News Clips: January 2005 Archives

There is a great article on Zenit on the effect that absent parents has on children. They note that where popular music in the 60s focused on rebellion against parents, popular music (among adolescents) today focuses on how parents "are not parents, not nurturing, not attentive, and often not even there." It discusses how parents have relinquished their teaching role, opting instead to being "housemates and friends", leaving children with no education in the limits of human nature. It also discusses the negative effects that daycare has on infants. Overall an excellent article.

While in DC for the March for Life, I heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel speak. Now if you are familar with Fr. Groeschel, you'll recall that he was hit by a car last year at about this time and was near death. In fact, he told his that at one point, his vital signs were flat for 27 minutes!! Yet the old codger is back to his usual witty and conversational self (although physically he is frail). By all rights his brain should have been fried, but he was able to give an hour talk (not to mention teach a week-long class prior to the talk). Thanks be to God for this miracle!

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4037852

"A study conducted on the case of a statue of the Madonna reported to have shed tears of blood a decade ago concluded that the event has no human explanation, an Italian newspaper reported Sunday."

MADRID, Spain (AP) &mdash In a substantial shift from traditional policy, the Catholic Church in Spain has said it supports the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.

The headline for this article was "Spain Catholics in condom U-turn" but there is a big difference between that and "Condoms have a place." I suspect AP is making a bigger deal about it than necessary.

Apparently the spokesman cited a study which 'supported the so-called "ABC" approach of abstinence, being faithful to partners and using condoms.'

I don't see how the Spanish bishops can do this apart from the Vatican but we'll see how it plays out, and see what the Catholic media have to say.

I know I'm putting my neck on the line here, but the only way I can see condom using being acceptable at all is if they are used completely free from the intent to contracept, and strictly to prevent transmission of disease, as in a case when a husband is infected with HIV. In other words, if you truly do not want to use condoms, then I'd argue for the morality of them for the intention of preventing disease. This is the classical Catholic principle of double effect. However I submit myself to the church's ultimate judgment on the question.

Update: Marty Helgesen says that other bloggers have found that the connection between that story and the truth is rather tenuous. See, for example, http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/ for several links to more accurate information.

This being the Year of the Eucharist, the Pope has granted some new plenary indulgences, and they are easy ones:

"A Plenary Indulgence is granted to all faithful and to each individual faithful under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer in keeping with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff, with the soul completely removed from attachment to any form of sin), each and every time they participate attentively and piously in a sacred function or a devotional exercise undertaken in honor of the Blessed Sacrament, solemnly exposed and conserved in the tabernacle.

"A Plenary Indulgence is also granted, under the aforesaid conditions, to the clergy, to members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and to other faithful who are by law obliged to recite the Liturgy of the Hours, as well as to those who customarily recite the Divine Office out of pure devotion, each and every time they recite - at the end of the day, in company or in private - Vespers and Night Prayers before the Lord present in the tabernacle.

"The faithful who, through illness or other just cause, are unable to visit the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist in a church or oratory, may obtain a Plenary Indulgence in their own homes, or wherever they may be because of their ailment, if, ... with the intention of observing the three usual conditions as soon as possible, they make the visit spiritually and with the heart's desire, ... and recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a pious invocation to Jesus in the Sacrament.

"If they are unable to do even this, they will receive a Plenary Indulgence if they unite themselves with interior desire to those who practice the normal conditions laid down for Indulgences, and offer the merciful God the illnesses and discomforts of their lives."

Freedom from all attachment to sin is a difficult thing to obtain — frankly it seems to me if you attain that, the plenary indulgence is virtually superflous (although we can always obtain plenary indulgences for other people) — but we can attain it if we pray for it daily for enough time (possibly several years).

Here is a good article on Wal-Mart's pressure on wages (and, in general, how they operate). Most people don't realize that Wal-Mart's fantastic low prices come at a high social cost. Wal-Mart forces suppliers to lower prices every year or be dropped. This relentless pressure on price exacts a high toll on labor. In some cases, it forces jobs to go overseas. "[C]ustomers have begun to face imported clothing sold so cheaply to Wal-Mart that they could not compete even if they paid their workers nothing," the article says. I'm not sure people realize that after a certain point, when prices get cut, the only thing they can cut are the wages of workers. People are rightly concerned about slave labor at Nike contractors overseas, but where does the Wal-Mart policy lead us?

"People ask, 'How can it be bad for things to come into the U.S. cheaply? How can it be bad to have a bargain at Wal-Mart?' Sure, it's held inflation down, and it's great to have bargains. But you can't buy anything if you're not employed. We are shopping ourselves out of jobs."

I think as Catholics we have an obligation to not engage in any commerce that has a predatory effect on wage-earners. And that's the issue: Wal-Mart's policy, cut costs at all costs, does not adequately protect the worker, whether it's a US worker or an overseas worker. It has one goal: Low price, with no safeguards for workers.

That's not to say that Wal-Mart doesn't do some good by forcing companies to cut unnecessary costs and become more efficient (in a good way). But one can become more efficient without exploiting one's workers.

Interestingly, the article also illustrates how many companies were afraid to talk to them for the article out of fear that Wal-Mart would cut them off or put them in "the penalty box" (normally reserved for underperforming suppliers). "If Wal-Mart takes something the wrong way, it's like Saddam Hussein. You just don't want to piss them off." That's an unhealthy degree of fear, in my humble opinion.

So this is why I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, until they recognize the rights of the workers at their suppliers and come up with some way to shield them from the devastating effects of their policies.

We as Americans have made an idol out of low prices. It's time for us to think about the consequences of low prices and see the connection between the low wages and outsourcing we complain about and the low prices we demand — not to mention think about the exploitation of workers that results from our insistence on bargains.

Various Eastern Christian news notes:
Patriarch Aleksey II demands end to "proselytism"
Pope: Eastern Catholics should pursue ties with Orthodox

His Beatitude continues to get his veil in a snit over "proselytism", which he defines as efforts to expand Rome-affiliated churches in traditional Christian Orthodox areas. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that people who are already Catholic might want to be served by their own church.

I also wonder whether he expects existing Catholics &mdash Eastern or Roman &mdash to convert to Orthodoxy. That would seem to be suggested by his insistence that new Catholic parishes not be erected in Russia or Ukraine. Yet the Orthodox, to put it bluntly, are not evangelizers, and their whole attitude seems to be isolationist, that is, leave us cradle Orthodox alone because we leave cradle Catholics alone. (I can't think of a single place that's been evangelized by the Russian Orthodox in the last millenium save Alaska [ROCOR and the Evangelical-cum-Antiochene Orthodox excepted]). So what are Catholics in Russia or Ukraine (for the sake of simplicity I'm calling this Rus') to do? They don't want us to erect parishes to serve them. They don't encourage Catholics in Rus' to convert to Orthodoxy (as demonstrated by their manifest hatred toward us). They likely won't admit Catholics in Rus' to communion on an exceptional basis. What gives?

Maybe my cynical attitude on this comes from reading a book called From the Holy Mountain about a man retracing the steps of an ancient saint in Eastern Christian lands. This Catholic author tells of his experience on Mount Athos, including the hatred he endures from being Catholic ("oh no, the abbot would never let you look at those manuscripts if he knew you were a heretic!"). I say this as I nurse wounds inflicted by a mentor who meant a lot to me and taught me everything I know virtually about Eastern Christianity, then abruptly became Orthodox and almost totally cut off contact. I did nothing to the man but seems to keep me at arm's length merely because, it seems, I remain Catholic.

What gives? I want to print up a bumper sticker that says "Hate is not an Orthodox value" but it's meaning would be lost on 99.99% of the people who saw it. If they think Orthodoxy is so great, why don't they want to share it? If they think I should be Orthodox, why aren't they treating me with love to convince me to become Orthodox? Instead of dividing the world into Orthodox and heretics (really Orthodox, heretics, and heathens, but the monk on Mt. Athos made no such distinction when challenging this book's author), why can't they divide the world into Orthodox and might-become-Orthodox-if-we-show-them-enough-love?

I can't change the Orthodox, but I can adopt that same attitude myself: treat everyone as either Catholic and hence worthy of love on that account, or not Catholic and treat them as might-be-Catholic-if-we-show-them-enough-love and worthy of love because, well, if Christ loves them, why shouldn't I? Let's never forget that our job is to love, not to hate, not to reject, not to hold in suspicion, but to open our arms and love to the best of our abilities. I think our Holy Father is showing us a wonderful example.

Lord, open our hearts to love as you love.

St. John, pray for us!
St. John of the Cross, pray for us!
St. Josephat, pray for us!

The California atheist who unsuccessfully sued to get the phrase under God out of the Pledge of Allegiance is back with a new version of the same suit and another one seeking to prevent members of the clergy from praying at President Bush's inauguration

Consumer Reports recently (Feb 2005) ranked condoms (may require subscription) and guess whose condoms ranked last?

Two out of three of Planned Parenthood's free ones that they tested. The lowest rank one (#22) got the lowest score for reliability and strength. #21 got lowest for strength but did get the highest score for reliability. The third condom was ranked #14 — it got highest score for reliability and next highest score for strength.

Isn't this a conflict of interest for Planned Parenthood to distribute weak and unreliable condoms?

I got a plea from the American Family Association — which would probably be classified by some as foaming right-wingers — about an incident on October 10th where Michael Marcavage and three other members of Repent America were arrested, allegedly for "preaching the Gospel on a public sidewalk." It says, "When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical homosexual activists dubbed the Pink Angels. A videotape of the incident shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christians’ movement on the street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to cover up the Christians' messages and blowing high pitched whistles to drown out their preaching." The plea added, "They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred." I will note that one can be guilty of inciting a riot without actually succeeding.

By the way, there is a good, free Catholic news service called ZENIT (zenit.org). They also take donations. If you don't wish to subscribe or donate, then say a prayer for them since like most Catholic apostolates, they are perpetually short on funds.

A very interesting article on tsunamis is Tsunamis: More than Big Waves

Pray for the victims of the tsunami in Asia. St. Thomas, pray for them!

And donate if you can: Emergency Earthquake and Tsunami Relief Fund

Catholic school angers some by admitting gay couple's sons (CNN)

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but as strongly as I oppose gay marriage and gay adoption, I'm not sure we should punish the sons and deprive them of a better education (including an education in the faith) on account of the sins of the couple. And do we really think that this action is going to spur the couple's conversion? The superintendent has a point: They have to be consistent.

Now, if the couple complains about what the children are taught, that's another issue ...

In a post about new bishops, a blog author rejoices that newly appointed Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio said he would kill any priest who abused a hypothetical nephew.

I must say I am appalled by such an attitude. Send them to a Cistercian monastery to live the rest of their life in penance, sure, but kill them? The Gospel does not say we ought to kill sinners, but convert them. Even if one disagrees with Pope John Paul II's opposition to the death penalty, the idea of a bishop killing a sinner has always been anathema to the church.

If a man is in a state of mortal sin and will go to Hell if he dies, would it be truly loving for the bishop to kill that person, or to give them ample chance to repent? And if they do repent, is there a point in killing them anymore?

I am frightened by the lack of mercy that this shows. Yes, pedophilia is a heinous crime, and pedophiles must be isolated from society and treated and, if treatment is ineffective (and they've committed a crime), incarcerated. But the opportunity for repentence must never be denied by the Church.

And, by the way, whether you are talking incubi and succubi or tactile hallucinations, it is entirely possible for children to feel sexual touches that no human being made. I know: I've felt such mysterious touches (and recently) with no physical cause. This is why I am very wary of a witch hunt approach to pedophilia.

We must, moreover, never forget the fact that people can be falsely accused. I know two people who were falsely accused of pedophilia, one a relative who thankfully had insufficient evidence against him to be brought to trial, and one of whom is now rotting in an inhumane Texas prison. (Convicted pedophiles are the most abused of all prisoners.)

I simply cannot get enthused about bishops killing pedophiles, no matter how immoral and destructive pedophilia is. The only justification for killing them is if this were the only way to keep them from abusing children.

My interlocutor commented that I am taking him too literally and he is just expressing his "instinct". To me he is expression his passions, and I'd rather have a bishop in control of his passions like any Christian should be, than a bishop who spouts of the first thing that reflexively comes to mind. A man ruled by his passions is a man who cannot make good judgments.

One might object that the bishop is not being serious, but it is just not appropriate to joke about killing sinners as a solution.

All I have to say is that I am glad this bishop was not the detective who decided not to pursue the case against my innocent relative.