The were all three moved at his understanding, his incredible listening skills, and his concern. Publicly, the pope has denounced these priests who have forsaken their calling. His response to the division is love, not confrontation. Christ commands us to love, and Benedict truly showed the love of the Church this week in his engagement of these survivors. For reconciliation comes in this mutual recognition of humanity, in an affirming love that shows the concern for the other with more than merely words. Thus, as the American political community is fraught with division, Benedict did offer an answer – a way of living. A radical love that reaches out, reconciles, and heals. Yes, he was political, but in no way most protesters could have ever dreamed. His largest challenge to not just Catholics but all Americans in the political arena is the challenge of a reconciling love. Instead of offering different policies, as American politicians do so well, he offers a different way of living, the love of Christ crucified.
“Fellow bishops I want to encourage you to welcome your immigrants to join your ranks,” Pope Benedict XVI reminded his fellow bishops that doing so would be heeding the call of the Gospel. But if American bishops aren’t speaking out on this matter and other gospel-related, political issues, how is the laity supposed to?
Sure, we know that the “American Magisterium” spurns abortion and same-sex marriage, but what about simple living? How simple is the Gospel’s simple, how poor in spirit is the Gospel’s poor in spirit? How forgiving are we supposed to be, what is that figure again?
In a lukewarm Catholic world, whose job is it to be radical? Is that a “smart” move for the Church? But wasn’t Christ radical
Immigration is only one of the questions many pastors, bishops, and priests leave for us to decide for ourselves. With language like, “This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power” in one of its most political declarations yet, Dignitatis Humanae, the Magisterium disappoints with vagueness and self-reliance.
America- founded by individualism-preaches the success of a self-made man. Catholicism preaches the importance of developed conscience, but where are the tools to develop such a conscience? Is the ballot the concretization of our conscience?
News stories of the Pope are permeating through the media this week. There have been many opportunites to reflect on his visit and the impact his words have made on the American public. Today the Pope met with leaders of Catholic Colleges and Universities from around the nation. He spoke with them on various issues related to Catholic education, emphasizing the continued pursuit of truth and the necessity to adjust our social selves to the example of Christ.
In the article from Catholic World News the Pope shares his opinion on the need for Catholic institutions to have a distinct identity that is reflected in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Instead of outwardly reinforncing the need to not resist the outlines of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Benedicts praises younger Catholic colleges for adopting these regulations more thoroughly and explains the need for Catholic institutions as vehicles to spread the truth as defined by the Magisterium.
Pope Benedict presents a very relevant point to Catholics at Providence College:
"To preserve their Catholic identity, academic leaders should ensure not only that their students receive orthodox instruction, but also that they are encouraged to set high standards for personal behavior. The Pontiff said:
This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church's magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution's life, both inside and outside the classroom. Divergence from this vision weakens Catholic identity and, far from advancing freedom, inevitably leads to confusion, whether moral, intellectual or spiritual."
Does Providence College, an institution that prides itself on the Catholic and Dominican Identity truly live up to the Pope's message? I fear that many of our students and faculty are falling short of this message. Instead of promoting Christian living contradictory to the general public, Providence College only further endorses the sinful mistakes of our society. We don't have individuals leaving PC with steadfast faith and a desire to bring that faith to the world, we have borderline alcoholics who continue to feed the monster of consumerism which is destroying our society. This is a sweeping generalization, yes, but also true, in many respects, to many of the graduates of PC.
How do we rectify this problem? Why should Fr. Shanley be meeting with the Pope as the leader of a great Catholic institution when we are barely Catholic by name? PC has potential, this needs to be realized and made effective for the future of Catholic higher education.
Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of the atrocious Virginia tech shootings that left 33 students and professors dead. The shootings last year really affected me and I did a lot of research on the issues regarding the shooting, particularly some psychological research on the shooter himself and what constitutes the profile of a college shooter. When the anniversary came up yesterday I read many news articles discussing the anniversary and I was struck by a repeating theme on many different news websites. This theme is one that sometimes becomes a large issue in political discourse, although it has not made itself as known this election. This issue is gun control, which of course after such a large shooting, was brought to the forefront of everyone's mind. In an article entitled Students Want Chance to Defend Themselves, Michael Flitcraft talks about the movement that he began to have guns legalized for college students. He started this movement after the Virginia Tech shootings as a way for students to be able to protect themslves. Flitcraft is from Ohio, where gun control laws allow him to carry his weapon, but his college laws forbid it. He states, "To me it makes no sense that I can defend myself legally over there," he said, pointing to the city streets. "But I am a felon if I step on the grass over here." But, college officials feel that allowing guns on college campuses would only exacerbate a growing problem of collegiate gun violence. "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying," said Gene Ferrara, the police chief at the University of Cincinnati. "My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting." Ferrara also talks about the confusion that could arise if guns were legalized on campus. He says that in a case like the Virginia tech shootings if the police were notified and came to the school were there was a shooter and 10 students with guns trying to defend themselves, how do the police know which is the killer and which are the innocent students? He says, "The other side of that, I shoot everybody with a gun who doesn't have a uniform on and I then I end up shooting somebody who was a citizen with a carry permit."
It is important to remember that even with episodes like the Virginia Tech shootings, college campuses continue to be one of the safest places for people our age. Would allowing students to bring guns on campus add to that safety, or take away from it? How would students respond to a gun law being passed on campus? These are interesting questions, and I think they deserve attention. Another issue to remember when talking about guns being permitted on campus is the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was able to get a gun in the first place. When we talk about gun control laws it is important to remember that guns are not given exclusively to those who strive for justice and protection. Guns are too readily given to people who suffer from mental disorders and want to use guns for evil, as we saw. In an article entitled, Why was Cho Able to Buy a Gun? the author discusses the issues surrounding the gun control laws and why background checks, particularity psychological and mental testing are necessary. As the article points out, there is a disconnect between the federal and state government in what information is provided and how this information is used in legislation. "Cho's case raises the issue of conflict between state and federal law. While federal guidelines may stipulate who is to be blocked from buying guns, it is the states that must provide the information to make the databases work. In practical terms, it won't matter what the federal guidelines say if state law says only certain people need to be reported. "Obviously there is no way that the sellers of the gun could have known what happened in the procedure with Mr. Cho," Bonnie told TIME. " Even if it should have been entered in the database under federal law, there was no way for that to have happened in Virginia, so the sale of the gun was lawful." The article makes reference to charges that had been placed on Cho for the stalking of two women, in which a psychologist had stated that Cho had mental illnesses, but this information was not given to the federal government that issues the gun to Cho. This disconnect is a huge problem, and needs some serious attention.
I am not going to pretend that I could even begin to know what it was like for those students at Virginia Tech when the shooter was there, and perhaps if they had had guns that situation would have stopped, but I still feel uncomfortable with the permitting of guns on a college campus. I personally do not think that the way to end violence is to add more violence, it just does not seem morally Okay. Of course this issue of gun control on campus can be seen as a microcosm of the larger issue of gun control in America. The issue has had little attention so far in this election, and perhaps will become a bigger issue during the general. I think it is important to think about how gun control fits into the discussion of a pro-life ethic. One the one hand one might say that the protection sought through gun toting is pro-life in that it protects the innocent. Another might say that by allowing guns we are only promoting a culture of death. I think the two sides make for interesting discussion and debate, and I think that our leaders should be discussing this issue more openly, particularly in the remembrance of the shootings one year ago.
So our wonderful Pope has been in America the last couple of days and he is already facing some serious issues head on!
In one of the Pope’s addresses, he encourages Catholics and young Catholics alike to not allow religion to become a private affair. Rather, it should be public!This idea related a lot to our class this past week.One of the topics of discussion concerned that of the community.What we do affects our community; we are the Body of Christ.Therefore, our sin and our actions are not just our own.
Pope Benedict XVI stated:
While it is true that this country is marked by a genuinely religious spirit, the subtle influence of secularism can nevertheless color the way people allow their faith to influence their behavior.
Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel.
Later on, Pope Benedict addressed some obstacles that were keeping us from encountering God.These obstacles are materialism and the overemphasis on freedom and autonomy.The Pope said:
People today need to be reminded of the ultimate purpose of their lives. They need to recognize that implanted within them is a deep thirst for God.
It is easy to be entranced by the almost unlimited possibilities that science and technology place before us; it is easy to make the mistake of thinking we can obtain by our own efforts the fulfillment of our deepest needs. This is an illusion. Without God, who alone bestows upon us what we by ourselves cannot attain, our lives are ultimately empty.
The overemphasis on freedom and autonomy makes it easy to lose sight of our dependence on others as well as the responsibilities that we bear toward them.
This emphasis on individualism has even affected the Church, giving rise to a form of piety which sometimes emphasizes our private relationship with God at the expense of our calling to be members of a redeemed community.If we are truly to gaze upon him who is the source of our joy, we need to do so as members of the people of God. If this seems counter-cultural, that is simply further evidence of the urgent need for a renewed evangelization of culture.
Following this, the Pope addresses the bishops reminding them further of their role, encouraging them to get involved in the public realm.Gently encouraging, he states:
In the United States, as elsewhere, there is much current and proposed legislation that gives cause for concern from the point of view of morality, and the Catholic community, under your guidance, needs to offer a clear and united witness on such matters.Yet it cannot be assumed that all Catholic citizens think in harmony with the Church's teaching on today's key ethical questions.
Once again, it falls to you to ensure that the moral formation provided at every level of ecclesial life reflects the authentic teaching of the Gospel of life.
Addressing the family, he continues:
How can we not be dismayed as we observe the sharp decline of the family as a basic element of Church and society? Divorce and infidelity have increased, and many young men and women are choosing to postpone marriage or to forego it altogether.
To some young Catholics, the sacramental bond of marriage seems scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person. Hence we have an alarming decrease in the number of Catholic marriages in the United States together with an increase in cohabitation, in which the Christ-like mutual self-giving of spouses, sealed by a public promise to live out the demands of an indissoluble lifelong commitment, is simply absent.
It is your task to proclaim boldly the arguments from faith and reason in favor of the institution of marriage. […] This message should resonate with people today, because it is essentially an unconditional and unreserved 'yes' to life, a 'yes' to love, and a 'yes' to the aspirations at the heart of our common humanity, as we strive to fulfill our deep yearning for intimacy with others and with the Lord.
How perfect and what a wonderful call to action! The Pope, as some might argue, is NOT out-of-touch! God bless, Pope Benedict.
Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the secular idea of “tolerance” today.It is absolutely mortifying to be labeled as “intolerant” today in fear that you may offend someone.However, what this word does not allow for is true knowledge.People cannot even discuss certain topics because of the intolerance of it all.I think there needs to be a key distinction made between being tolerant of someone and empathizing with someone.
The definition of tolerance at Merriam-Webster Online states:
2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's ownb: the act of allowing something :toleration
3: the allowable deviation from a standard; especially: the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1): the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure tolerance to painkillers>; also: the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen(2): relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factorb: the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food
Definition #2 is the one most applicable to this discussion.Tolerance is to have sympathy for practices differing from one’s own beliefs.Tolerance could also be the act of allowing something.What does this mean though? Sympathy is to "have common feelings", to share a similar experience. Sympathy is extremely important and is unlikely to breed resentment. Resentment exists only when one subject is made to feel an object. So what of the Christian who has no experience with a Muslim or a Muslim who has no similar experience or common feeling with a Christian? Can one have true sympathy for the other? I would argue no.
The next definition of tolerance is "the act of allowing something". Well, what if something is wrong? What if that something is rooted in error or falsity? Is it ethical to just allow something for the sake of tolerance? Where can the line be drawn?
Fr. Guido, O.P., shared some information regarding tolerance during a class. He basically shared the idea that tolerance has a temptation to minimize real differences.It has a temptation to make the ‘other’ not so other.We have a tendency to confuse the other’s difference with error.We have the temptation to see the other in terms of ourselves.
Let's see what empathy is and compare it to tolerance.
Merriam-Webster Online states:
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this
Empathy does not necessarily require common feelings or similar experience. True empathy does not make the other into an object. It does not have narcissistic tendencies and it cannot be faked. It is to acknowledge the other as a true other, but to have an understanding (although perhaps not a complete understanding) of the experience the person is going through.
This in comparison with tolerance is much more beneficial. For people to be able to have true differences is important and in fact real. However, people can still have differences and empathize with one another. We can go even further than just tolerating another. Toleration puts a blind eye to differences and tries to make every difference a union. This just does not make sense and it does not allow for error.
Empathy does not minimize the real difference in the other.Love, rather than tolerance, should exist between two people who are different.
The Church, however, does not impose herself. She does not force any one to accept the Gospel message. In fact, the faith in Jesus Christ which the Church proclaims can only exist in freedom, so tolerance and cultural openness must be a feature of the encounter with the other.
Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation. Authentic tolerance always also implies respect for the other, for man, the creature of God whose existence God willed.
The tolerance we urgently need, and I also mentioned this in Munich, "includes the fear of God - respect for what others hold sacred. This respect for what others hold sacred demands that we ourselves learn once more the fear of God. But this sense of respect can be reborn in the Western world only if faith in God is reborn" (Homily, 10 September 2006; L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 13 September, p. 7).
Here, it seems like Pope Benedict is arguing for true empathy in the "encounter with the other".
St. Thomas Aquinas said something similar to, “When you know something, you conform the object to yourself.When you love something, you conform yourself in light of the thing you love”.
While reading The Law, Old and New by Fr. Richard Murphy, O.P. I came across a small section that struck me. Part of the article talks about the 10 commandments and exactly how we should live them. Within the brief discussion of murder he says (concerning "the death penalty on dangerous criminals"),
This is not murder. Murder is the unwarranted and unjust taking of thelife of another. But it is not a sin against justice, or something undue,or murder, that enemies of society should be put to death by the properauthority, especially when their continued existence may be considered as aserious threat to the common good.
I was rather shocked when I read this because I did not think that this was the view that the Catholic Church teaches. I thought, and have always been taught, that it did not matter what the situation was, we, as human beings, do have the power to place a death sentence because in doing that we are acting as God. Is this view that Fr. Murphy has really the correct teach of the Catholic Church? As an active member of the pro-life movement in the United States I was unaware of this.
I understand that the "dangerous criminals" "continued existence" may be a threat but is killing them really the only way to deal with it? And if the answer is yes, is it correct to say that this is not murder?
I think, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (kill the criminal, that is) it is still murder and it is just another example of people trying to take the blame off themselves.
As China gears up for Summer Olympics 2008, Darfurian activists gear up for a protest. This year’s summer Olympics are becoming known as “The Genocide Olympics” as China continues to supply the Sudanese government with artillery –the artillery that kills Darfurians. The supply perpetuates a mass murder in the name of bigotry, discrimination and hate, a contradiction in terms for the Olympics, a game played to unite the globe. As the New York Times puts it “ …those of us who admire China’s accomplishments find it difficult to give credit when Beijing simultaneously underwrites the ultimate crime of genocide.” China’s power in the Sudan cannot be underestimated, according to Nicholas Kristof: Other countries also must do much more, but China is crucial. If Beijing were to suspend all transfers of arms and spare parts to Sudan until a peace deal is reached in Darfur, then that would change the dynamic. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan would be terrified — especially since he is now preparing to resume war with South Sudan — and would realize that China is no longer willing to let its Olympics be stained by Darfuri blood.
Kristof brings to light our global responsibility. Should we boycott? But beyond China’s sinful hand in the Darfur Genoicide, don’t the Chinese people themselves need rescuing? Having a mother who frequents the country and having traveled to China myself, I recall the Chinese country-side as a devastatingly impoverished place begging for economic stimulation. Wouldn’t the Olympics give it that? But at what cost?
I caught a CNN segment called "Conversations with Black America" today. During a series of interviews with and about Black Americans, the reporter interviewed a student at a historically black college in Greensboro, NC. She stated that she identifies first and foremost as a Black American, not just an American. The reporter mentioned that this kind of statement could be off-putting to other Americans. He insinuated that some would feel as though we need to all identify as Americans first, and that to do otherwise would be an act of disunity. She disagreed, saying that it's important to identify as Black in order to show others that African Americans are not the stereotypes that they have been made out to be.
This quickly got me thinking about language and the way it reveals meaning. In a similar way, what does it mean to identify as an American Catholic rather than a Catholic American? Is it about loyalty, or preference, or responsibility to identify first as one rather than the other? Does it matter?
With Pope Benedict’s near arrival, every news agency is doing its equivalent of the “state of the Catholic Church in America” coverage. Though most of what is said should be taken with a few grains of salt, their sociological research was extremely interesting. According to the Center for Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, of the 64 million Catholics in the U.S., roughly 1/3 of them never attend Mass and ¼ only a few times a year. This article in particular noticed a generational gap amongst Catholic Americans – the older being more inclined to attend and the younger to not associate as fervently. For Catholics born before 1960, about half say they attend weekly, and only 10% of those born from the 1980s on.
However, in conjunction with this, the survey research also noticed a prevalent trend of change in the demography of the church. As the traditional Irish, polish and Italian heritage Catholics are dwindling in numbers, there is an incredible surge amongst Latino, Vietnamese and Africans. The article even notes that many Dioceses, due to the shortage in priests, are even going across seas to recruit priests for parish work. As a young university student, I see this demography change as not only welcome, but as an incredible opportunity to witness to the love of Christ. We live in the midst of a globalizing world that is searching for a common unity, for a common respect of the equality of all men and women in the world. We can see this clearly in international human rights law and the incredible surge in international governmental organizations. The world desperately wants to unite, but, at every attempt seems to be met with the insurmountable barriers of relativism.
Yet, there is hope; our hope is the body of Christ to witness to the unifying love of our Lord. If there is anything that can unite people across superfluous and superficial social barriers, it is truly the love of Christ. In this “American Experiment”, truly, the church can witness to its truly universal nature. By uniting the rich and the poor, those of differing ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, and those of diverse cultures, the Church can truly show the world that universality does not have to come at the expense of the richness of each of these cultures – globalization does not necessarily have to mean homogenization. As the Benedict preaches to Catholic Americans, it is my hope that he reveals to us the true unity of the church in America, a unity that is grounded in the unending and unconditional love of Christ - agape. The American church is in desperate need to be reminded that faith is life, not merely a part of it, and that truly, the love of Christ is what unites us all, whatever our position in this world. We will only be one if our faith and the sum of our lives are one – any compartmentalization will ultimately retain the distinctions amongst us, causing division in the Body of Christ.
Benedict's first papal encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, amazes me with its emphasis, and its reminder to us all, that love is our calling as Christians, and that it applies to every facet of our lives. We are called to live like Christ-- and that includes our vote: Christ is active in our political world as well as every part of our lives, and it is, perhaps, the link that brings together our faith and our politics.
For example, love calls us to fight for justice:
One does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now. We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we have the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programmes. The Christian's programme —the programme of the Good Samaritan, the programme of Jesus—is “a heart which sees”. This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly. Obviously when charitable activity is carried out by the Church as a communitarian initiative, the spontaneity of individuals must be combined with planning, foresight and cooperation with other similar institutions. (31b)
Also, love opens our hearts to the beliefs of others in our own lives, as well as in other countries, like Iraq for example, where we need to address people's religious differences as Christ would: with love. We are called to an openness and a patient understanding, to treat people in a "Christian" way, whether or not they are are Christian themselves:
Those who practice charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. (31c)
Lastly, not only are we to embrace people with love, but we are called to note the difference between faithfulness and effectiveness, and the clear emphasis of the Church on our first and foremost calling to be faithful. However, Deus Caritas Est does not say that one cannot achieve both of these aims at once:
Practical activity will always be insufficient, unless it visibly expresses a love for man, a love nourished by an encounter with Christ. (34)
Thus, if one is working toward peace and justice with a "love for man" that has been "nourished by an encounter with Christ," he may be able to achieve both these ends: effectiveness with the love and faithfulness we are called to live out.
With regard to the personnel who carry out the Church's charitable activity on the practical level, the essential has already been said: they must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving the world, but should rather be guided by the faith which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6). Consequently, more than anything, they must be persons moved by Christ's love, persons whose hearts Christ has conquered with his love, awakening within them a love of neighbour. The criterion inspiring their activity should be Saint Paul's statement in theSecond Letter to the Corinthians: “the love of Christ urges us on” (5:14). (33)
As Christ's love "urges us on," we can place His love at the center of our politics in an attempt to faithfully improve our world.
Two weeks ago I went to see the new movie "Stop-Loss" starring Ryan Phillippe and Channing Tatum. The movie tells the story of a soldier who served his tours in Iraq and whose contract ran up with the army until he was stop-lossed and told to go back to Iraq. I knew little about the stop-loss policy in the army, and learned that it is one of those "small print" things on the contract that allows the army to send you back to duty even when your contract is up. I found the movie really upsetting, but very, very well done. It reminded me very much of a song by my favorite band State Radio called Camilo. Camilo tells the story of a soldier who went AWOL due to objections with the war and subsequently spent a year in prison. It is an incredibly moving song and I will include the lyrics and the video below.
Before I get into that story I would like to define the term conscientious objectior in order to better understand what it really means. We read several pieces for our discussion of war that included the concept of conscientious objectors, but just to refresh everyone's memory. A conscientious objector is "an individual who, on religious, moral or ethical grounds, refuses to participate as a combatant in war or, in some cases, to take any role that would support a combatant organization armed forces. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service. In the second case, the CO objects to any role within armed forces and results in complete rejection of conscription or military service and, in some countries, assignment to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service." It is also important to note that in some cases, like Camilo's, a person may initially agree with the war and begin fighting but later realize that the war is unjust and decide on conscientious objection, a decision that is not easily accepted or granted by the military.
Camilo Mejia is a former staff sergeant who spent six months in Iraq and returned home for a 2 week furlough and decided not to return. He had served his eight years of service, and like the movie portrays, was stop-lossed. Camilo went AWOL and was charged with disertion and sent to prison for one year. He turned himself in and filed for conscientious objection status. He claimed that he had to stop fighting based on war crimes, particularly the torture of prisoners. During his time in jail he was recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience. He was released from prison in 2005 and wrote a book about his experiences entitled, "Road from Ar Ramadi: The private rebellion of staff sergeant Mejia."
In an article from 2004 entitled AWOL From Iraq, Camilo states, “When you look at the war, and you look at the reasons that took us to war, and you don’t find that any of the things that we were told that we’re going to war for turned out to be true, when you don’t find there are weapons of mass destruction, and when you don’t find that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and you see that you’re not helping the people and the people don’t want you there,” says Mejia. “To me, there’s no military contract and no military duty that’s going to justify being a part of that war.”
This is a powerful statement and I think it speaks to a sentiment that is becoming more common among soldiers feeling like they have lost the reasons that they are fighting. The reasons that George Bush outlined for us were lies, this war was waged on deception, not democracy. For Camilo, when these reasons for war turned out to be false, he was not able to continue the torture and crimes against humanity. However, his fellow soldiers were less than sympathetic.
“His duty’s not to question myself or anybody higher than me,” says Warfel. “His duty is to carry out the orders that I give him or his platoon leader gives him. We’re not paid in the military to form personal opinions or to doubt what our leaders say.”
Although I understand that the army is a job and that it must be looked at this way, not all job descriptions require you to sacrifice innate instincts against killing an innocent person. Camilo realized that his duty to his morality and to his faith was more important than his duty to the army. In his book he writes,
"I say without any pride that I did my job as a soldier. I commanded an infantry squad in combat and we never failed to accomplish our mission. But those who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward not for leaving the war, but for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war was my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier. All because I was afraid. I was terrified, I did not want to stand up to the government and the army, I was afraid of punishment and humiliation. I went to war because at the moment I was a coward, and for that I apologize to my soldiers for not being the type of leader I should have been."
The article continues,
"Mejia says there’s no doubt in his mind that he broke the law. However, he says he doesn’t consider himself a criminal. “To break the law, the law has to be upheld,” he says.
By that, Mejia says he means the war in Iraq should be considered illegal. He also says he signed a contract to serve eight years with the Army and the National Guard. And he served those eight years.
Then, he says, the Army did what it’s done to thousands of soldiers, and ordered him to serve more time because of the war."
Perhaps what I found most upsetting about the movie Stop-Loss was the fact that the men did return for two weeks and spent time with their families and friends thinking that they would be there for good, that they were done. And then having to find out that this was just a tease, that they were going back to Iraq was devastating to watch. During the interview Camilo was asked if he regreted his decision, he writes,
"But Mejia says he has never regretted his decision to go AWOL, especially, he says, when he starts thinking about the 12 or 13 Iraqis he and his men killed in Ramadi. All of them, he says, were civilians simply caught in the crossfire -- except for one 10-year-old boy with an AK-47, and one adult with a grenade.
“Whether you want to admit it or not to yourself, this is a human being,” says Mejia. “And I saw this man go down and I saw him being dragged through a pool of his own blood and that shocked me.”
And when you ask yourself, which you’re bound to have, for what? Why? What did you answer? Rather asks Mejia.
“That’s the problem. I don’t have an answer, I don’t have a good answer. I cannot say I did it to help the Iraqi people. I cannot say that it was to make America and the world safer. I cannot say that it was for democracy,” Mejia replies. “I cannot say that it was to prevent terrorism. I cannot find a single good reason for having been there and having shot at people and having been shot at.”
This I think is the most telling of the quotes. For this soldier, he could not justify that war that he was fighting, he could not justify killing 12 civilians. And that should not be justified, not in the name of democracy or of keeping America safe. No concrete positive changes have come about from this war, only the psychological scaring of our young people and 90,000 Iraqi civilians dead. That is truly a crime. In the Camilo video below there is a quote from George Bush that states, "I want you to know that when we talk about war, we are really talking about peace." This war is NOT peace. Camilo says,
“I would say this war is not about America. This war is not about safety. This war is not about freedom. This war should not be paid with the blood of American soldiers,” says Mejia. “And if I do end up paying with jail, then at least I’ll know that it was for the right decision.”
Please watch State Radio's Camilo Video below and Read the lyrics. It is a true testimony to someone who I think exemplifies true heroicism and bravery.
Camilo Lyrics- State Radio Woke him up with a barrel to his head His eyes shut tight bracing for the blow Resigning his life to the metal held In another man's hand
Twenty days in a concrete fallout What life have I to take your own Oh my country won't you call out Doorbells are ringing with boxes of bones And from another land's war torn corners To a prison cell in my own Punish me for not taking your orders But don't lock me up for not leavin' my home
Your words just a bloody fallacy A house of cards you painted white You tried to recreate Normandy But you made up the reason to fight And now red oil is spillin' down on the street And your eyes too big for the belly is weak Will you not refuse this currency Or is blood money just money to you Is blood money just money to you
Twenty days in a concrete fallout What life have to take your own Oh my country won't you call out Doorbells are ringing with boxes of bones From another land's war torn corners To a prison cell in my own Punish me for not taking your orders But don't lock me up for not leavin' my home
An Op-Ed piece in the NY Times and another article about food riots this week highlight the major food crisis around the globe. Thirty-seven countries are facing food crises, and this has resulted in a number of riots, and consequently, some deaths. People are trying to get the attention of their government, of the world...and if they don't die in riots, they just may die of starvation. There are many reasons why food prices have risen, partially because of new biofuel technology, influencing corn and soybean costs.
This reminded me of an email that I received a few months ago with photos of families from around the world. The photos are set in the "dining" area of that family's home, with all the food that they eat in a week surrounding them. The photo at the top of this post is an Italian family. At the time of these photos, their weekly cost of food is 214.36 Euros or $260.11.
Above, a family from the US, their total is $341.98.
The photos also show a family from Mexico, totaling 1,862.78 Mexican pesos or $189.00 dollars,
an Ecuadoran family, spending the equivalent of $31.55
and finally, a family in Chad, with their week's worth of food, totaling the equivalent of $1.23.
What is our responsibility as Christians? As citizens? What is our government's responsibility? From the Op-Ed piece, we learn that international aid has decreased significantly over the last year. I'm reminded of the old lecture..."Eat your vegetables, there are starving children in Africa!" How about in addition to clearing our plates and not wasting food, we consider what it means to try to live in solidarity, the Christian call to love our neighbor, to feed the hungry, to understand that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. This has to mean becoming politically engaged, advocating for more a just global economy, fighting things like huge budget cuts to social programs right here in our own backyard.
This past week, former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, presented a speech on the topic of faith and globalization. After reading through his comments, I have come to realize that the goals of his speech and his personal connection to the actions he wants to take, are what is needed to make a sustainable change and open up honest dialogue between religions. Here is the Prime Minister's presentation:
Blair reaches throughout times of terror in history and proves how it was the faithful men and women who brought peace back to the world. He does not see a divide between faith and politics but an undeniable relation. Faith, according to Blair, must not be means of exclusion. Yes, we must wholeheartedly dedicate ourselves to our beliefs and sharing these with others. However, faith becomes a weapon when we lose respect for other beliefs and begin to see those with differing views a subhuman.
"Let me be clear. I am not saying that it is extreme to believe your religious faith is the only true faith. Most people of faith do that. It doesn't stop them respecting those of a different faith or indeed of no faith. We should respect humanists too and celebrate the good actions they do.
Faith is problematic when it becomes a way of denigrating those who do not share it, as somehow lesser human beings. Faith as a means of exclusion. God in this connection becomes not universal but partisan, faith not a means of reaching out in friendship but a means of creating or defining enemies. Miroslav Volf in his book ‘Exclusion and Embrace’ describes the difference brilliantly."
Faith is a transformative power in the global world. However, people must learn to embrace it as something that is positive and not something to be afraid of. Interfaith dialogue is essential for peace to prevail and Blair beautifully portrays that necessity in this speech.
Blair brings in the role of faith and globalization in relation to the current elections in the US. There are issues that cross political lines and it is no longer "left v. right" but "open v. closed". We are afraid of becoming a global community because of the lack of understanding and sensitivity to different cultures. However, through faith, and constant interfaith dialogue, the community of the world can become united.
Reading through Blair's article is inspiring and offers so much hope and expectation for the role of faith in the future political sphere. Let's pray that these messages are heard and we begin to dialogue and learn to love each other out of respect for the individual dignity of each person.
This proper way of serving others also leads to humility. The one who serves does not consider himself superior to the one served, however miserable his situation at the moment may be. Christ took the lowest place in the world—the Cross—and by this radical humility he redeemed us and constantly comes to our aid. Those who are in a position to help others will realize that in doing so they themselves receive help; being able to help others is no merit or achievement of their own. This duty is a grace. The more we do for others, the more we understand and can appropriate the words of Christ: “We are useless servants” (Lk 17:10). We recognize that we are not acting on the basis of any superiority or greater personal efficiency, but because the Lord has graciously enabled us to do so. There are times when the burden of need and our own limitations might tempt us to become discouraged. But precisely then we are helped by the knowledge that, in the end, we are only instruments in the Lord's hands; and this knowledge frees us from the presumption of thinking that we alone are personally responsible for building a better world. In all humility we will do what we can, and in all humility we will entrust the rest to the Lord. It is God who governs the world, not we. We offer him our service only to the extent that we can, and for as long as he grants us the strength. To do all we can with what strength we have, however, is the task which keeps the good servant of Jesus Christ always at work: “The love of Christ urges us on” (2 Cor 5:14).
The National Catholic Reporter carried an article by Fr. Bryan Massingale, an African American Catholic priest who teaches a Racial Justice course in the Theology department at Marquette University. Well worth the read, the article speaks mostly of the gut feelings that come up for us when we hear or talk about race in America: "fear, anger, confusion, resentment, guilt, helplessness, shame, outrage, despair, resignation." But he also speaks, with candor, about the reality of what we hear preached from our churches and temples:
For what religious person hasn’t heard a priest, minister or rabbi utter from the pulpit boneheaded, ill-advised, insensitive, embarrassing or even stupid statements that offended common sense and even one’s religious convictions? And yet decided that because the church’s merits outweighed the minister’s shortcomings, one could remain a member of the congregation? Who among us would want to be held responsible for every pronouncement made by our faith’s leaders?
This statement is made, of course, in light of Rev. Wright's controversial statements. I think the importance of this comment, coming from a diocesan priest, is that it reminds us that clergy and ordained religious are not perfect, nor do they always preach the Good News in the ways we're most comfortable, or those most appropriate. But if we have these gut reactions to race and racism (or any other -ism), and those feelings shape our dialogue, then the same is true for our religious leaders. It is important to recognize that as people with stories, we each bring that story into the "public sphere," either as elected officials, community leaders, or religious leaders. And those stories continue to shape us and our leadership.
Throughout the week, I was watching the news and I was shocked by the amount of stories relating to the disintegration of the family and family values. The family unit is, or at least should be, the most important aspect of our society. One of the major problems with this country today involves this breakdown of the family which has actually had major negative effects not only on the environment, but most especially on morality and values. In Letter to Families by Pope John Paul II, he writes:
“The family is the first and the most important. It is a path common to all, yet one which is particular, unique and unrepeatable, just as every individual is unrepeatable; it is a path from which man cannot withdraw. Indeed, a person normally comes into the world within a family, and can be said to owe to the family the very fact of his existing as an individual. When he has no family, the person coming into the world develops an anguished sense of pain and loss, one which will subsequently burden his whole life.”
The Pope is saying that everyone stems from a family and the absence of the family leads to problems which the person has to struggle with their whole lives. It is central to each human being and uniquely formative for each soul.
The news story that was most interesting and disturbing was the "Pregnant Man". Recently, a transgender man named Thomas Beatie appeared on Oprah Winfrey's talk show discussing his condition. Here is a news video reporting on the story.
One of the comments made by Thomas Beatie stated, "It is not a male or female desire to have a child. It's a human desire." Oprah Winfrey later states that Beatie's pregnancy was "a new definition of what diversity means for everybody." Nancy, Beatie's wife, is commenting that the pregnancy is completely normal.
These types of comments permeate our country's thought today. This is obviously a more secular worldview discussing rights and liberties. Nobody today wants to withhold anyone his or her rights, but I would like to argue that the right for all genders to biologically have children is not a right. It is something inherent to each gender. One of the special feminine gifts given specifically to women is the ability to bring children into this world. It is ok to for all genders to desire children, but not biologically. I know there are men out there who desire to be fathers and it is definitely possible, but with the help of a female counterpart!
This story was absolutely stunning for me. There are many implications. What happens, now that this type of pregnancy has become a phenomena, to the institution of marriage? What different roles will dads play in the lives of their children as well as moms? This type of "right", which is to have a child even though it is limited biologically, is not a right. Also, will this type of family have issues later on? What about the baby girl about to be born? What will this make of the beautiful, intimate bond created by sexual intercourse? Is everyone now allowed to give birth, no matter what gender, age, etc.? Where will the lines be drawn? Will this change the legality of marriage and its benefits?
This type of perverse family cannot be healthy nor express what is truly good and real for the individual members involved.
I found this article on CNN.com that talks about Warren Jeffs, the leader of a Mormon polygamist sect in the southwest. Specifically, his compound in Texas has been sealed off by law enforcement officials.
Setting all the grotesque wrongdoing aside, such as rape, incest and sexual relations with a minor, I think the article touches upon some very pertinent issues that we’ve been dealing with in class, namely, the right to religious freedom through the fundamentalist church’s practice of polygamy. It begs the question: if this is part of their religion, and can done without unlawfully infringing upon the social order (even though it hasn’t here), is this a violation of his right to freely practice his religion? Granted, what constitutes a proper understanding of social order is debatable, as we as Catholics have a much different understanding tha secular liberals. But, it gets to the point, to what extent should the freedom of religion be granted?
The Roman Catholic Church proclaims the right to religious freedom as the most fundamental of human rights and a necessary aspect for the protection of human dignity. Even though the understanding is grounded on a far different from that of liberalism, is Jeffs’, and anyone who wishes to pursue their faith via polygamy, right to the freedom from state encroachment on religion being violated? Or should the freedom only be given, to an extent?
Anscombe, Hauerwas, and Baxter each bring to light the responsibility of Christian allegiance....but who are Christians, today, allied with?
Stanely spoke of the Catholic drive to pledge allegiance to the flag and the identity “we” lost in the immigrant generation…Baxter points out the sin that roots itself in such a tradition.
Perhaps the most striking example of this merging of church and nation was symbolized by the cover of a church bulleting that was distributed at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, on October 7, 2007, the day the bombing campaign began. Taking up the entire cover page was a large cross with a banner of the stars and stripes draped over it, a blue sky in the background, and a sky line toward the bottom. Emblazoned over the image was the Prayer of St. Francis, beginning with the words, “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.” When I inquired as to who was responsible for the bulletin cover, I was informed that this cover was recommended by the service that provides bulletins for churches across the country. And so it goes.
When we put our country before our Christianity, what are we saying about our identity?
As Elizabeth Anscombe points out, “natural law is the law of man’s own nature, showing how he must choose to act in matters where his will is free” But is our natural law turning into patriotism?
The role of chastity (which goes beyond abstinence and lasts a lifetime, through one's vocation to the single or the married life) in the political spectrum is surprising. It displays the value society continue to places in committed relationships, as well as our emphasis on "freedom from" limitations to our actions, including sex.
Bill Clinton exemplified the "freedom from" mentality when he cheated on his wife, now potentially the next president of the United States, by participating in an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the other famous women of our teenage years. In this action, Bill was embracing his God-given and American freedom as "freedom from" restrictions on his personal desires, opening up to him the option to pursue these affairs. While many people desired we "leave the poor man alone", in general, I think most people were disappointed by his infidelity and his choice to lie about it, because we want to be able to trust our president, and because we value relationship commitments, whether or not they are within marriage.
Current candidate Barack Obama has provided another example of "freedom from," found in Joe's post this week. He is cited saying that women should have the 'right to choose' because they should not be "punished" with an unplanned baby after having sex. This example, like that of Clinton's affair, shows us the ridiculousness of the "freedom from" mentality: rather than focusing on the virtuous choices available to us thanks to freedom and, specifically, free will, these individuals are advocating an 'anything-goes' attitude that leaves almost no room for trust and faith in the Lord, who is the center of our lives.
"Freedom for," on the other hand, means using one's freedom to live out God's will. It is freedom for a virtuous life, where it is entirely up to us to make our decisions. Even Mary, without sin and in her special relationship with God, had the freedom to say no to giving birth to the Son of God. This conscious, Christ-centered (or even non-Christian, morality-centered) mindset is missing in these two examples of "freedom from", and we can find happiness in Him only when we see that with sex-related issues and all moral dilemmas of our lives, we are called to embrace our "freedom for" service to our Lord.
For all of you American Idol fans out there...was anyone else somewhat surprised by the amount of air-time that Jesus got this week? The theme of this week was Dolly Parton, and all the contestants sung her songs, including some overtly Jesus-y ones, like "Smoky Mountain Memories" and "Coat of Many Colors." And when the results show aired on Wednesday, Dolly herself performed her song "Jesus and Gravity."
Between that and the Scowl's (April Fool's Day edition of the Cowl) front page article about Jesus being deferred from PC, I thought Jesus had a pretty good PR week!
I really liked both Bethany and Joe's articles regarding abortion. I too take offense to the "anti-choice" label and I completely agree that Obama's statement was unchristian and I certainly am not in agreement with it as a pro-life individual. I think that abortion is never a good option for so many reasons, not the least of which is the effects that abortion has on the individual who commits it. We are discussing abortion in my philosophy class, looking at Simone de Beauvoir, a feminist contemporary philosopher. I found her section on abortion really interesting, although I disagreed with many of her points. However, I want to briefly discuss some of the issues she raises with abortion, perhaps issues that we can discuss in a couple of weeks when we look at the topic.
One of the problems with the pro-choice vs. pro-life language is that for many women, they do not really consider abortion a choice. As de Beauvoir says in her chapter, no woman truly wants an abortion, no woman truly wants to kill her own child, it is more that she feels that there is no other option for them. That women feel that their only option is to kill their child is an overwhelming failure on the part of American society. For a fourteen year-old African American girl who grew up in poverty with constant sexual abuse and has sex through her own confusion and sense of despair and gets pregnant, abortion feels like the only choice. She feels has no choice if she does not want to see her baby grow up under the conditions that she has. Perhaps she was adopted, and he foster family represented an even worse situation for her than the poor, run-down, understaffed orphanage where she spent a few years without any parental or adult interaction. Why would she want to give her child up for adoption? Why would she want to let her child grow up in the situation that she did? Yet, she knows at fourteen that she is not in the position to do a better job raising her child. So, she gets an abortion. This is wrong, she is killing her child and she is causing emotional damage to herself that she is not even aware of yet. But, to her, she sees no choice.
I walked out of an Obama rally one day to find a group of people with a mega phone screaming at us that we were going to hell holding pictures of bloody fetuses. I was struck by the hatred with which they were trying to get out their "Christian" message. What about a woman who had had an abortion and was struggling with that decision who has to hear people screaming at her that she is going to hell and look at photos of bloody fetuses, is that really Christian? I thought to myself that perhaps the pro-life movement could put its efforts into other ways of getting its message across. Just as Bethany's post stated, we are not "Anti-choice," we want to give women a legitimate choice, but in order to do that society has to make shifts. We need to provide better education in poor communities, we need to provide support and government aide for young mothers, particularly single young mothers. Instead of standing on street corners condemning people we need to be out in the community living our pro-life values and helping those who are lost and confused. When I was younger, before it closed, I volunteered with my mother at a Christian organization that provided clothes, food, shelter, and support to young mothers who chose not to get an abortion and needed help with that decison. This was a wonderful experience for me as a young child and I think it is closer to what Jesus would have done. As a society, we need to focus more on this work, in my opinion. We also need to show compassion to those who have had an abortion and allow them to talk about it and seek forgiveness, not condemn them to hell!! Is that what Jesus would do?
The final issue that I think is important when it comes to the pro-life movement is the issue that Bethany brought up briefly and that I focus much of my final project around. Pro-life is not simply anti-abortion. It is not simply, anti-euthanasia. Pro-life means pro LIFE- all around, for the whole life of an individual. To be pro-choice and to makes statements like Barack Obama did is wrong and it is not Christian, but neither is sending our young people to fight a war that was waged on a lie, or allowing our children to grow up with no health-care, or letting minority students go to schools that are literally falling apart around them, or telling the people around us that they can't come into America in hopes of a better life. Let's be pro-life, let's change society to actually live out these values, and let's give women a reason to want to bring life into the world.
