On this anniversary of Roe v. Wade a clarion call: "We shall not weary, we shall not rest!"

From Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, July 2008:

We contend, and we contend relentlessly, for the dignity of the human person, of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, destined from eternity for eternity—every human person, no matter how weak or how strong, no matter how young or how old, no matter how productive or how burdensome, no matter how welcome or how inconvenient. Nobody is a nobody; nobody is unwanted. All are wanted by God, and therefore to be respected, protected, and cherished by us.

We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until all the elderly who have run life’s course are protected against despair and abandonment, protected by the rule of law and the bonds of love. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every young woman is given the help she needs to recognize the problem of pregnancy as the gift of life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, as we stand guard at the entrance gates and the exit gates of life, and at every step along way of life, bearing witness in word and deed to the dignity of the human person—of every human person.

Against the encroaching shadows of the culture of death, against forces commanding immense power and wealth, against the perverse doctrine that a woman’s dignity depends upon her right to destroy her child, against what St. Paul calls the principalities and powers of the present time, this convention renews our resolve that we shall not weary, we shall not rest, until the culture of life is reflected in the rule of law and lived in the law of love.

[...]

The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. I expect many of us here, perhaps most of us here, can remember when we were first encountered by the idea. For me, it was in the 1960s when I was pastor of a very poor, very black, inner city parish in Brooklyn, New York. I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”

And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed.

In that moment, I knew that I had been recruited to the cause of the culture of life. To be recruited to the cause of the culture of life is to be recruited for the duration; and there is no end in sight, except to the eyes of faith.

[...]

In the midst of the encroaching darkness of the culture of death, we have heard the voice of him who said, “In the world you will have trouble. But fear not, I have overcome the world.” Because he has overcome, we shall overcome. We do not know when; we do not know how. God knows, and that is enough. We know the justice of our cause, we trust in the faithfulness of his promise, and therefore we shall not weary, we shall not rest.

Eliminating the retarded

Two articles I've read in the past few days have coincided. Amy Julia Becker writes on the First Things blog a response to new prenatal genetic screening for Down Syndrome:

In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, William Motley, a geneticist of Oxford University, writes, “Fighting Down syndrome with prenatal screening does not ‘border on eugenics.’ It is a ‘search-and-destroy mission’ on the disease, not on a category of citizens. . . . ” Similarly, a pediatric cardiologist writes about Down syndrome: “Tremendous social, medical and monetary burdens are inevitable parts of this disorder . . . these (prenatal) tests are invaluable, should be made available to all, and may help individuals possibly avoid a very significant life-changing illness.” Much as Mr. Motley might want to claim that prenatal screening is not about a category of citizens, the practical result of what he advises is indeed to eliminate an entire group of persons.

In a recent collection of essays titled Theology, Disability, and the New Genetics, Hans Reinders states a countervailing claim: “Life is good as it is.” Life is good as it is. It sounds simple. Theologically, it rings true. And yet the vast majority of individuals in our culture choose to terminate a pregnancy if they learn that their baby will be born with a disability. Why? If life is good as it is, why is it considered good by many in our culture to ensure that children with disabilities are not born at all?

As Reinders writes, “many people with disabilities resulting from genetic disorders experience their own lives as good.” I can certainly affirm this statement in the case of our daughter Penny, who has Down syndrome. Penny is nearing her third birthday, as she would proudly tell anyone who cares to ask. Her days consist of playing with blocks and balls and running to the playground, of reading books, of entertaining those around her with proclamations like, “Uh-oh spaghettios!” and “Okey-doke!” She loves her little brother “Wilwum.” She loves bagels and music and school. In general terms, we aren’t concerned about her health or development, and neither is she. Her current challenges include learning to swallow her drool instead of letting it dribble down her chin and learning to tell us before she needs to use the potty. In other words, there is very little that is “not good” about Penny’s life.

Today we hear that Guinness World Records has recognized Bert Holbrook, 80, of Waseca, MN as the world's oldest man with Down Syndrome.

“He understood the excitement” but not the specifics, [Bert's nurse] said.

Foley said Holbrook’s health coincides with that of most 80-year-olds.

“He’s definitely slowing down and tires easily but maintains his same daily routine.”

That includes lunch twice a week at the Waseca Area Senior Citizens Center.

Amy Julia Becker admits the real difficulties and suffering that can accompany a severe disability, but also notices how often the person is viewed as a burden not because of a specific challenge but rather just because they exist in a certain way.

Much of the alienation and stigma people with disabilities experience is a product of societal norms rather than of problems intrinsic to the disabilities themselves. Take the mainstream media. The New York Times reports: “The 5,500 children born with Down syndrome each year in the United States suffer from mild to moderate mental retardation, are at high risk for congenital heart defects and a variety of other medical problems, and have an average life expectancy of 49.” Suffer. High risk. Defects. Problems. This reporter goes on to write, “One doctor asked about studies suggesting there is a higher risk of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease in people with Down syndrome, potentially saddling parents with another caretaking burden as they themselves age.” Again, the language is telling—saddling, another burden. [...]

The medical establishment demonstrates a similar prejudice. Penny, according to technical language, was born with a birth “defect” or “abnormality.” And she was presumed to be unhealthy, even though we left the hospital on time, two days after she was born. She had scored an eight out of ten on her Apgar test, an echocardiogram indicated that her heart was sound, and she had no other medical issues. Nonetheless, we took with us a list of all the things that might go wrong, including leukemia, celiac disease, thyroid problems, crooked teeth, and spinal instability. None of those, by the way, were even potential immediate concerns. If our social perceptions changed, much of the supposed suffering that comes from disability would be eliminated. (emphasis added)

Around 92% of women who have their child diagnosed with Down syndrome through prenatal screening choose to abort the child. How many lives would be different today had Mr. Holbrook's mother had this option? Would the world be a better place without him, or without people like him? Is the compassion of Bert's caregivers misspent, better to have been given elsewhere to someone who "deserves it"?

I know that it can be very difficult to care for a person with a lifelong disability. But is the solution to engage in a seek-and-destroy mission against those who are created different?

A tale of three clergy

Hmm...

From Robert Royal at The Catholic Thing:

All deeply unfortunate, but a warning for serious clergy: beware now about the way you put anything before the public, unless you want to provide an occasion to make it seem you are saying the exact opposite of what you believe.

Finally, our third clergyman, Pope Benedict XVI, also offered a Christmas message in which he yoked concern for the world’s ecology and what he calls the threatened human ecology that depends on marriage and family. Nowhere did he mention homosexuality, but some media were happy to extrapolate for him and to hold the coats for the fight. It didn’t work and the story soon died. But it was amazing how the initial reports all drew on the same circle of commentators from gay and lesbian organizations, who in virtually every story, referred to this mild and learned man as Papa Ratzi (which, you see, rhymes with Nazi).

A faith whose Founder was crucified should not expect gentle treatment by the world. But when the very people who repeatedly tell you that “hate is not a family value” indulge in this degree of childish name-calling, you don’t expect it to be picked up in respectable journalism, any more than you’d expect professional journalists to indulge in angry partisanship or crude misrepresentation about the major faith of the West.

Or do we now?

The unique contribution of Judaism to the dignity of women and family life

Michael Novak at First Things:

In the temples of its neighbors near and far, Israel saw that ritual acts of prostitution and sacral couplings between religious leaders and women (or men) were routinely performed. Sexual activities were placed at the core of worship ceremonies in virtually all cultures, even including pre-mosaic Israel. Only in Israel did the prophets rail against these activities, and repeatedly drove them from the temple. The ancient world considered sexual “normality” to be fulfilled in the ungoverned sexuality of males, to which women were merely instrumental. In many of the cultures surrounding Israel, sexual acts between males were given equal or even superior value to those between males and females. In those cultures, little differentiation was made between homosexuality and heterosexuality. The important difference to people then lay in who did the penetrating and who was penetrated, not in which gender played which role.

Against this common vision of sexual normalcy stood the towering Moses. He taught Israel, virtually alone, to embrace a new standard for human sexual life. This standard gave its blessing solely to sexual acts between a man and a woman in the covenanted relationship of monogamous marriage. What a great channeling of sexual energies this provision achieved. What a great concentration of energies it brought to the world. What great, non-instrumental dignity it gave to women.

Many elites in other cultures continued to exhaust their energies in polymorphous sex. They expended whole days on the arts of pleasure—the smells, the scents, the music, the languorous bodies of dancers. And in this sexually saturated world, women remained mere instruments. As Norman Sussman wrote, “The woman was seen as serving but two roles. As a wife, she ran the home. As a courtesan, she satisfied male sexual desires.” When sensory pleasures are considered the highest aim of life—not study nor inquiry nor civic virtue—economic and cultural development is heavily retarded.

Is sexual activity the highest end of life? For Moses and the people of Israel, it assuredly was not. It was of course a great good, and one essential to the perpetuation of the human race. Sexuality was not meant to be repressed. But it was meant to run—and to run deep—in only one channel.

From this sublimation there arose two great social consequences. First, women achieved sexual equality with men in the holy union of marriage. “In His image [God] made them, male and female He made them” (Genesis 1:27). This text says clearly that the divine radiance in human life shines through the marital union of man and woman. Therein, each person finds completeness. Only together, fully one, does the married couple bear the image of the Creator.

The second great consequence is to channel immense energy into society through its fundamental unit, the family—and not just energy, but also a continuity of consciousness, and the dream of a more perfect future. Thus Judaism gave birth to the idea of progress. Judaism introduced the ancient world to the reality of progress. Judaism sees itself as always unfinished, always unsatisfied. “Next year in Jerusalem,” when “the lion will lie down with the lamb” and the Messiah will at last appear. Each family, at the family table, carries these hopes forward into the future. Making progress is always, in time, an unfinished business. (continue)

My response to Prof. Paul Z. Myers hateful acts against Catholics and Muslims

You may or may not have heard of atheist biology professor Paul Myers of the University of MN, Morris in recent weeks. He made headlines after requesting on his personal blog for stolen consecrated hosts to be sent to him so that he could desecrate them. Of course, many Catholics were outraged and Dr. Myers has gotten an earful, ranging from prayers for his soul to violent threats. Mark Shea offers a good discussion of the situation here.

Well, yesterday the man followed through on his twisted exercise in kindly showing the intolerant masses of superstitious idiots (a.k.a. anybody who believes in God) who's king of the universe. He desecrated a sacred host, defaced the Koran and tossed them in the garbage taking a picture to share on his blog. Somehow we're supposed to see now that that this little "cracker" has no power. Thanks man! Like I thought it would melt your eyeballs like the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark or something!

Anyways, as a Catholic and a graduate of the University of Minnesota, I don't think this guy should go on lecturing and doing research. What PZ Myers has done is analogous to calling for people to disrupt services at a synagogue to steal the Torah and send it to him so that he could spray paint swastikas all over it. To Catholics, it's that bad of a sacrilege. Surely if a professor were to publicly call for such an anti-Semitic act he would be justly fired. The same should go for a hateful act done against Catholics.

Here is my letter I sent last night to all those people in the U of MN chain above Prof. Myers. If you feel so inclined, please write your own version and send it via the email addresses provided at the bottom (no threats, though!):

To President Robert Bruininks, Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson, Dr. Roland Guyotte and Dr. Michael Korth of the University of Minnesota and U of MN, Morris:

I am writing in regard to the recent actions taken by Prof. Paul Myers of the U of MN, Morris. As reported on his blog on July 24, 2008, he has taken pages from the Koran and consecrated hosts (presumably stolen from a Catholic Church), deliberately defaced them and publicly ridiculed in the most hateful manner those who hold these objects to be sacred symbols of their faith.

I am an alumnus of the University of MN Institute of Technology and currently teach high school physics in Plymouth, MN. I am also a Catholic who is deeply insulted and pained by these hateful acts of bigotry accomplished by Dr. Myers. I am ashamed that such a man is tarnishing the name of my alma mater. I will not donate to your esteemed institution unless and until Dr. Meyers is disciplined. I am also disinclined to recommend the science programs at UMN, Morris to our seniors. It seems to me that a man so filled with distain toward people of faith would be incapable of treating my students with respect.

To clarify, I do not think that Dr. Myers should be punished for his atheistic beliefs, but rather for his public incitement of theft and hatred toward people who believe in God. This despicable conduct reveals a man unworthy of our public trust to educate young minds who are interested in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Sincerely,
Mr. Dan Fisher
B.S. Physics, 2002
Univ. of MN, Institute of Technology

President Robert H. Bruininks, upres@umn.edu
Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson, grussing@morris.umn.edu
Dr. Roland Guyotte, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean, petersdk@morris.umn.edu
Dr. Michael Korth, Chair of the Division of Science & Mathematics, korthms@morris.umn.edu
Professor Paul Zachary Myers, myersp@morris.umn.edu

Every baby a woman gives birth to is dying

Mark Shea writing for Catholic Exchange has an article about how to respond to a Catholic couple who aborted a baby with spina bifida and anencephaly (no brain):

And I think the best thing we can do with this situation is not adjudicate the souls of people we don’t know anything about concerning a choice they have already made (since that is way too much of a temptation to judge them, especially in cyberspace where judgment and condemnation flow like wine), but to first ask ourselves how we might respond rightly in a similar situation.

In talking to my wife Janet, (the actual baby carrier in this family), she points out the following:

First, ultrasounds have been wrong.

Second, miracles happen sometimes.

Third, and most salient here: every baby she has had is dying. The question is simply, when? Most of them, God willing, will die in 50 to 70 years. But they could die in five minutes.

When we put it that way, we suddenly realize: Knowing that the baby is going to die sooner rather than later is no reason to kill the baby. It is, says Janet, a reason to love the baby for as long as you can while it’s here. That’s very painful, but that is the risk we take every time we choose to love because everything we love in this world is mortal. It may be objected that an anencephalic baby cannot appreciate our love. I would reply that a healthy baby does not appreciate our love either, because a healthy baby has no more mind than a baby born without a brain. The whole point of parenthood, especially in its earliest stages, is radical self-giving (like Christ) to a being who is wholly incapable of giving anything back besides a sucking reflex. It’s an analogy of the grace of God, the great wake-up call, enfleshed, that It’s Not about Me and What I Get from It. A short course in the life of the Blessed Trinity.

In contrast, the unspoken contract, it seems to me, of much of our culture is that the baby is there for the sake of the parents and if the baby is not Perfect, then the parents have the right to break the deal.

Dick Dawkins rap: He's smarter than you he's got a science degree!

Hilarious! This one goes out to all y'all brights out there.

Apparently it took Richard Dawkins three days to understand that he was being dissed. You must watch. As the YouTube info says, "OH MY DOG, it is funny.":

Fr. Neuhaus: We shall not weary, we shall not rest

Go read the entirety of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' closing address at the annual convention of the National Right to Life Committee:

We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until all the elderly who have run life’s course are protected against despair and abandonment, protected by the rule of law and the bonds of love. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every young woman is given the help she needs to recognize the problem of pregnancy as the gift of life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, as we stand guard at the entrance gates and the exit gates of life, and at every step along way of life, bearing witness in word and deed to the dignity of the human person—of every human person.

[...]

The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. I expect many of us here, perhaps most of us here, can remember when we were first encountered by the idea. For me, it was in the 1960s when I was pastor of a very poor, very black, inner city parish in Brooklyn, New York. I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”

And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed.

In that moment, I knew that I had been recruited to the cause of the culture of life. To be recruited to the cause of the culture of life is to be recruited for the duration; and there is no end in sight, except to the eyes of faith.

Katherine Kersten on polygamist raid in Texas

KK asks some important questions regarding the removal of over 400 children from a polygamist compound in Texas:

First, marriages involving girls in their early teens—and social pressures that encourage under-age marriage—is child abuse, plain and simple. There should be no liberal or conservative divide on this point.

But let’s think about polygamous living arrangements as a basis for this raid. Today, traditional notions of marriage are under attack. We hear everywhere that anyone who is “committed” to another should not be denied the “right” to marry. Our constitutional jurisprudence is warming to the idea that many aspects of behavior involve a “right to privacy,” and that marriage is within that zone.

As a result, what moral, social or legal response can we give today to members of Yearning for Zion who demand that polygamy be decriminalized?

This question is relevant not only to obscure Mormon sects. In Canada and Europe, some Muslims are already demanding state recognition of plural marriage. To the right of privacy and equal protection under the law, they add religious freedom as a justification.

Another point: The Texas raid wrenched hundreds of children away from their mothers. According to Time, 77 of these youngsters are under the age of two. The children are now living in a variety of temporary facilities and foster homes, and are being supervised by a foster care system that is already overtaxed. Was grave harm done to these children and their mothers when Texas authorities seized and refused to return them? The answer seems clear, and should make us shudder.

When this story first broke it reminded me that all of our talk of "tolerance" and church signs proclaiming "WE WELCOME EVERYONE TO OUR TABLE!" is really a mask for a whole lot of discrimination. We all discriminate by drawing a line somewhere. Religious freedom is not absolute: If you marry off 12 year old girls to 45 year old men as part of your religion you should be stopped. "Tolerance" in a church is not absolute: If the pastor who "welocmes all" hired an unrepentent child molestor as a youth leader, he has done wrong by welcoming the pervert.

It is not a choice between being "welcoming" or "intolerant." The question is simply, Where do YOU draw the line? In a culture where no foundation of universal morals is recognized, all that remains is the whim of public opinion backed by the power of the state. Might not my own marriage lived according to my religion be eventually viewed as dangerous to my children?

Amy Julia Becker and Downs Syndrome of FT On The Square

A major annoyance of mine as a Catholic science teacher is when objections to certain kinds of research or medical procedures are brushed off as unscientific. The discipline of science has no internal means to judge the morality of any given experiment or treatment. Society can and certainly should limit unethical research. Indeed we do, which is why human trials are so difficult to conduct. There are lots of hoops to jump through to make sure it's relatively safe for the subjects involved. Amy Julia Becker shares a personal example at FIRST THINGS - On the Square:

I remember how I felt two hours after my daughter Penny was born, when I first found out that she had Down syndrome. I sifted through my brain for some scrap of information about this “thing” that had just happened to our family. All I could come up with was early death and mental retardation. The doctors didn’t help much. In the hospital, we received a list of all the things that might go wrong with our baby–heart defects, leukemia, Celiac disease, developmental delays. Despite the hundreds of thousands of people with Down syndrome in America, even the medical professionals didn’t seem to know much about it.

...

I heard a report on NPR about a new ethics recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG has stated that doctors unwilling to provide abortions have an obligation to refer their patients to another physician who will provide the procedure. In the words of the spokesperson on NPR, “if a physician has a personal belief that deviates from evidence-based standards of care . . . they have a duty to refer patients in a timely fashion if they do not feel comfortable providing a given service.” Studies show that women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Trisomy 21 (the technical term for Down syndrome) terminate the pregnancy 85 percent of the time. Since new medical guidelines–“evidence-based standards of care”–suggest that all women, regardless of age, be screened for Trisomy 21, it is most likely that the number of prenatal diagnoses, and the number of terminated pregnancies, will increase. In other words, evidence-based standards of care result, more often than not, in the elimination of people like my daughter from our society.

As a result, I am somewhat skeptical about the standard of care offered to these mothers. I’m also skeptical when “personal beliefs” are pitted against evidence, therefore implying that a physician who is unwilling to perform an abortion has defied (“deviated” from) the evidence. I understand that many women face unbearably difficult choices in regards to the health of their babies. Some choose to terminate pregnancies because they have been given information about the near certainty of physical abnormalities leading to their child’s early death. And yet many women choose to terminate a pregnancy based upon probabilities, fear, and misinformation.

The Grinches of U-ville

Katherine Kersten writes:

For most Minnesotans, December is a festive month of merrymaking and good cheer. But at the University of Minnesota it’s the most dangerous time of the year.

A Dec. 5 article on the University’s website, “Reevaluating seasonal office parties,” sets forth the perils. Its authors, Dee Anne Bonebright of the U’s Office of Human Resources and Julie Sweitzer of the Office of System Academic Administration, exhort U employees to be on their guard.

The memo makes clear that the limits most of us have learned to put on our Christmas spirit in recent years — you know, catching yourself before you hum “Joy to the World” in public — are no longer enough at the U of M.

In 2007, the enlightened Grinches keeping watch over U-ville (with apologies to Dr. Seuss) are trying to keep the spirit of Christmas from coming at all.

December office parties of any kind are now suspect at our state’s flagship institution of higher education.

The problem, explain Bonebright and Sweitzer in their memo, is that “celebrations held in December tend to make people think of Christmas, whatever the theme.” And who knows where that could lead?

GASP! More...

Lost and confused

Gender switch roils United Methodist Church

When did it become controversial to affirm that self-mutilating surgery was wrong? Doesn't this seem like a no brainer? Cutting off functional breasts, sewing on a fake penis, and injecting foreign hormones is clearly seriouly disordered.

Finally, those who argue the "God doesn't make mistakes" and "Don't mess with creation" lines readily make use of medical procedures to change their bodies, Phoenix said.

"Think of all the vaccinations, medications and pharmaceuticals we take," he said. "We completely alter our bodies."

No, true medicine seeks to heal our bodies of faults and preserve our health. It does not seek to destroy the natural functioning of a healthy person. At least, it shouldn't. Birth control and sterilization were previously viewed by Christians as "unnatural" because they frusterate or destroy the ability a healthy person has to conceive a new human being. At the 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Church of England formally permitted the use of unnatural methods of birth control. This was the first time in history that an organized church body broke with the traditional Christian morality regarding contraception.

Now, few churches stand with the Catholic Church in affirming the immorality of contraception. But one can see where it leads. When the connection between sex and procreation is discarded it becomes difficult to appeal to the human body or "human nature" in support of other sexual norms. If we can ignore the natural meaning of the sexual union between a man and a woman, then what stops us from simply ignoring the meaning of maleness and femaleness itself? Isn't it just our body? Isn't it just accidental? Maybe God did make a mistake with some people and ensoul them it the wrong shape...

It reminds me of a blurb I read in the local paper this past week. A local public school will prohibit students from allowing undergarments to show during the school day. No more bra straps on the shoulder or sagging belt lines. Don't worry, though. The administrators aren't doing anything rash. The new commonsense policy won't go into effect until next year.

This is news? Shouldn't a principal be able to say, "You, put on a decent shirt or you have detention"? This is why I'm glad my school has uniforms. We fight with the students over tucking in their shirts, or whether the type of leather on their shoes is dark enough. We pick our fights here so that we don't have to wring our hands about whether thongs can show above the waistline.

It's too bad that so many Christians didn't put up a fuss earlier about exactly what is "natural". Now they have to debate whether that flap of skin sewn between her legs makes her a man.

---

EDIT: The blurb to which I referred referenced a district spokeswoman who said there has not been problems with boys wearing saggy pants and girls having bra straps showing, but "we are staying up with current issues and to make sure everything is covered." Ok. Then why did this make the news?

Into your hands, Lord, I commend my spirit

I've never seen anything like this before.

Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 22-28

Children are blessings, not burdens - gifts, not rights. Fr. Ubel, pastor, St. Agnes Catholic Church

This is NFP Awareness Week! I would like to pass on to all of you the truth of human sexuality that has so transformed my marriage and my life.

My wife and I were not Catholic when we were engaged or married, but at college my then-fiancee had Christian friends who decided to pracitice NFP. My wife's reaction was, "I guess they'll be having a baby soon!" After she learned that NFP can be practiced at the 99% effectiveness level, it appealed to her. When Amy brought it up to me on the phone my first thought was, "Are you telling me that even after we're married we'd have to not have sex sometimes?!" It was such a selfish reaction. I knew that sex before marriage was wrong, but my understanding went no deeper. I didn't have any idea what marriage was for, nor how the marital embrace related to it, nor did I have any moral compass to direct my actions as a married man. I thought that any kind of sex within marriage was fine. I felt angry that my future wife was suggesting that I have some kind of self control once we had wed.

Thankfully, God softened my heart and we took an NFP class from the Couple to Couple League. We learned what God created marriage for, and just what we were about to enter into. We learned that all Christian churches condemned contraception until 1930. We also had light shed on the tremendous good of human sexuality, and what the union of a husband and wife communicates about God and about love. We've enjoyed the blessing of NFP our entire marriage. First we used it to postpone pregnancy for three years, then to acheive pregnancy, then to space our children using total breastfeeding.

The most important fruit I see from our practice of natural family planning is the innoculation it provides against the "contraceptive mentality." There is a key difference between NFP and contraception.

While both may seek to limit family size:
- Contraception actively severs the God-given relationship between sex and procreation. It contradicts the meaning of sex, and thus the meaning of marriage.

- Natural family planning never interferes with the natural consequences of sexual relations at any time. It cooperates with the natural cylces which God has designed as part of a woman's fertility.

I know that this may seem subtle, but I cannot overemphasize how crucial it is. The difference is made apparent when a husband and a wife are asked how many children they would like to have.

Are children a burden which require us to consider how many we can bear? Do we have a right before God to have children when we desire them? Can we achieve true "birth control" by using contraception when we don't want to get get pregnant and then go off it when we feel ready? If so, then a couple might say, "We plan to have two kids spaced three years apart."

Are children a blessing from God on a couple's marriage? Is a child a gift given by God, created and cared for by the cooperation of a mother and a father? Must we respect the integrity of our bodies as the expression of our personhood and the image of God we bear? If so, then a couple might say, "We receive our children one at a time from God. We don't think God is asking us to be more open to another baby right now, but we'll prayerfully consider this every month as we are aware of the fertile time when we might conceive."

I was reminded of this difference last week as I listened to a radio broadcast of Focus on the Family. Dr. Dobson interviewed three women who had experienced surprise pregnancies. All three were Christian women, but all three were simply shocked that they had become pregnant while using "birth control." All three were afraid and thought about abortion to some degree, and one decided to go through with it. The tone of the whole show was somber. The show was entitled, "Hope in the Midst of Unexpected Pregnancies" (Part 1, Part 2).

If a child is treated as an unwanted side-effect of sex to be surpressed with a pill prescribed by a doctor, then there is no need to think about the chances of having another baby when a husband and wife have sex. Abortion becomes the logical, even if abhorred, next step when a woman is faced with a surprise pregnancy. This is the contraceptive mentality.

If a couple is reconsidering every month whether God is calling them to greater generosity in family size, and they are sacrificing by abstaining from relations during the fertile time, then an unplanned pregnancy should never be unexpected. That is was sex was designed for! The couple may of couse have many fears and questions regarding the future care of an
unexpected child, but they always remained open to the possiblity. They never closed their relationship to children by manipulating the language of their bodies.

I encourage everybody to learn more about NFP and the meaning of human sexuality within marriage. Your relationships to each other and to God will be transformed forever.

Further reading:
Marriage: A Communion of Life and Love by Bishop Victor Galeone

This just in: USPS a bunch of dorks!

Star Wars stamp set announced by post office

This explains the R2-D2 mailboxes you may have seen.

I always knew the USPS was a bunch of dorks. :)

Infanticide at home and abroad

I'm not sure what to make of it, but my heart aches reading each of the following articles.

Body of a baby found in the Mississippi River, the third in eight years

Mothers in Germany urged to drop off unwanted babies at hospitals after 23 known cases of infanticide this year

Three of my fellow teachers have given birth to their babies during the past few weeks, and to be reminded contemporarily of such cruelty elsewhere in the world is jarring. But reality often acts as a much needed call to prayer.

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy. Amen.

You know that creaking sound a rope makes just before snapping...

I think I hear it now:
Episcopal bishops rebuff demand from Anglican leaders

Of note:

The plan to put conservative parishes under an international "pastoral council" would replace local governance with "a distant and unaccountable group of prelates" for "the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century," the US bishops said in a written resolution.

Oh, the horror! Isn't that foreign "group of prelates" at least accountable to God. Surely He's up to the task.

Fred Thompson for president?

"He steered a fake aircraft carrier right into a fake conflict in The Hunt for Red October"

Well, I guess he's also a lawyer and former US Senator from Tennessee.

"Or Kiefer Sutherland. The guy has saved the country, like, six years in a row!"

Does science drive out religious belief?

Barton Swaim at First Things points out the erroneous assumption made by many athiest scientists - specifically Steven Weinberg - that scientific knowledge and religious faith are inversely proportional (as one increases, the other decreases). I am a fan of Stephen Barr on the topic of science and religion, he being a Catholic physicist who thinks deeply about the implications of what we have discovered through the methods of science. His article Retelling the Story of Science is a good summary of his argument that there is no conflict between religion and science, but rather one between religion and scientific materialism. This is the philisophical view that nothing exists besides matter, and everything in the universe - including the human person - is completely explained by discoverable laws of nature. Many materialists would have you think that this philosophy is required by the discipline of science, but it is not.

So here's my question: Do you think there is a contradiction between what you believe about God and what you believe about science? If so, what? Please let us know what religious perspective you hold.

Manly men

I was able to get to the U of M last night (Saturday), arriving about 7:30. I went around to the side of Rarig facing away from the street where students most often walk by between classes. I lived in Middlebrook Hall on the West Bank, so I had pictured the protest being held on that side. But nobody was there! I saw theatre-goers inside having drinks, but no one outside. I thought perhaps I was too late, and the group was asked to move or something.

But I walked around to the other side to find a dense wedge of people praying the Rosary and singing, mostly seminarians. I have no idea how to estimate the size - definitely more than 50 and probably less than 100. It appeared identical to the descriptions I had read about Friday night.

I crossed in front and took up a position near the back corner. We finished the last three Glorious Mysteries and then prayed the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Lots of people walked by on their way into the theatre for the 8:00 show, and most just passed by with a glance. Praying out in the cold reminded me of my childless days when I would get up Saturday mornings and go with a few friends to pray outside an abortion provider in Robbinsdale. We were led by Father Dufner, rain or show or shine. It's something that sounds really radical when you talk about it -- "Yeah, I was outside in the snow praying for and hour to stop abortion..." But it actually ends up being much easier to do than expected and eventually becomes a routine. Last night was the same way. I was a bit nervous walking to the theatre, but there was nothing to fear once I was there in prayer.

I'm glad I went. It was clearly the SJV guys' show, as they seemed quite used to praying and singing together. I've decided that learning about the protest got me so excited because it wasn't some cranks standing outside the theatre with signs and yelling, "GO TO HELL LIBERAL ARTIST SCUM!" It was our seminarians (led by their rector Fr. Baer) standing up to say - This is not right. Catholics should not put up with this kind of insult and blasphemy. We will pray in reparation, trusting to God and His perfect justice. I'm so grateful that these men are answering God's call to serve His Church.

Oh, as for these "manly men". Their deep voices rang out with confidence in prayer and song (much better than my students' singing at school). After Fr. Baer's blessing, the SJV men shouted their motto: "Men in Christ! Men of the Church! Men for others! Saint John Vianney - Pray for us! Holy Mary Mother of God - Pray for us!" There was more, but I forget. It was like a team getting psyched for a game. Way to go, guys! Fr. Corapi doesn't call the Rosary a powerful weapon for nothing!

*Shout out to Cathy_of_Alex whom (who?) I greeted after the praying. She was there the whole time and nearly took over when the seminarians were a few minutes slow showing up. Good to see you!

Other posts about the evening at Veritatis Spendor (pics) and Adoro te Devote.