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.
News Clips: 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).
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.
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.)
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).
