Saturday, April 19, 2008
Hoax
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.
Senior Art Thesis at Yale
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.
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.
Benedict and politics
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.
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.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Gospel Call
“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?
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?
PC: Potentially Catholic
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.
"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."
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:
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.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
One year later.....The issue of gun control
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Religion Not a Private Affair Says Papa!
So our wonderful Pope has been in
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:
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
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:
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)