The FAMILY MATTERS!

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.

Freedom of Religion and polygamy?

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/04/texas.ranch/index.htm

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?

Christian Allegiance

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?

"Freedom For" Chastity

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.

Jesus in the Media this week

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!

Pro-choice doesn't seem very pro-choice either

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.

Revolutionary Subordination

An article from Monday, March 31st by Dr. M. Daniel Carroll Rodas, addresses immigration and the reading of Romans 13. Dr. Rodas explains that many Christians on both sides of the immigration debate are impacted by Romans 13. Those opposed to immigration use it as a way to uphold the role of government and the enforcement of national laws. Those more sympathetic to the plights of immigrants struggle to balance the biblical call to submit to authorities with immigrants' lived consequences of doing so.

Echoing John Howard Yoder, however, Dr. Rodas speaks to the importance of reading Romans 13 alongside of, and connected to, Romans 12:

To begin with, Christians must recognize that their agenda is set in the previous chapter of Paul's letter. Chapter 12 tells believers not to be molded by the "pattern of this world" (12:2). Their lives should be characterized by service to others, love, and compassion—even toward enemies (12:3-21).

This key point reminds us that as Christians, we must always hold in the front of our minds and hearts the call to love and also reminds us of the importance of a thoughtful and contextual interpretation of any biblical text.

This article also reminded me of Stanley Hauerwas' claim that immigration is the great Catholic issue, because Catholics have never had much use for nation-state boundaries. As Hauerwas put it, our lives are in service to the Church, not to a nation. The Catholic Social Teaching principal of solidarity certainly reflects that and encourages Catholics to act with compassion and justice for all of our sisters and brothers in the global family.

What I appreciate most about this article is the recognition that as Christians, we are called to exist in the often tense place that Yoder calls "revolutionary subordination." Living as subordinates to the laws and boundaries of a nation-state does not equal unchecked, uncontested submission. Instead, inspired by the Gospel, we are simultaneously called to find ways to work for peace and justice from within this place. As Dr. Rodas puts it:

Citizens of the U.S. have the right to disagree with the government, and, motivated by their principles, Christians do this in multiple ways: at the ballot box, through publications, by organizing educational, legal, and civic organizations that defend other points of view, by participating in peaceful protests of many kinds for a host of causes, and the like.

Although it is easy to feel like these types of actions are small and insignificant, history offers us several examples of "success," from the disciples, to those involved in the Civil Rights Movement, to the peace activists in our midst. But these witnesses also remind us that the Cross is central to this action. On this day, in fact, we remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preacher and activist, who was assassinated 40 years ago today for living within the tension of revolutionary subordination.

Children are Blessings, Not Punishments!

So, I understand that humans are allowed to make mistakes. Sometimes we speak candidly and express views that don't truly reflect our values. However, this past week, Senator Barack Obama shared some thoughts that cannot be effectively rescinded. In this Lifenews.com article we read how Senator Obama states that if his daughter's were to make a mistake and be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, they should not be punished with a child, but have the option to abort that child. This is an unfortunate reaction from a so called Christian who should understand the dignity and worth of human life. Never, in any circumstance should a child be considered "a punishment" for the repercussion of your action. 

As Bethany discussed below, you make the choice to have sex and potentially procreate. God never intended children to be a punishment for bad decisions, they are a gift, and opportunity for us to give thanks to God for His awesome creative power. A true Christian does not support pro-choice efforts, and most definitely does not think of a child as punishment for unplanned, irresponsible sexual relations. 

The other frustrating aspect of Senator Obama's words is that by calling the child a punishment, it removes some of the blame from the irresponsible parents and places some of it on the child. There is no doubt that people around the world are having children out of wedlock and unexpectedly even when married. If we begin to think of these children as punishments for our actions then there will be an inherently antagonistic feeling towards this child throughout their life. They will not be thought of as a beautiful gift from God but an unjust burden. I pray for the conversion of individuals such as Barack Obama, that they may come to see the dignity each child as created in the image in God.

anti-choice Americans

Though it took a lot out of me, after I read an article on Sen. John McCain on lifenews.com, I decided that I should visit the pro-choice america website. Well, I did, and I was informed by reading about McCain's record that he is anti-choice. No not pro-life, anti-choice. This little phrase, "anit-choice", has me extremely frustrated.

This website, run by the NARAL , rates McCain on how anti-choice he is, scoring him at 0% everytime. The astonishing thing to me is to see that people see this as a bad thing! I am not so naive to think that this pro-choice movement isn't happening, especially with the upcoming election, but it sickens be to think that there are people in this world that are advocating for the "pro-choice" cause.

Well, NARAL, if I am so anti-choice, because I do in fact consider myself pro-life, then why am I the one that is promoting the real choice that you are not? Why are the pro-lifers in this country the ones that are standing up and saying, if you do not want to bring a child into your current situation then think about adoption!, why are we the ones that are saying, think about your actions before a child is brought into this situation!... why are the pro-life advocates in this country so often referred to as anti-choice. I'm sorry but wake up, America! Your pro-lifers are, indeed, the ones promoting the choices. The "pro-choice" followers in this country don't really promote a choice, they promote one thing, and thats abortion. There are so many options that abortion doesn't even have to be considered - yet, it is all they promote. Abortion, my friends, is wrong -- there is no right way to look at it. So, please do not call me anti-choice when I am all about the choices that a woman and a man can make while they are awaiting the arrival of the new life that they have created.

Getting back to McCain, though, once again this website has based all of his records on how he voted against abortion and reproductive rights. I know it has been said time and time again, even on this blog, but there is so much more to the pro-life cause than just abortion. Don't get me wrong, it is a huge part of it but, not all of it! After reading the absurdities that these "pro-choice" advocates write about while promoting the Democratic Party it has made me realize just how important this issue is to me and, quite frankly, if this is what the Democrats stand for then maybe I don't want to associate myself with the Democratic party.

Keeping it in the family..

In light of a few interesting news articles and shows regarding Chelsea Clinton's conspicuous position in her mother's campaign and how the past problems of their family are coming to haunt her, I have been thinking about how important the political family really is. When you think back recently presidents have certainly been critiqued or praised based on their nuclear and extended family. For example, the Kennedy's are certainly an important political family whose members have exercised all sorts of political offices and roles. The Kennedy family members all affect one another greatly during campaigns and terms of office. The name carries a lot of weight even today as we saw with the attention that the Kennedy endorsements of Obama got. The Bush's of course are another political family who are incredibly influential and important in each other's political endeavors. George Bush has often been criticized for trying to fight his father's war or impress his father by his strong tactics in Iraq. Jeb Bush has also taken somewhat of a political hit because of the animosity towards his brother.

And now, we see the past failings of President Clinton affecting Hillary's campaign. Chelsea Clinton has been heavily involved with her mother's campaign and has recently received questions at two talks that she has given regarding her father's infidelity and whether it sheds a poor light on her mother's credibility. These videos shows her response to the first question and then the second :


To both questions Chelsea responded that it was none of the student's business and refused to answer the question. At the second question she added that people should vote for her mother based on her mother, not her father. I think there is a lot of truth to that statement, and Bill's failings should not reflect negatively on Hilary. I think what people are more interested in is whether Hillary stayed with Bill for political reasons, or whether they truly worked it out. This is something we will never know so there is really no point in speculating about it. Even so, it really does not matter much to her overall campaign.

Yet, I do think it is interesting how wrapped up people get in the family affairs of our presidents and our candidates. Should one's family reflect badly on them as a person? We all have that one family member who does things that we don't approve of, do we feel that they are a reflection of who we are? Obviously, in many cases family members are very close with the candidates or leaders so it can be a different situation I just think it is an interesting thing to think about in our current election and to recognize in those of the past.

The Battle for the Democratic Nomination

After McCain’s nomination several weeks ago, the Democratic race for a presidential nominee has taken the forefront in the news. By the end of the state primaries and caucuses, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will have the needed number of delegates to win the nomination.

According PollingReport.com, for the upcoming general election in November, Senator McCain leads Senator Obama in the polls 47% to 44% and also leads Senator Clinton 48% to 44%. In the beginning of March, both Democratic nominees were beating the Republican senator. What caused the change? Has Obama’s recent struggle regarding his pastor, Reverend Wright, played a part? Or has Hillary’s dishonesty been a factor?

I think a lot of the reason for the decline is that the American public is tired of hearing about the Hillary / Obama race. Neither of them will secede to the other and the battle seems never-ending. I think that this race has actually been harmful to the Democratic Party because of the split it is creating.

During a discussion on the Hannity and Colmes Show, several analysts were discussing the Hillary / Obama race. Michelle Bernard, the Independent Women’s Voice strategist, argued, “The Democratic party is on the verge of imploding”. Here is that video.

I thought that was a very interesting judgment and I am beginning to wonder if that’s true! Even in last Friday’s (3/28/08) Providence Journal commentary section, there was a political cartoon where “Texas” and “Michigan” were tired of waiting to be let in to the Hillary and Obama show, so they want to “go check out McCain’s place!”

Race, Faith and Politics

I came across a commentary while browsing on CNN.com called "Race, Faith, and Politics."
I found the article really, really interesting and applicable to our current discussions. I think it would have been helpful in a post that I have already done and also in regards to a couple other posts so I wanted to put the link up so everyone could check it out. The article opens with the fact that Reverend Wright's comments have causes the issues of race and faith to come to the forefront of the political race.

"If a poll were taken, there is no doubt that race, faith and politics would be the most emotional, passionate and divisive topics. Why? Because all three are so deeply personal. What one person sees as a negative, another would determine as a strength." I thought this quote was interesting given what we have heard from Stanley Hauerwas and from other sources in our class. Is faith really personal, or is it something that we should force to become public? Just an interesting quote...

The article goes on to discuss Obama's speech on race in particular but also the issues regarding the intersection of race and faith. For example, the differences that occur in black worship and white worship. "I fundamentally believe that whites, blacks -- and yes, Hispanics and Asians -- reacted differently when hearing the snippets of Wright's preaching. Not solely because of content, but also style. For African Americans and a lot of Southern whites who are accustomed to a certain style of preaching, the thundering voice that drops to a whisper, the weaving of social issues with the theological, is common." It also discusses the differences in black and white culture and how these differences affect their faith and their politics.

The article discuses Martin Luther King and how he made many controversial statements that lost him many supporters, but they were statements that he needed to make because they reflected the anger he felt at a culture that had turned its back on his people. I LOVED what Hauerwas said when he was in our class about the fact that we feel that the Civil Rights Movement has somehow abolished all forms of slavery, but we are far from it. Our culture still imposes structures of racism and slavery among all sorts of minorities and it is time that those issues become part of our political discourse. I think this article is one of many that is addressing these issues and is worth reading to get some perspective not only on faith and politics, but how race has worked its way into these issues in our current election.