The pope specifically asked pharmacists not to fill contraceptive, abortifacient, or euthanasia scripts and made a bid for conscientious objector status. This is kind of interesting; I think I've discussed this before but I had sort of started to come to the conclusion that Catholics or any other Christian this affects should simply not be a pharmacist. Not that I didn't think they had a right to object but it seems to be turning into an intractable problem.
October 2007 Archives
Here is an interesting article (thanks Greg K.) on pint-sized preachers.
I have no doubts that a kid of this age could parrot the Gospel message but as far as deep reflection, I'm not so sure. In some churches preaching tends to be highly emotional and somewhat superficial (although far more stirring than the pablum Catholics usually hear). That would be suited to a kid of this age. But can they go deep? Can they explain and explore the meaning of a Scripture passage within the context of the rest of Scripture? Can they refer to the Greek and Hebrew, and do they understand the Jewish milieu? Do they understand theology? Or is it all "Repent this" and "Repent that" and "Praise God alleluia" and "God is powerful, hallelujah" etc.
It would be interesting to hear one of these kids preach (I wonder if there is an MP3 out there).
Ok, I know I've been remiss at posting recently, partly this is due to slow news. News continues to be slow, plus I'm just a bit proud today, so today I'm going to indulge myself and share some of what's going on my life.
I like to cook, though to be honest most of the time this works out as "open the box and follow the directions." This is still better than "open the can" and "puncture wrapper and microwave", or even "Hello, Domino's?" From time to time I do cook from recipes when I have time, but one of my friends is always teasing me about the fact that I don't "really" cook (which for him means totally from scratch). But another friend doesn't even use recipes, so we get a little bit of competition going. Or at least I feel it.
I've made my own recipes, once reconstructing my father's cole slaw recipe (and in the process making my own), reconstructing his rice salad recipe, and other things but I wanted to try to A) do my own thing; B) do something cooked, somehow I felt doing salads (I have three recipes for salad-like things plus a pico de gallo recipe) was not adequate.
So ... after preparing a off the shelf soup mix for beef barley soup (which I love) and being singularly disappointed in it, I set about to make my own beef barley soup. From scratch. Totally.
First task was how to make the soup base. I found a beef stock recipe online, and I learned how to use bones to make the soup base. I didn't even know they sold soup bones in the supermarket, but they do. (For some reason I had never seen them.) However the stock approach was a bit much for me (it takes several hours to make stock, and that's even before you start the soup) so I took a shortcut recommended by my friend Greg K., consummate chef that he is: Just cook the bones in the soup. Well this didn't totally work out and I don't recommend it but it came out OK for me.
For the rest of it, I studied a number of recipes on the net and threw together my own from those (and the advice of Greg), and after all day in the kitchen I had a wonderful soup which is much better than the sorry mixes you get in the store (but which admittedly takes five times the time). The result is what you see above. I was a little surprised at how it turned out; expected something a bit more thick and brown but it was fine. Veggies made it very colorful. There were a lot of veggies but not I think too many. It was positively delicious. Very tender.
Here is my recipe, modified to use beef stock (find your favorite recipe) instead of bones directly in the soup:
1 lb stew meat
1 or 2 potatoes, chopped
2 small carrots, or one large, chopped
2 medium tomatoes (optional)
1 onion, chopped
3 stalks celery, chopped
3/4 cup barley (uncooked)
2 tsp minced garlic
Some pasta or egg noodles if you wish
Five drops Dave's Insanity or other hot sauce (if desired)
14 c stock
1/2 c cooking wine (unless it's in the stock)
Brown the meat in a pot with some oil Add the stock and wine and cook for an hour and a half. As that cooks, chop the vegetables. Saute the celery, onions, garlic, and carrots. Add to meat with hot sauce (if desired). Cook half an hour. Saute potatoes. Add and cook 15 more minutes. (Note: This may need to be adjusted. I cooked all the veggies 45 minutes but the potatoes were overcooked; adjust accordingly.) Try adding pasta or egg noodles in last 5-10 minutes of cooking (I haven't tried this yet, forgot to).
Makes one gallon.
Thanks to Greg for his invaluable help.
While I don't want to minimize the horror of the Catholic priest sexual abuse crisis, I was satisfied to see a report about how sexual abuse in schools is prevalent and school leaders covered it up just like the bishops did. Now percentagewise the rates are, at this stage of the investigation, not even close to the numbers seen in the clergy, although that might increase. But I knew back when the whole Scandal broke that the media was being rather selective in who it covered, that Catholic priests were not the only molesters, and that Catholic bishops weren't the only ones guilty of covering sex abuse up. It seemed as if they wanted us to believe that; whether it was an actual deliberate, malicious omission is hard to say. But maybe this issue with teachers will get more play and there will be some balance.
Time for my quasi-monthly rant. The topic this time is greeting cards for men. Maybe I am unusual in sending birthday cards to my guy friends but I found it very hard to find an appropriate card for a friend of mine recently (no names mentioned). It wasn't the first time I had this problem. You see, the bulk of the cards seem to fall into two classes: 1) The highly sentimental cards clearly designed for women, who admittedly buy most of the cards; 2) The rude cards that make reference to sex, attractive body parts, drinking, or scatology (clearly aimed at men). Problem is that there are precious few cards to choose from that a man can send another man that isn't inappropriate either because it's vulgar, feminine, or otherwise inapplicable. And Lord help you if you want something meaningful (which, admittedly, probably much less than 1% of men would ever send to a male friend).
I think part of this is because sexual and scatological humor are the low-hanging fruits, and because so much of that appeals to the culture today. It's like how difficult it is to find a clean comedian. They virtually do not exist.
I've toyed with the idea of getting a card designed for a brother, but that strikes me as potentially awkward, even for a close friend. It's obvious it's not designed for the situation.
I wonder if Dayspring, makers of Christian cards, has an appropriate line of cards. They don't even have to be explicitly Christian, just clean (though admittedly the men I send birthday cards to are all Christian men).
Just one more consequence of going against the flow and being a bit out of the ordinary.
The shock meter is stuck at full tilt.
The Israeli govt wishes to re-image itself using Israeli female soldiers in bikinis. If that isn't tasteless enough (and exploitative to boot), one commercial has two men on the beach exclaiming, "Holy Mother of God," as a babe bends over to pick up a ball. They can't understand what they're saying. That commercial finishes with "ISRAEL No wonder they call it The Holy Land". And it shouldn't garner any good will in the Muslim world (bikinis? Mother of God?). With such a tin ear toward all religious sensibility, no wonder the West is in decline.
You would think that righteous Jews (which do exist in Israel) would be outraged by this, even if only for the idea of calling it "Holy" because of the hot women.
(Thanks to Bob L., from whom I shamelessly copied this.)
The other day I walked into Best Buy and was stunned to see a refrigerator with a television built into the door. Now I may have been vaguely aware of this coming down the pike, but it was still a shock to see. I have to ask: What do you do, stand in the kitchen to watch it? Is it for men who don't want to miss the game during that three seconds between the time they shift their eyes from the television in the living room to the time they open the door? Is there one inside too, to save another three seconds? Actually this one did have two screens, a large one on the right door and a smaller one on the left door. The irony is there was a big label on it saying that it was not capable of receiving the digital signals we'll be switching to in January of 2009. So it's already obsolete. You'd think if you're marking to people who want to watch television on their refrigerator, that you'd want it to last more than fifteen months (at least, without a converter).
Then I saw an electronic jar opener which I had never seen before. Despite my knee-jerk reaction I'm a little more hesitant to declare this a symptom of materialistic excess. Some people, e.g. the elderly, cannot easily open most jars and this would be appropriate for them. Otherwise, if you have room for it in your kitchen, I suppose it's not any worse than an electric can opener.
It does make me think about my purchases though and where I spend money. I think this is important for any Christian, especially one of means, to do. I was thinking of buying a food dehydrator to dehydrate my peach tree harvest. (The peaches look quite unappetizing; this is the first year I've realized though that once you take the skin off, they are just fine.) Part of me just doesn't want another bulky space-consuming kitchen gadget; as it is I've run out of storage space in my kitchen and have started storing things in spare bedrooms. Besides the can opener, I have a veggie steamer (a gift I rarely use, but when you need to do lots of veggies, it's a must), a wok (which I use occasionally), a crock pot (not often but from time to time), a hand mixer, a scale, and a vacuum sealer (very useful for a single guy like me). When does this become materialistic excess? I'd say that all these items — excepting the electric can opener — do things which are difficult or impossible to do any other way, though admittedly I'd survive without doing them. A dehydrator would probably fall into that category; even if I could dehydrate things in the oven (and I have done beef jerky this way), dehydrating a large quantity of peaches would be prohibitive. I have a similar dilemma with a canner, although I might be able to get away with canning with most of the equipment I already have.
Perhaps once I've examined myself to see whether I am being materialistic in my purchases, I can consider, as a devotional I read brought up, how I can use my possessions for the glory of God. I'm not sure I can feed dehydrated or canned peaches to the poor but it might be worth keeping in mind. But that's a topic for another day.
Here is something I ran across concerning the policy adopted by the Connecticut bishops in treating rape victims in Catholic hospitals. Not surprisingly there was some inaccurate reporting and misleading terminology. (I should have done more thorough research on the topic.)
The National Catholic Bioethics Center has posted a statement regarding treatment of victims of sexual assault, in response to this issue. Part of it is included below. For the rest, go to www.ncbcenter.org. This seems to me to be an acceptable policy. While there is a chance of abortion, because most contraceptives occasionally cause spontaneous abortions, the principle of double effect applies, i.e., an abortion is not intended. (I have to admit much ambivalence about this but I have to concede that the argument seems sound.)
October 3, 2007
Recently the Bishops of Connecticut permitted a protocol in Catholic hospitals for the treatment of victims of sexual assault. This action on the part of the Connecticut bishops received national attention and requires some commentary. This is a complex moral matter and does not lend itself to brief explanation. This difficulty was rendered all the worse by inaccurate reporting and inappropriate, indeed misleading, terminology.
Catholic hospitals have always provided contraception for the victims of sexual assault. This was usually done with a medication or medications which would prevent ovulation. If an egg is not released from the ovary, the victim cannot become pregnant. There was a difficulty here, however, because some medications appear to have a negative effect on the lining of the womb that might prevent an implantation of a new human embryo if one is engendered as a result of the assault. This would amount to an early medical abortion that would not be allowed.
In light of these facts, two protocols were generally developed and approved by bishops. One protocol allowed for no use of a medication for contraceptive purposes because it might have an abortive effect.
Another more commonly used protocol tried to take into account the variety of circumstances surrounding a sexual assault in such a way as to allow the use of a contraceptive medication – if it truly worked as a contraceptive.
The protocol with the ovulation test.
A rather simple (ovulation) test is used to determine whether or not a victim has begun to ovulate or has already ovulated. If the victim has not ovulated she is given the drug that will prevent the release of the egg from taking place. If the woman has already ovulated, the drug is not given because 1) it will not have the desired effect of preventing ovulation and 2) it might, if a new life is present, have an effect on the lining of the womb and prevent implantation.
From the Family Research Council:
Genetics researcher Craig Venter has announced that his team has created a completely artificial chromosome, and he will use it to create a new, artificial life form. This first artificial life (patent application has already been made) will be a very simple type of bacteria, not significantly different from existing bacteria, but its genome will be artificially sewn together to render it a completely new species. The idea of genetically manipulating organisms is not new. The Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded today to three scientists who developed techniques to alter mice genetically. The idea of creating genetically new organisms, including humans, is a short step away. The scientists seem unconcerned about possible inadvertent creation of hazardous organisms, and completely without ethical moorings (but with plenty of hubris) when it comes to potential engineering of designer humans. Venter says, "We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it," and notes that "we are trying to create a new value system for life." Such a new value system is moving forward in the United Kingdom. Today the government replied positively to the idea of creating human-animal hybrids by the cloning process. It might be time for us all to seriously contemplate whether this is a direction in which human society should go.
If you haven't heard, there is a new pro-life movie coming out on October 26th called Bella. It's about a Latino couple who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant; it recounds the choices that they face and the impact it has on their lives. Believe it or not it won the Toronto Film Festival out of thousands of films! That is really amazing. All sorts of miracles and conversions were elicited by the film during its filming, from the mundane (a scene that had to be filmed with no delay and had to be filmed in clear weather experienced an astonishingly localized break in a downpour) to the profound (the lead actor went to an abortion clinic merely to research his part and ended up saving a baby's life, who was then named after him). These are detailed in the recent Catholic Answers Live shows (Oct 1: ra, mp3; Apr 4: ra, mp3). This is a real effort to try to get solid values back into films, but without being preachy or overtly Christian. Obviously, the film has artistic value since it won the Toronto film festival!
It's opening in over 30 markets nationwide. It is critical though that we support it in the first two weeks since that is how a film is judged. Advertise this to all your friends and fellow parishioners! Promotional tools are available at bellaresources.com. Let's make a big push for this.
Oh, I'm sorry, that's not the real title. The real title is 101 Things To Buy Before You Die, by Charlotte Williamson and Maggie Davis. The blatant materialist, consumerist title is what caught my eye. He who dies with the most toys wins. Can't live without these things — creating needs that don't really exist. Such as a four-in-one oven that looks like something out of a morgue (so you can "bake, roast, toast, and keep plates warm" — I know I run into that situation at least once a month). I'm not sure whether it's good or bad that reading this makes me feel a bit more comfortable about my own stewardship.
I was at a bible study the other day when an interesting point came up. We were talking about holiness, in particular our own perception of our holiness. I've been grousing recently that I've seen little progress in holiness in my own life; I feel so unholy. The point that was brought up was that the holier we get, the more sensitive we get to defects in holiness. In other words, the more holy we are, the more unholiness we will perceive. Things that we used to do with impunity pierce our consciences. Me, I'm always reproaching myself for being impatient. Even when I'm aware that I am and should not be impatient, I continue being impatient (chiefly while driving). Maybe I should focus on the fact that I correctly perceive impatience as a problem instead of justifying it and feeding it.
Another thing we discussed is that Satan intensifies his attacks against God's holy ones. One problem I struggle with is that I judge my holiness on the basis of my temptations. This is wrong; having a temptation, even an ugly one, does not mean you are less holy; if anything, it is the more holy who are more "worthy" of temptation.
I did have a consolation today that affirmed that I have made substantial progress and should not be discouraged. Not that there isn't a way to go, perhaps a long way, but I have encouragement now.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court "turned away a challenge to a New York law requiring organizations with religious affiliations — such as Catholic Charities — to cover contraceptives under any prescription drug plan they offer to employees. The law, enacted in 2002, covers a wide variety of religious organizations in New York, prompting a lawsuit from Catholic and Baptist religious organizations in the state. Groups covered by the law include religion-based organizations that provide social services, health care, food, clothing, educational services and other aid."
I am deeply troubled by this refusal to recognize the right of people and organizations to not be forced to do what they consider to be morally objectionable. Anything that forces someone to act against his conscience I find inexcusable. This isn't even a case like the case of a pharmacist forced to dispense contraceptives: One could at least argue that the pharmacist made a choice to take a job as a pharmacist and could foresee that this would involve a conflict. But all Catholic Charities wants to do is offer health insurance, and it's being forced to cover contraceptives against its own beliefs? I guess the only option is to give people some sort of a stipend to buy their own health insurance.
I'd like to do some research and find out what's been published on this lamentable decision — who argued what, who took what side and why (if they even publish that in this case).
