HeadlineBistro

Headline Bistro's Top 10 Picks

Happy New Years! This year, the staff at Headline Bistro decided to compile our own list of 2009’s Top 10 news stories of importance to Catholics:

10. Reaching out to Anglicans

It was a not so Merry Christmas for the culture of life.

There was a huge lump of coal in the stockings waiting for most Americans on Christmas morning, and especially American Catholics.

The passing of Christmas was also the occasion of the passage of the Senate’s version of health care reform that would allow Federal dollars to support abortion procedures, in direct opposition to the demands of the Catholic Church, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the will of the American people.

According to a December 22nd Quinnipiac University Poll of American voters, a majority now disapprove of the health reform legislation in Congress by a 53 – 36 percent margin. 

Importantly, by an even more dramatic margin, 72 percent of voters disapprove of the Federal funding of abortion procedures through health plans, which would put them at odds with the current Senate version of health legislation, which continues to levy an abortion fee on all Americans.

As the U.S. Bishops point out in the December 22nd letter to the Senate, the bill also fails in the area of protecting religious conscience. It "includes no conscience protection allowing Catholic and other institutions to provide and purchase health coverage consistent with their moral and religious convictions on other procedures." This puts the bill at odds with the 79 percent of Americans pro-life and pro-choice alike, who according the July 2009 Knights of Columbus Marist Poll, support conscience exemptions for health care workers and institutions.

Despite the setback for life in the Senate, stalwart pro-life legislators remain in the House, who can bring pressure to bear over the reconciliation process. “There cannot be, in any way, public funding for abortion,” Representative Bart Stupak told the National Review shortly before Christmas. “What the Nelson compromise does is recognize abortion for the first time as a benefit in a federal health plan. It mandates that at least one plan has abortion coverage. Those are drastic changes to the current law.”

“President Obama needs to keep current law in place, as he said he would,” said Stupak. “The polls show that the public doesn’t want public funding for abortion. If the president really wants to work with us, he has to recognize this.” 

No matter what occurs in Congress, there is still reason to persevere for those seeking a culture of life. All Knights of Columbus have been urged by the Supreme Knight Carl Anderson to continue pressuring their legislators to vote in favor of life.

Continued pressure could bear fruit, because although taxes and fees begin immediately, the actual implementation of coverage under the health legislation won’t begin until 2014, meaning there will be a great deal of time to exert a positive influence through the electoral process in 2010 and 2012, and perhaps make significant pro-life reforms or repeal parts of the legislation.

As the massive pro-life backlash in Mexico shows, when legislators or courts attempt to force an abortion agenda on a population that is morally opposed to it on principle, sooner or later, the sentiment of the people makes itself felt. As the LA Times reports:

 In state after state (in Mexico), antiabortion forces have won changes to local constitutions declaring that life begins at conception and explicitly granting legal rights to the unborn. In all, 17 state legislatures have approved such measures, often with minimal debate, since the August 2008 court decision validating Mexico City's (pro-abortion) law.

In the United States as well, there is the possibility of pushing back at the state level as the U.S. Bishop’s Dec. 22 letter indicates, though all should hope that the decades old consensus against Federal funding of abortion is not allowed to fracture to such a degree to require such measures.

It is important to remember that the pro-life community to a great extent has already won the hearts and minds of the American people with poll after poll showing Americans' views increasingly shifting pro-life. This pattern will continue and boil up to legislative level as long as the pro-life community continues to press at the grassroots level.

Margaret Datiles provides an amazing example of this type of grassroots activity in her most recent column for Headline Bistro. She relates the incredible story of her brother’s encounter with a young woman about to enter an abortion clinic:

When she got to the front steps of the abortion clinic, she was no longer alone.  She was met on the sidewalk by a small group of friendly college students praying the rosary and handing out free pamphlets about pregnancy resource centers.

“What happened?” I asked him eagerly.

“The moment she saw us she just started crying,” he said. “She said she just needed one person to tell her not to do it – not to get an abortion. We talked to her about pregnancy resource centers and gave her all the information we had. She cried more and one of the girls hugged her. We talked a little more, she said, ‘Thanks,’ and then sort of bolted. I guess she wanted to get away from the abortion clinic as fast as she could. Maybe she’ll go to the pregnancy resource center.”

Her full column is available here: “How to Save a Life”

Paul Ciarcia

The Ultimate Gift

Every year as the Advent season comes to a close and the Christmas octave begins, many of us are reminded of an important catechetical lesson from our childhood: Make sure your heart is pure and warm like a manger, prepared to receive the baby Jesus.

And every year without fail, many of us arrive to Midnight Mass panting, having left behind a home resembling Santa’s-toy-shop-gone-wrong and a spiritual to-do list completely void of check marks. Perhaps this overall feeling of "unpreparedness" can explain, in part, the rather sad results of a new Zogby Interactive Poll showing that 39% of Americans are less "in the mood" to celebrate the holidays this year.

Come Christmas day, some of us are guilty of entering in a state of spiritual panic where we begin to talk Jesus through our list of excuses. We explain to Him in detail why we feel we deserve a free pass this year for not having come prepared with a “ready-made manger” at His disposal. If you count yourself in this group, perhaps you too will find solace in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, whose pre-Angelus address on the fourth Sunday of Advent left me with a fresh perspective on my inner manger, void of warm straw. 

Sifting through the week’s headlines, I was in desperate search for “happy Christmas tales” that offered exactly the type of reflections or inspirations that should have been occupying my Advent season.  Instead, even the most obscure searches led to much of the same: "Bloody Drug War in Juarez," "Suicide Bomber Strikes in Peshawar," "Unemployment Takes Toll in New York," "Rising Anger Fuels South Africa Attacks" … and then, like a ton of bricks: “Christmas is God’s Answer to the Drama of Humanity.”

In his Sunday reflection, the Holy Father echoed the words of the prophet Micah who announced that a ruler was to come from Bethlehem and was to be the peace. Explaining how the time and place of Christ’s birth form part of the divine plan, Pope Benedict called it a plan of peace.  Taking then into account how Bethlehem is far from resembling “a city-symbol of peace,” the Holy Father reminded us that:

“God…never resigns himself to this state of affairs. So, once again this year in Bethlehem and in the entire world, He will renew in the Church the mystery of Christmas, the prophecy of peace for all mankind…Today, as in the time of Jesus, Christmas [is]…the answer from God to the drama of humanity in search of true peace."

It doesn’t take reading today’s headlines to know that peace is desperately sought and awaited in every corner of the world, including the less obvious places, like the depths of our own hearts. In his address, Pope Benedict reminds us that the comfort of the season lies in the Christ child’s acceptance of our fallen nature.  He comes to every place and to every individual no matter what our state. But the comfort doesn’t end there…

In his Christmas message, Archbishop Fouad Twal, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, offers an inspiring example of what it means to embrace the second greatest gift of the season; hope. Listing his numerous concerns for the people of Palestine and Israel, Archbishop Twal also draws our attention to the many forms that hope has taken amidst the violence and civil unrest of the Middle East. In particular, he mentions: the partial freeze on the construction of settlements and the removal of over fifty checkpoints within the West Bank, the generosity of the international community and the visit of the Holy Father in May of this year. 

While Pope Benedict alerts us of the Lord’s coming, no matter what our state, Archbishop Twal reminds us that we must be attentive to His presence. Although they may not always make headlines, the stories of "God with us" are innumerable. A recent example  was the testimony of Father Ulysses L. Ubalde,  a military Chaplain who is currently stationed in the Helmand province of Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. On the fourth Sunday of Advent, while celebrating a crowded Mass in a small plywood chapel, Father Ubalde brought the message of Christmas peace to the troops who face the daily realities of war. Comparing the men and women to Mary and her cousin Elizabeth, Father Ubalde reminded them that they, too, are "vessels of holiness" who can find peace and strength in taking Christ to others. In an interview with CNS, Father Ubalde explained how “it's the spiritual part of ourselves which allows us to relate to and love others.” When the troops receive Communion, they, like Mary, "carry the presence of Christ, not just for our own sake, but to bring Him to all who labor, are frightened, who need our help."

And so it is that from the most precarious parts of the world, comes a sobering message of Christmas peace: No matter the measure of our shortcomings, God comes to us. If we seek Him, we will find Him. And when we do, He will renew us and equip us with the strength to carry forward in the light of His hope.

-Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri

Images Courtesy of Catholic News Service

Why some states may be having a jollier Christmas than others.

If you’re reading this anywhere in the greater New York metropolitan area, you’re probably a glum person, though hopefully not around Christmas time.

So one might infer from a recently released survey that is coming as a shock to some in the New York area (see one reaction here).Along with New Jersey and Connecticut, New York ranked dead last in terms of life satisfaction in a study conducted by professors Stephen Wu of Hamilton College and Andrew Oswald from the Universit y of Warwick in the U.K.

The purpose of the study, according to Oswald, was to ascertain if objective criteria could be found by which to corroborate the stated opinions of personal satisfaction offered by people in opinion surveys. In other words: if we could predict, using empirical data, who should be happiest and where; ask them; and their answers correlate with the expected outcomes, then we know we can trust personal statements of satisfaction on a host of questions relevant to public policy.

The questionable part of the study comes in how this predicted picture of personal satisfaction by state came about. The factors controlling the predicted happiness responses were largely environmental: “precipitation; temperature; wind speed; sunshine; coastal land; inland water; public land; National Parks; hazardous waste sites; environmental ‘greenness’; commuting time; violent crime; air quality; student-teacher ratio; local taxes; local spending on education and highways; cost of living.”

Looking at the results of the survey and who scored the highest and happiest, there are some odd winners. Arizona scored highly, but isn’t Arizona, though beautiful in parts, a blistering, arid desert? Isn’t Phoenix one of the kidnapping capitals of the world due to the Mexican drug trade? And again, isn't Louisiana, the happiest of all, beset by environmental hazards quite often, as the events of Hurricanes Katrina and others made clear?

If sunshine is for smiles and cold weather is for frowns, it didn’t seem to stop Alaska, Maine, and Montana from coming in high on the list.

And if environmental factors are given such weight, why do California and New York rate so poorly? Los Angeles may be a smog bowl, but California in general is still one of the most beautiful and diverse climates in the country. As far as New York is concerned, New York City is, well, a city -- not always pristine, but not a dump either. And the rest of the state does not seem drastically dissimilar to other states.

There are also puzzling economic questions. According to 2007 census bureau data, the states of Tennessee, and in particular Louisiana and Mississippi, which all rated highly in terms of personal satisfaction in the survey, are also on the high end in terms of families living below the poverty line. Connecticut and New Jersey have some of the lowest poverty rates in the country, yet both rate near the bottom in life satisfaction. 

To put it plainly, it is far from clear how all these factors came together to point to the states they do in an understandable way.

To finally arrive at one of the more obvious reactions to the study, similar results could have been found not by relying on a vague set of environmental happiness factors, but rather, the 2008 state electoral map. Now you will need to control for Hawaii, because honestly it’s an island paradise, and one would expect people to be happy. Besides Florida, which is a swing state, the Red states of the deep South seem to be occupying the higher end of the happiness spectrum, with the predictably blue states of New York, California, Connecticut and New Jersey, predictably blue.

It is also worth mentioning that Louisiana, the top ranking state in terms of happiness, was also ranked highly in terms of religious devotion, coming in 2nd in frequency of prayer among Louisianans and fourth in worship attendance according to Pew Poll numbers. Mississippi, ranking sixth in the satisfaction survey, was the highest across the board in terms of prayer, Church attendance, and belief in God. Though not definitive, this may point to another significant factor over-looked in the study. 

According to the professors behind the study, “People’s happiness answers are true, you might say.  This suggests that life-satisfaction survey data might be tremendously useful for governments to use in the design of economic and social policies.”

Ultimately, the thrust of the study’s importance is less about happiness in one state versus another, than about whether politics can and should properly be considered a science or a philosophy. The study above hopes to take a large step in the direction of the former. In other words, can all the fundamental questions be boiled down to a series of objective data inputs to arrive at the correct policy decisions, or must certain, more spiritual dimensions be considered based upon a fuller appreciation of human nature and the common good: faith, morality, public virtue, civic mindedness, patriotism, tradition, etc., which cannot be as easily measured and controlled by objective data.

Does the true statesman need a team of scientists, pollsters and meteorologists to feel the mood of the American people and communities, or does he see it on people’s faces on every street corner, hear it in the restaurants, read it in the papers, see it in the flags hanging from windows, feel it in the air and observe it in the pew?

Are the right degrees of precipitation, wind speed, student-teacher ratio, commute time, sunshine and "greenness," etc., a true analog of human happiness? Most people would believe that human beings are complex and fundamentally spiritual, and their happiness is defined by a bit more than the refrain from an old Carpenter’s song:

“Hangin' around
Nothing to do but frown
Rainy Days and Mondays always get me down.”

Paul Ciarcia

Grim news in Washington...but from Rome, an early Christmas gift for the Church

Record snowfall may have shut down D.C. over the weekend, but it didn’t stop the Senate from pressing through with a hard-fought, early morning vote to end debate on its health care reform legislation on Monday – a move lauded by the White House but met with grim disappointment by pro-life organizations and the U.S. bishops conference. 

With the vote tally at 60-40, the Senate split on party lines. All eyes, of course, were on Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, who at the eleventh hour said he could agree to a deal on restricting abortion funding from federally subsidized health plans.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The House language prohibits anyone who gets a tax credit from enrolling in a policy that covers abortion. The Senate would allow states in effect to match that restriction if they choose, but in other states the Senate language wouldn't be as restrictive. It says women can get the coverage if they write two checks to their insurer, one for abortion and one for everything else. The change in the Senate bill is expected to be adopted this week.

... The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which led antiabortion groups in winning the tight restrictions in the House, said it will oppose the Senate bill because it doesn't entirely block abortion from federally subsidized plans.

On Saturday, three key bishops – including Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities – issued a very critical response to new abortion language in the bill’s Manager’s Amendment, which they noted would require purchasers of a government-subsidized plan to “pay a distinct fee or surcharge which is extracted solely to help pay for other people’s abortions.” (See the Americans United for Life blog for more on this “abortion tax”).

Venerable John Paul II?

Both the Religion Newswriters Association and TIME Magazine have released their “Top 10” lists of religion news stories.

President Obama’s controversial – to say the least – honoring and commencement address at Notre Dame made both lists, as did his reaching out to faith leaders such as evangelical pastor Rick Warren.

But if an Italian report is correct, then compilers of both lists may have jumped the gun and missed what for Catholics at least would be a very promising way to wrap up the first decade of the 21st century: the declaration of Pope John Paul II as “venerable,”  paving the way for his beatification once the Vatican confirms a miracle attributed to him.

The Italian magazine Panorama reports that this announcement will be made tomorrow by Pope Benedict XVI himself, as part of a series of decrees prepared by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. In terms of John Paul II’s canonization, rumors suggest a ceremony in October 2010, perhaps coinciding with the 32nd anniversary of his Oct. 16, 1978 election.

To say that Pope John Paul II was a significant figure, an integral force of the 20th century is an obvious understatement. The recent 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was a reminder of this, as various commentators recounted the Polish pope’s hand in Communism’s collapse (including his personal secretary, in this recent Reuters interview).

As Catholics, we’re proudly aware, and rightly so, of John Paul II’s monumental role in history. But today – nearly five years after his death and a decade into the 21st century – I find myself wondering how the legacy of this great pope will shape our modern context. The “JPII Generation” – Catholic Millenials, or those who came of age under John Paul II’s pontificate – are now young adults and in the next couple decades will become the leaders of the Church.

What characteristics will mark their time at the helm? How will this generation of Catholics – shaped by a shepherd who inaugurated World Youth Days, taught by example the freedom that comes from being faithful to Christ and constantly urged young people to “be not afraid!” – impact the world around them?

TIME’s list of 2009’s top religion stories led with a topic we’ve given much coverage to in this blog: the increasing secularization of Europe. Perhaps best exemplified this year by the European Court of Human Rights’ demand that crucifixes be stripped from Italian schools, this self-conscious urge to divorce Europe from its Christian heritage has been a main concern of John Paul II’s successor.

Spain – the site of the next World Youth Day – is roiled over a move this week to loosen abortion restrictions, and may be the next target in terms of the removal of religious symbols from schools. France, the one-time “eldest daughter of the Church,” is literally debating amongst itself its own identity, amid cries for yet more secularization and a skyrocketing Muslim population. “Where have all the believers gone?” British journalist Andrew Brown asked this week, commenting on a recent British Social Attitudes survey of religious belief. And when Pope Benedict XVI went to the Czech Republic this fall to praise the unity of faith and reason, he faced one of the most atheistic nations in the world.

In the United States, we face another problem, as we openly debate the meaning of Catholic identity. Religiosity is still high in America, but applying one’s conscience, informed by faith, to one’s politics or job is lambasted. As David Naglieri pointed out in yesterday’s post, the “dictatorship of relativism” is gaining power.

To be sure, it’s a tough environment for the JPII generation to navigate through, but what a guide we have in the lasting legacy of our late pope and the current leadership of Benedict XVI, who frequently extols the value of the “creative minority” of believers.

From John Paul II’s lived example, we learned to value the dignity of human life (not to mention marriage and sexuality), to strive for fidelity to Christ and His Church, and to spread the Good News to others in a “new evangelization” – what John Paul II’s future successor once described as teaching “the art of living” to those who have forgotten joy and the abundant life found in Christ.

Whether it comes next year or in five, Pope John Paul II’s elevation to the altar will be an immense gift to the Church. He inspired a generation to “open wide the doors to Christ” – as they emerge as today’s young adults and tomorrow’s leaders in countless walks of life, his intercession in heaven will be needed more than ever. 

-- Elizabeth Hansen, Headline Bistro editor

D.C. and the 'Dictatorship of Relativism'

This week brought two bold moves in our nation’s capital that threaten pro-life and pro-family values. First, in approving a $1.1 trillion package of spending bills, Congress lifted a ban on taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia. That was followed by the D.C. City Council decision’s Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage.

These disappointing developments took place the same week Pope Benedict XVI delivered an impassioned plea in his general audience, in which he called on Catholics to stand firm against the “dictatorship of relativism.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council called Congress’ actions on Sunday “a Christmas gift to Planned Parenthood.” Indeed, measures in the omnibus bill included:

• Overturning the Dornan Amendment, which had prohibited taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia
• An increase of $10 million in Title X family planning funds, much of which is directed to Planned Parenthood
• An increase in $5 million in funds for the United Nation’s Population Fund (UNFPA), an admittedly abortion-friendly organization that was barred from receiving federal funds during most of the Bush administration because of its involvement with China’s coercive one-child policy.
• Over $100 million for “international family planning”
• And the establishment of a $110 million effort “to advance condom promotion education.”

Two days later, an 11-2 vote by the D.C. Council approved same-sex marriage in the nation’s capital. Proponents of the measure have the backing of the city’s mayor and claim the bill will become law by this spring. Opponents insist the legal battle is not over and that a variety of legislative methods to block the bill remain on the table.

The Archdiocese of Washington expressed disappointment at the passing of the same-sex marriage bill, saying its language fails to adequately protect religious freedom. While the bill does not require religious organizations to perform same-sex weddings or make space available for them, it could require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex couples.

 Back in November, the Church expressed concern that should the law be approved, the archdiocese might lose their contract with the city and thus be forced to reduce its social service programs to needy residents of the District.

The possibility that the Archdiocese of Washington would be forced to eliminate social service programs due to its moral convictions represents the ugly reality of what Pope Benedict has termed the “Dictatorship of Relativism.”

In his general audience on Wednesday, the Holy Father once again asserted the need for natural law and human reason to be reflected in the laws that govern a nation. He raised the example of John of Salisbury, a 12th century British theologian and philosopher who, as a close associate of St. Thomas Becket, was forced into exile when King Henry II attempted to restrict the Church’s freedoms. While Becket was eventually martyred for his devotion to the Catholic faith, John of Salisbury went on to become the Bishop of Chartres. One of the leading intellectuals in the Medieval Church, he wrote several lasting works including “Policraticusm” in which he determined that there are objective moral truths, discernible to all, that in no case can be denied or repealed.

Reflecting on John of Salisbury’s life in light of current events, Pope Benedict XVI opined:

Maybe today,  John of Salisbury would remind us that only the laws which safeguard the sanctity of human life and reject the permissibility of abortion, euthanasia and casual genetic experiments, only the laws that respect marriage between a man and a woman and inspired to a correct state secularism, which always entails respect for religious freedom and the principle of subsidiary at the national and international level, can be considered fair. Otherwise what John of Salisbury referred to as the tyranny of princes and we describe as a dictatorship of relativism would ultimately be established, which, as I recalled a few years ago, does not recognize anything as definitive and leaves as the ultimate criterion one's self and one’s own desires.

Nearly a millennia ago, this great man of the Church bravely resisted the Crown’s encroachment on the freedom of worship and religious practice. Today, the Church may again be forced to reject the imposition of unjust laws. While the final outcome of these recent decisions in our nation’s capital remains shrouded in uncertainty, the strength we can gain from a glimpse into the lives of martyrs and defenders of the faith is certain. John of Salisbury is just one model to encourage all faithful citizens who pledge to resist “the dictatorship of relativism” in all its forms.

-- David Naglieri

Searching for God Online

In yesterday’s featured column, Vicki Thorn warned against the dark side of what she referred to as “today’s social communications pseudo-community,” recalling some of the most recent tragic examples of its abuses.  While these forms of abuse are undoubtedly a pressing issue requiring immediate action, I would add that it is equally important that the Church and her members strengthen their overall online presence in an effort to counterbalance these abuses and provide gateways to real communities that have the potential of filling a void in the lives of those who are searching for just that.

From bringing friends and family in closer contact to facilitating the exchange of information, the benefits of new technologies are innumerable.  In his message for the 43rd World Communications Day, which had the theme “New Technologies, New Relationships: Promoting a Culture of Respect, Dialogue and Friendship,’” Pope Benedict noted the extraordinary potential of new technologies when used to promote human understanding and solidarity. He called them “a gift to humanity” – so long as the benefits they offer are put at the service of all individuals and communities. Outlining how Millennials in particular are turning to new media as a means of forming communities, networks, seeking information and sharing their ideas and opinions, the Holy Father attributes its popularity to the fact that it responds to our fundamental desire for human connectedness. Taking it to the next level, he explained how it should be seen primarily “as a reflection of our participation in the communicative and unifying Love of God, who desires to make of all humanity one family.” 

Zooming in on “the search for information” as one of the primary functions of new technologies, recent studies have revealed that beyond looking to satisfying the hunger for “factual” knowledge, the digital community is searching for the answers to eternal questions. In his bestselling book “Googling God,” author Mike Hayes points to search engine trackers that reveal time and again how “God” and questions of deeper meaning remain among the most popular search topics. (Indeed, a study released recently from Penn State reported that online searches for religious topics in particular are on the rise – even as the United States appears increasingly secularized).

Curious to verify the 2009 stats, a quick search led me to ask.com’s “Top questions of 2009” and, sure enough, “What is the meaning of life?” ranked in at number six out of the 10 most frequently asked questions online. Even more interesting were the results for top 10 questions asked by children on askkids.com. Number one was “What is love?” while “Is God real?” came in at number four. In addition to “God,” other trackers also point to “sex” and “love” as being the most popular subjects both in online forums and the blogosphere – calling to mind Pope Benedict’s teaching that “loving is, in fact, what we are designed for by our Creator.”

(Of course, as Thorne points out, there are severe dangers that can result from seeking or offering a false and unhealthy form of “love” via today’s means of communication, especially when false identities can be assumed. Adding to her unsettling collection of abuses cases are statistics released yesterday by Pew stating that nearly one in six young people aged 12 to 17 has received a sext – a sexually suggestive, nude or nearly nude picture via cell phone.)

Mike Hayes argues that, almost equal to the desire to find love, Millennials are also concerned with “security” and “truth,” and that the two go hand in hand. In a recent Catholic Focus episode, Hayes explained that for young Americans in particular, events in recent years (Columbine, 9/11, Katrina, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – to name a few) have induced both an overall sense of fear over the precariousness of life, and feelings of distrust in humankind. This in turn is causing many of them to search for something to hold on to that remains unchanged. “God” and “faith in God” have stood the test of time, and while Millennials would perhaps not be prepared to step foot into a church, they are looking for sources that point to the truth. 

That being said, we are left to wonder where their search is leading them. They may find answers that are irrelevant to their questions or perhaps too simplistic in nature and either stop there or end their search, dissatisfied.  How do we ensure that these modern seekers of God find Him?  How do we ensure that they are finding the right gateways that lead them to a community of believers asking the tough questions and sharing insights? How do we provide for them a safe online faith environment until they are ready to take the next step? Time to apply our talents and creativity to the mission of digital evangelization.

As Pope Benedict says, “Life is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful”  – let’s make sure we’re doing our part to influence where that search may lead.

--Michele Nuzzo-Naglieri

Our Lady of Guadalupe has become a bellwether of the future Church.

Last weekend witnessed one of the largest and most important Catholic celebrations of the year, especially for those of us in the Americas.

That feast, of course, was the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a day of obligation in Mexico, and a time of pilgrimage, intense prayer and celebrations of faith and culture worldwide. Zenit reports that a record 6.1 million pilgrims flocked to the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City, which houses the tilma on which the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was imprinted in 1531.

Zenit marked the feast with an interview with Monsignor Eduardo Chávez, postulator for the canonization of St. Juan Diego. His comments help explain the importance of the apparition to the Mexican people and their heritage:

 In my opinion, Mexico was forged on Dec. 12, 1531, because (Our Lady) embraced all that is the Indian and Spanish identity, and from here sent a message to the whole world; she spoke in Nahuatl and put her picture on a Nahuatl tilma. Her messenger, St. Juan Diego, was an Indian of Toltec mentality -- she took much from this mentality to give Jesus' message as the true, living God…So she forges a new identity combining the Spanish and Indian world-visions. She sent the fruit to the whole world, that is why John Paul II called her the perfectly inculturated model of this evangelization.

An interesting fact noted in a report by the Zenit reveals the power of the devotion to the Virgin Mary: 1 in 4 Mexicans believe the Mary has performed a miracle or a favor on their behalf.

The tangled web of the culture of death

Will Malthusian population theories never die?

Arguments that the world’s population rate is to blame for famine, war and disease have existed since at least the 1800s, but a recent op/ed in Canada’s Financial Post is especially startling with its blatant call to enforce population control in order to combat climate change.

“The real inconvenient truth” left unaddressed at Copenhagen’s ongoing climate change conference is that “humans are overpopulating the world,” thus destroying the Earth and pushing its resources “out of existence,” columnist Diane Francis writes. Her solution: an enforced, global implementation of China’s horrific one-child policy, which has claimed at least 400 million abortions over the past 30 years.

Francis’ column came during a week when it seemed the controversy surrounding the conference couldn’t escalate any further. From the so-called Climategate preceding the summit to a showdown between rich and poor countries over carbon emissions, all has not gone well for Copenhagen participants. It’s hard to imagine that the Financial Post column will help improve the situation.

The column also appeared, rather ironically, just days before the 61st anniversary of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which member nations affirmed “the dignity and worth of the human person,” including “the right to life, liberty and security of person." Likewise, the declaration stated, "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." (Its actual language, however, hasn’t deterred groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights from wielding it as a rallying cry for women’s unfettered access to abortion).

And yet as yet another rehashed – albeit extreme – argument for population control (the seeming holy grail of environmentalism) Francis’ column is disturbing, to be sure, but nothing new, and it fails to stand up to serious critiques.

For one, MercatorNet.com’s excellent blog “Demography is Destiny” quotes an article by leading demographer Nicholas Eberstadt in the Far Eastern Economic Review, which states that China’s one-child policy could in fact eventually wreck the rising nation’s economy as its population ages and its work force shrinks with each generation.

An earlier article on the same site addresses the “false logic” of last month’s report from the U.N. Population Fund, which pointed to births and a lack of contraceptives funding as the culprits in carbon emissions and climate change. 

When it comes to population control, what I find interesting is the position that advocates for “women’s right to choose” find themselves in.

British sociologist Frank Furedi – a noted, secular humanist with a pro-abortion and Marxist background – has stridently criticized a British population control initiative to increase contraceptive funding in order reduce humans’ carbon output.

“What is truly disturbing about this, from a humanist perspective, is not simply that there is a silent crusade against the unique quality of human life, but that there is an almost complete absence of anger about it, a lack of any critical reaction against it,” Furedi writes. “Why are prominent so-called humanists so uninterested in countering this lethal Malthusian challenge to some of the most important ideals that emerged during the Renaissance and later developed through the Enlightenment?”

There is a clear irony in thinkers such as Furedi – supporters of abortion rights – finding much to criticize in arguments for population control ... especially considering Margaret Sanger’s clear preferences for Malthusian thought. And yet they persist.

Jennie Bristow – editor of Abortion Review, which is published by Britain’s largest abortion provider – notes:

If it is accepted in principle that it is right for women to make reproductive decisions based on social ends, rather than their own personal choices and circumstances, then it becomes relatively easy for state authorities to introduce policies that validate one choice over another. This poses a clear threat to women’s autonomy and the meaning of “choice.”  

Bristow likewise quotes Betsy Hartmann, an outspoken advocate for women’s access to abortion and author of “Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control.”

“Women’s health activists ... have fought long and hard for the right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion services,” Hartmann wrote earlier this year on AlterNet. “Pitted against them are not only religious fundamentalists who would deny them access to contraception, but those who are prepared to sacrifice reproductive rights, and human rights, on the altar of population control. ... The war on population always has been, and will continue to be, a war on women’s bodies.”

No matter how you spin them, abortion, population control, contraceptive mentalities and an environmentalism that places little premium on the worth of the human person will always be a part of the culture of death. Pitted against each other, they reveal the tangled web that results from the rejection of the Gospel of Life. Could we expect anything else? 

-- Elizabeth Hansen