HeadlineBistro

"No Easy Decision"?

There’s a lot not to like about MTV’s recently-premiered half-hour episode on a teenage girl’s abortion, called “No Easy Decision.”

There’s the fact, as blogger Jill Stanek has pointed out, that for a show that claims it wants to discuss all sides of the issue, pro-life resources and organizations are not represented. Then there’s Exhale, the post-abortion counseling group viewers are directed to – an organization that describes itself as apolitical, yet states up front its belief that “abortion can be a normal part of the reproductive lives of woman and girls.” There’s the gross glossing over of the physical facts of abortion and pregnancy – both the graphic nature of the abortion procedure itself, as well as the developmental stages of the unborn child. Rather, the show is replete with euphemisms, particularly when the teen is speaking with an abortion clinic worker: it is about a “termination,” in which “the pregnancy is removed.” Overall, there is the creeping sense of exploitation as we watch vulnerable teen mother Markai and her boyfriend James grapple with the news of their – second – unexpected pregnancy within the fishbowl confines of 21st-century reality TV.

“The show was dedicated to relaying the impression that the girl is all right, when she clearly isn’t,” writes Kathryn Jean Lopez on Headline Bistro today. Lopez further criticizes MTV’s Dr. Drew Pinsky, who wraps up the show with a panel of teen girls who have undergone abortions. Adoption is barely discussed – it would have hurt too much, the panelists explain, and so that option was quickly dismissed. Pinskey, likewise, frames their abortions as responsible “parenting decisions” while trying to assure Markai – obviously still torn by her decision – that the turmoil she’s experiencing is “normal.”

“Most women two years after they’ve had the procedure believe they’ve made the right decision,” he states.

Of course, “reality” television still follows a script, and the storyline of this latest offering from MTV is no exception. For all it lacks, however, “No Easy Decision” yet offers a searing look at the very real turmoil of emotions surrounding one woman’s path to abortion – an all-too-real scenario that repeats itself hundreds of thousands of times over in the United States every year, and one that pro-lifers can never take for granted. Watching Markai’s story is to behold the tragedy of society trying with all its might to normalize the killing of an unborn child – even as the teen mother’s instincts recoil in protest. It’s to witness how our culture deludes itself into thinking of the child not “as ten fingers and ten toes with a forehead and all that stuff,” as Markai rationalizes, repeating the advice given her by the abortion workers. “Because if you think of it like that, you’re going to make yourself depressed.”

Rather, she says, “Think of it as what it is: a little ball of cells.”

And yet, gems of truth still emerge from this young woman’s mouth. Right after repeating the abortion clinic’s pitiful script about “a little ball of cells,” she looks across the table at her infant daughter Zakaria happily sitting next to James, and breaks down.

“A thing can turn out just like that,” she cries, pointing at her living baby. “Nothing but a bunch of cells can turn out to be her.”

Before the abortion, Markai’s maternal feelings toward her child are clearly evident. “I’m in love with this baby already,” she tells a friend, “and this is baby is doing nothing but making me sick.”

“We made a decision,” she tells James, avoiding his eyes. “But…it…like, I wonder if we could’ve made a better one.”

During the panel, Pinskey tells Markai that many would vilify her and her decision to abort.

Lopez responds that “vilification” is rather due to the abortion industry and its sympathizers on MTV.

“‘No Easy Decision,’ besides an affirmation of the ‘responsible’ decision that abortion can be when birth control fails, was an affirmation of selfishness and a rejection of sacrifice and its transformational power,” she writes. “It’s only natural to fear the emotional pain of giving up a child. But no discussion? That hurts, so we won’t go there. And so we promote the quick fix and numb the pain with delusion.

Yet “No Easy Decision” is also an affirmation of what we’ve witnessed to be true about abortion: that it introduces a new, foreboding undercurrent of tension between the would-be parents; that it does not leave the father unscarred; and that – despite all attempts to normalize the experience – it leaves in its wake a young woman confused, mourning and forever changed. 

It’s a completely straw-man argument that, as MTV’s perhaps-not-too-subtle agenda implies, pro-lifers are to be faulted for a supposedly dismissive attitude toward the conditions that lead many women to abort.

Every year, pro-lifers converge in Washington, D.C., to march in support of the dignity of life; they can be found praying in front of abortion clinics and fighting in the halls of power to protect the lives of the unborn. But they’re also on the frontlines serving in pregnancy resource centers across the country, dealing face-to-face with the harsh realities of poverty and single parenthood. Heart-to-heart, they counsel women in their hopelessness, offering physical, spiritual and emotional support and gently reminding them that abortion is not their only choice.

No genuinely pro-life person can ever state that it is an “easy decision” for a woman to have an abortion. That’s why there are groups like Project Rachel who seek to meet women on the other side of the clinic doors with the message of healing – that “there is hope after abortion.” It’s why there is a network of men reaching out to other fathers who have lost a child in abortion and witnessing to the truth that abortion is not solely a “woman’s issue.”

“No Easy Decision” reveals a culture that cannot name abortion for what it is – the killing of an unborn child – and will go to extraordinary measures to convince vulnerable young women like Markai to think similarly. Yet despite its failings, the show cannot stifle the truth as it comes out of the mouth of the teen mother herself: that abortion will never be “normal.” On that, at least, “No Easy Decision” got it right.

- Elizabeth Hansen

Peace on Earth?

The Christmas season is synonymous with peace. The image of the Christ child lying in the manger evokes the spirit of peace and tranquility of new life and God’s hopes for humanity. Yet the story of Christ’s birth is also a dangerous tale. Joseph and Mary would soon flee to Egypt to escape King Herod’s mandate to kill the young children of Bethlehem. This Christmas, a series of terrorist attacks targeting Christians around the globe has sparked renewed cries for peace amidst the harsh realities of anti-Christian persecution.

On Christmas Eve there was a series of bombings in the central Nigerian city of Jos, killing at least eighty people and wounding dozens of Nigerian Christians. Another six people were killed during attacks carried out against Catholic churches on Christmas Day. The violence is the direct result of a long-standing conflict between the largely Christian population inhabiting the southern part of Nigeria and their Muslim neighbors to the North.  Experts fear this religious violence could easily degenerate into a more widespread conflict as the presidential elections scheduled for spring 2011 grow closer. An Islamic militant organization has claimed responsibility for the Christmas terrorist attacks. The group claims the bombings were carried out in the spirit of “jihad” and as vengeance against Christians.

Meanwhile, in the Philippines a terrorist organization closely allied with al-Qaida is believed to have carried out a church bombing during a Christmas Day Mass that wounded a priest and ten Filipino congregants. The incident took place on Jolo Island, a volatile region in the southern Philippines that has a majority Muslim population. The Rev. Romeo Villanueva, 72, reported that he was reading the Gospel when the force of the explosion collapsed the church’s roof. Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic separatists group which has launched numerous attacks in the past against Christians in the region, is the suspected culprit in the bombing.

Pope Benedict XVI, addressed the spectacle of terrorism and anti-Christian violence in both his Christmas Message and again on Sunday during a public address. In his annual message for the Christmas season, the pope expressed hope that the spirit of Christmas "grant perseverance to all those Christian communities enduring discrimination and persecution, and inspire political and religious leaders to be committed to full respect for the religious freedom of all."

On Sunday the Holy Father condemned the violence in Nigeria and the Philippines saying:

I wish to express my heartfelt condolences for the victims of this absurd violence. Once again I make an appeal to abandon the path of hatred in order to find peaceful solutions to conflicts and bring security and tranquility to these dear populations…

The pope’s words on December 26 happened to coincide with the feast of the Holy Family. Pope Benedict noted how Jesus, Mary and Joseph were forced to flee the "homicidal fury" of Herod and escape into Egypt. Similarly, the pope called for a greater solidarity among Christian for their persecuted brethren saying, "Let us remember all those, in particular families, who are forced to abandon their homes because of war, violence and intolerance.”

Christmas is a celebration of the hope brought through Christ’s birth. The ongoing violence befalling Christians around the world should not cause us to lose sense of that gift of hope, but instead to be ever more vigilant in our defense and support of persecuted minorities. Like those who opened their doors to the fleeing Joseph and Mary, we would then possess the fullness of the “spirit” of Christmas.

- David Naglieri

A Christmas Message

The Word, by becoming a Child, helps us to understand the way God acts, that we too may be capable of allowing ourselves to be transformed by His goodness and infinite mercy.

In the night of the world, let us still allow ourselves to be surprised and illuminated by this coming, by the Star which, rising in the East, has inundated the universe with joy. … Let us purify our minds and our lives from everything that contrasts with this coming – thoughts, words, attitudes and actions – spurring ourselves on to do good and to help bring peace and justice to our world for all men and women, and thus to walk towards the Lord.

-- Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, Dec. 22, 2010.

 

Editor’s note: The Headline Bistro blog will be taking a Christmas break from Dec. 22-28. Have a blessed Christmas!

The Pope's Advent Prayer

Giving his traditional Christmas address to the Roman Curia on Monday – in effect, the papal perspective on the events of the past year, serving as a roadmap of next year’s priorities – Pope Benedict XVI offered a powerful reflection on the sex abuse scandals that exploded onto the world scene in 2010.

With the theme “Never again” resonating in what the Washington Post described as a “remarkable demonstration of public soul-searching,” the Holy Father exhorted the members of the Roman Curia and College of Cardinals to partake in serious reflection on the scandal of clergy sex abuse.

He said:

We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again.

Time magazine might write dismissively of Pope Benedict’s “highs” and “lows” of 2010, but the words above strike me as coming from a man of courage and humility, with the moral strength to lead by example in such a painful examination of conscience. 

Catholic News Service has a good summary of the Holy Father’s entire address. In particular, it’s important to note that Pope Benedict spoke of the sin of clergy sex abuse within the context of 2010’s Year for Priests – a time, he said, that still resulted in a renewed appreciation for the gift of the priesthood for the Church. He also expressed his gratitude for those who have helped victims of abuse find the path to healing, as well as for the countless priests who continue their ministries in “humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood.”

The Holy Father also offered an insight into his own prayer life, repeating throughout his address an Advent refrain that likely traces its ancient roots to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni – Stir up, O Lord, Thy might and come.

“The disintegration of the key principles of law and of the fundamental moral attitudes underpinning them burst open the dams which until that time had protected peaceful coexistence among peoples,” said Pope Benedict, explaining the prayer’s origins. He continued:

The sun was setting over an entire world. Frequent natural disasters further increased this sense of insecurity. There was no power in sight that could put a stop to this decline. All the more insistent, then, was the invocation of the power of God: the plea that he might come and protect his people from all these threats.

… Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni: amid the great tribulations to which we have been exposed during the past year, this Advent prayer has frequently been in my mind and on my lips.

And yet even as the Church longs for God’s presence this Advent – particularly amid trials, “the experience of his apparent absence” – the Holy Father reminded those present of the promise of hope.

“If we keep our eyes open as we look back over the year that is coming to an end, we can see clearly that God’s power and goodness are also present today in many different ways,” he said. “So we all have reason to thank him.”

Finally, Pope Benedict offered the story of Jesus’ frightened disciples waking up their Lord to calm the stormy sea. One cannot help but hear it in light of his challenge to the Church to self-examine her actions that led to scandal:

When his powerful word had calmed the storm, he rebuked the disciples for their little faith (cf. Mt 8:26 et par.). He wanted to say: it was your faith that was sleeping. He will say the same thing to us. Our faith too is often asleep. Let us ask him, then, to wake us from the sleep of a faith grown tired, and to restore to that faith the power to move mountains – that is, to order justly the affairs of the world.

- Elizabeth Hansen

“The World Needs God”

“To deny or arbitrarily restrict [religious] freedom is to foster a reductive vision of the human person; to eclipse the public role of religion is to create a society which is unjust … it is to stifle the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family.”

So begins Pope Benedict’s 2011 Message for the World Day of Peace, marked every year on January 1. Themes of Pope Benedict’s past messages have included combating poverty, upholding the family, and protecting creation. This year’s topic is particularly relevant to current events around the globe: religious freedom.

Last week, David Naglieri blogged about two aspects of current affronts to Christians’ religious freedom: both their harsh persecution in regions like the Middle East – painfully exemplified in this fall’s massacre at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Cathedral in Baghdad – as well as the more subtle yet organized secularism taking hold of nations that were once former bastions of the Christian faith.

In his message for peace, Pope Benedict likewise highlights those two examples as egregious attacks on religious freedom.  In its opening, he particularly reaches out to the Christian community in “the beloved country of Iraq,” left shattered since the October terrorist attack and other bombings that followed.

Stepping back, though, he stresses that protecting religious freedom is a good that will benefit all of society – “the common patrimony,” he says. Not just an issue for Christians, or anyone who is religious-minded, religious freedom “cannot be denied without at the same time encroaching on all fundamental rights and freedoms, since it is their synthesis and keystone.”

Both ideologies – religious fundamentalism and secularism – are demeaning to the human person, he says, adding that “a society that would violently impose or, on the contrary, reject religion is not only unjust to individuals and to God, but also to itself. … [T]he laws and institutions of a society cannot be shaped in such a way as to ignore the religious dimension of its citizens or to prescind completely from it.”

That said, the pope has strong words for what he sees in Europe especially as an organized “hostility and prejudice against Christians” who strive to live their lives in accord with their beliefs. It’s an agenda, he believes, that comes at the expense of rejecting one’s very history – the rich heritage that made Western civilization great.

“May Europe rather be reconciled to its own Christian roots, which are fundamental for understanding its past, present and future role in history,” he wrote. “[I]n this way it will come to experience justice, concord and peace by cultivating a sincere dialogue with all peoples.”

Also of note is Pope Benedict’s discussion of a religion as a force for good in a society (Christopher Hitchens’ rants to the contrary notwithstanding …), whether inspiring charitable works or individuals in the political realm. 

“The contribution of religious communities to society is undeniable,” he says. “Numerous charitable and cultural institutions testify to the constructive role played by believers in the life of society. More important still is religion’s ethical contribution in the political sphere. Religion should not be marginalized or prohibited, but seen as making an effective contribution to the promotion of the common good.”

“The world needs God,” Pope Benedict concludes. “It needs universal, shared ethical and spiritual values, and religion can offer a precious contribution to their pursuit, for the building of a just and peaceful social order at the national and international levels.”

From catastrophic natural disasters to unthinkable acts of terror, from political corruption to heartbreaking poverty, anyone – religious or not – can look at the headlines and know that the world needs something, some cure for what wracks it with suffering and ruins its peace.

As the spiritual leader of one of the largest religious bodies in the world, he asks world leaders to be open to the positive elements that religion can bring society – and to protect religious freedom where it is endangered, whether in strife-filled Iraq or the increasingly secularized West.

As the successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict offers Christ – the ultimate peace-giver, whose Cross is the sign of reconciliation between God and Man, and in whose Body divisions cease: for “all [are] one in Christ Jesus.”

- Elizabeth Hansen

 

Somerville Takes on WikiLeaks

“Although we work from a basic presumption that openness and transparency are morally and ethically sound, that is not always the case.”

So states a convincing, thoughtful analysis by ethicist Margaret Somerville on whether the intent, purpose and possible outcome of WikiLeaks can be considered, as a whole, morally and ethically sound.

Somerville begins by outlining the grey areas of debate that make it difficult to arrive at a straightforward conclusion – for example, we don’t have the facts needed to fully assess how much harm the leaks will cause. There’s also the difference of opinion regarding whether or not we believe the end justifies the means.
 
Another factor involves how Julian Assange obtained the leaked documents in the first place. Somerville explains:

If we believe that this means of obtaining the information was fundamentally wrong, and that even good ends—let alone seriously harmful ones—do not justify using wrong means, then using that information would be unethical. If, on the other hand, we believe that laudatory ends can justify unacceptable means and we regard the Wikileaks as having such ends, we might see use of the information as ethical.

Somerville also brings Wikileaks’ co-dissipaters into the equation. If we believe Assange's actions are evil and capable of causing terrible consequences, what about all those who make use of the information?

To filter through the grey, Somerville points to the questions we should be asking ourselves: How do we characterize Assange’s conduct? Might his conduct be considered a form of cyber-terrorism? What does Wikileaks reveal about the moral and social consciences of its participants?

On one end of the spectrum, many (the media included) regard his actions as beneficial, an exercise of freedom of the press and freedom of speech – despite the harm they may bring to individuals and, possibly, societies at large. Assange himself asserts that justice requires transparency and revelation of corruption, which is what he sees Wikileaks accomplishing.

Others see Assange's conduct as extremely harmful, classified his actions as treason, sedition, sabotage, espionage and terrorism.

In arriving to her conclusion, Somerville considers whether or not Assange’s actions could be considered cyber terrorism:

The primary goal of terrorism is to disrupt the societies that are attacked and make them fearful. Wikileaks will result in the disruption of diplomatic exchanges that can be crucial to protecting our societies. It will provide information to those who would do us harm and could assist them in that goal. Finally, it could harm relationships with our allies, all of which could make many of us justifiably fearful. ...

… We must ask what threat Wikileaks poses to our general "social capital", the metaphysical entity that consists of the "norms, networks, and trust [that we rely on] for cooperation and mutual benefit … [and which] has enormous potential to enable people to act in solidarity for the sake of collective goals"? The clear answer is that it will likely damage every element of it.

Even giving Assange and his co-leakers the benefit of any doubt regarding their claim that Wikileaks is a force for good, instead of promoting collective good by augmenting social capital, then, Wikileaks promotes collective harm by depleting social capital.

Somerville also makes an insightful analysis of what Wikileaks reveal about the moral and social consciences of its participants. This question she ties into a greater moral qualm that has long taken root in our Western societies:

Both as individuals and societies we espouse "intense or selfish individualism." Priority is given to individual rights, to autonomy and self-determination, even in some cases when serious harm to the community could result from doing so. Obligations to the community, if they are recognized at all, are seen as weak. Such imbalance between individual rights and community obligations reflects a climate of individual and societal level narcissism—the world revolves around just me or my society.

When considering Assange and his co-leakers, Somerville stresses how the harm that is unavoidably inflicted upon others (as a result of the leaks) is grossly overlooked. And when coming back to the question of how to characterize Assange’s actions, this very fact cannot be ignored.

In the end, Somerville asserts that the ethical question of Wikileaks can, in essence, be boiled down to “whether the world is a better and safer place because of it, or a worse and more dangerous one.” Even though we can’t predict their full repercussions, Somerville argues that there is no evidence showing how these leaks can and will contribute to a countervailing good.

The “good” Wikileaks is intended to achieve is not in itself ethically justified. Further, its perpetrators have not taken any action to balance harm against good, which, as Somerville concludes, is “conscious unjustified risk-taking—if not intentional wrongdoing,” the whole of which can be summarized as “grossly unethical conduct, some of which is also illegal.”

Hard to argue with that.

Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri

Give me that old time moralistic therapeutic deism?

Last week’s issue of the Weekly Standard included a provocative book review on Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church, by Kenda Creasy Dean.

Reviewer Eve Tushnet writes:

Instead of the life-changing, culture-challenging demands of the gospel, Dean argues, American teenagers follow a mutant creed best understood as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

… The content of that faith is simple and as American as a smile in an airport. The tenets of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD) include belief in a god who watches over us and orders life on earth, and whose major moral concern is that humans should be nice to one another: “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” These kids aren’t hostile to religion; who would kick such a toothless cocker spaniel? Dean argues that adolescents who were able to be articulate and expressive when discussing issues they really cared about suddenly became tongue-tied when the subject of God or religion came up, falling back on phrases such as “I would imagine [God is] a very nice guy.”

Perhaps Dean’s observations aren’t surprising; after all, this is the generation of which two-thirds agree at least in part with the description of being “spiritual but not religious” – today’s catchphrase, it seems, that seeks to replace any sense of rootedness in a particular faith tradition.

Dean argues that teens are inheriting this vague spirituality from their parents – an assertion that finds some unintentional support in the pages of Parenting magazine itself, which recently featured an article on “how to teach kids about spirituality, faith, hope, and morality, even if you're a religious free agent.”

While reading my copy of the magazine and rocking my recently baptized two-month-old, then, I found myself being offered this wellspring of parental advice on how to instill gratitude and empathy in my daughter … without exposing her to a genuine religious tradition, such as praying before a meal:

• Say aloud "Good thoughts to anyone sick or hurt" when an ambulance or fire truck roars by.

• Light a candle and hold hands for a minute at night before bed. Have a moment of quiet or share something nice that happened that day.

• Come up with a thankful song for teeth-brushing time, like "I'm grateful for  my healthy teeth. I'm grateful for my face that holds my teeth. I'm grateful for my body that holds my face. I'm grateful for my family that holds my body close!"

And what about dealing with tough questions, such as when a grandparent dies?

Mimi Doe, a mom of two and coauthor of 10 Principles for Spiritual Parenting, likes to tackle tricky questions with the phrase "I'm just not sure.  Life is full of so many mysteries!" Then she suggests sharing any information you can, such as "Some people believe XYZ and some people believe ABC. I was brought up to believe JKL. But what do you think?"

To return to the Weekly Standard review, Tushnet hits the nail on the head when addressing how such an outlook can impact a child in the longterm: “This is not the kind of faith that makes saints. It’s not the kind of faith that can carry a teenager through the death of a parent. It’s not the kind of faith that prompts sacrifices and resistance to the norms and behaviors of one’s peers.”

Numerous studies have found a correlation between parents’ religiosity and their children’s wellbeing, from their likelihood of practicing drug use or premarital sex, to success in school and a hope-filled outlook on life in general. In short, the benefits are clear when it comes to raising a child in a faith tradition. One can't help but think that espousers of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism – like those quoted in the Parenting article – hope to reap the former without committing to the latter.

But to what end? As Tushnet puts it, “[T]his belief system seems designed to minimize the importance of religious difference, partly as a way of defusing the tensions and passions of a pluralist society. It’s as if believing that other people are wrong about God in some important ways is bad manners.”

Just before he was elected pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger preached on such a “dictatorship of relativism” that he sees as prevalent in today’s society, and he listed “vague religious mysticism” as one of the many ideologies of the past century. When it comes to instilling virtues such as gratitude in their children – corny tooth-brushing rituals or not – I don’t doubt parents’ good intentions. Yet how tragic if, in their efforts to raise “spiritual,” empathetic, generous kids, they fail to introduce them to the one, sure Foundation that has stood the test of time – or even go out of their way to avoid any religion at all.

“All people desire to leave a lasting mark,” then-Cardinal Ratzinger noted. “So let us go and pray to the Lord to help us bear fruit that endures.”

For parents seeking to hand down such a lasting legacy to their children, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism – or whatever trend in spirituality that follows – can only fall short.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

Persecution in the Christmas Season

The Christmas season is a fitting time to reflect on the state of religious freedom around the globe. It is easy to take for granted the upcoming Christmas-themed plays and concerts, nativity scenes in front yards, Christmas caroling in public venues, and memorable liturgies such as the Midnight Mass – these are all the fixtures of the Christmas season that many of us could never imagine being stripped of. However, in Iraq celebrating Christmas this year is tantamount to suicide, and a new study in Europe details the growing persecution of Christians in the former heartland of the Christian faith. It seems clear that this Christmas season must remind all believers that vigilance and solidarity are required for their brothers and sisters around the globe.

The front page article in Monday’s edition of the New York Times presented several startling pieces of information about the dismal situation facing Christians in Iraq:

• A new wave of Iraqi Christians is fleeing the cities of Baghdad and Mosul. The refugees are leaving after the deadly siege of a Catholic Church in Baghdad in October that killed 53 worshippers. Since then further bombing attacks directed at Christians have been carried out, killing at least a dozen more Iraqi Christians.  

• According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Christians fleeing religious persecution account for 20 percent of the Iraqis who have left the country, while they were only three percent of the country’s pre-war population.

• In Mosul it is estimated that just 5,000 out of a pre-war population of 100,000 Christians remain. One Mosul citizen quoted in the article believes that within a month there may be no Christians left in the city.

Russell Shaw, writing for Our Sunday Visitor, came out with a strongly worded call to action regarding the deepening crisis for Christians in Iraq. Concerned that America’s actions in Iraq could have a devastating long-term impact on Iraqi Christians, Shaw opines:

George W. Bush was eager to go into their country and Barack Obama was eager to get out. By a painful coincidence, the disparate exigencies of these two American presidents have come together to help create conditions for a tragedy of historic proportions now being experienced by the Iraqi Christian community….What’s imperative now are tangible steps by the American government to give concrete help to Iraqi Christians who choose to leave their troubled country along with those who choose to stay — or who perhaps stay because they have no other choice.

Yet as the world keeps a watchful eye on Iraq’s Christians during this Christmas season, a newly released five-year report from the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe unveils some upsetting trends in the old continent. Vatican spokesperson, Fr. Federico Lombardi said the Vatican is concerned about the report, which detailed numerous incidences of persecution against Christians. Some examples included:

• The fining of French politician Christian Vanneste in June 2005 for comments deemed “homophobic.” Vanneste had simply stated that homosexuality was “morally inferior” to heterosexual marriage.

• The investigation launched against the Roman Catholic archbishop of Glasgow in January 2006. The archbishop’s defense of marriage had angered a Scottish Member of Parliament.

• The November 2008 removal from the court of Spanish judge Fernando Calamita for a period of 18 years. The ban was enforced after Calamita delayed the adoption of a young girl by lesbian parents.

These examples represent a small sample of a growing trend that is of great concern to Pope Benedict XVI. In his recent trip to Great Britain, the Holy Father confronted the clash between Christian faith and the dominant secular culture. The pope proposed dialogue as the means to overcoming differences:

I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere…And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.

This Christmas Iraqi Christians will worship in silence, many hidden away in monasteries, while awaiting their date to flee their homeland – a country with Christians roots that date back to the dawn of Christianity. Many of these new refugees will harbor hopes of settling in Europe, a continent where they will be able to worship the Christ-child in peace, but may have to remain silent when it comes to espousing the teachings of the Church that Christ founded. The ironies are endless. The persecution need not be. Vigilance in defense of religious freedom, and solidarity with those attacked – this is the mandate for us all.

- David Naglieri
 

Bishops Support Route to Legal Citizenship

A bill that would help integrate immigrant children into the United States by granting them legal status made it through the House of Representatives last week. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors act, or the DREAM Act, has been a goal for some legislators for the past decade, and as it just cleared the House by a vote of 216 to 198, it awaits a vote from the Senate later this month.

“We can give them a chance to serve,” Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the lead supported of the bill, told the New York Times last Wednesday about the undocumented immigrants who would benefit from the bill. “We can put them on a road where it will be difficult but no more difficult than what they’ve gone through in their lives. Or we can say, no, wait for another day.”

If passed, the DREAM Act would give undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria a six-year window of temporary immigration status to complete two years of college or the same amount of military service. Criteria to participate require that applicants prove that they entered the United States before they were 16 years old; prove that they have lived in the U.S. for the past five years; are between 12 and 30 years old when the bill passes; have graduated from an American high school, received a GED or are accepted into college; and be of “good moral character.” If they complete the two years of either college or military in the six-year period, they are granted permanent residency status, which would help them achieve citizenship.

People are taking their usual sides on the bill -- some deriding it as amnesty and others clearly convinced of its value for children who were brought to the U.S. by parents at a young age -- and a number of bishops are openly supporting the bill calling it the right thing to do.

Some critics of the bill see it as another amnesty measure, while others look at the long-term demographic impact of legalizing a large number of Latinos, which they say would bolster the Democratic voting base. One cable news network called the bill a nightmare for Republicans while it flashed a string of clips of young Latino men climbing a fence in the dark of night.

Nearly four of every five Americans agree that immigration reform can both secure the borders and protect the rights of immigrants, according to a Knights of Columbus/Marist College poll in July 2010.

The Catholic Church in the United States is largely Hispanic, about 39 percent, and at least 44 percent of Catholics under 10 years old are Hispanic. Also, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 71 percent of growth of the U.S. Catholic population since 1960 has been because of the increase in the overall Hispanic population.

The migration office of the United States Catholic Bishops fully supports the bill, and sees it as a way to ensure the future of “talented, intelligent, and dedicated young persons” who were brought to the United States.

Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the USCCB migration committee, wrote a letter to Congress expressing the bishops’ support of the bill. “It is important to note that these young persons entered the United States with their parents at a young age, and therefore did not enter without inspection on their own volition,” he wrote.

“We would all do the same thing in a similar situation. The United States is the only country that they know.  They have incredible talent and energy and are awaiting a chance to fully contribute their talents to our nation. We would be foolhardy to deny them that chance.”

Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph similarly wrote a letter to Senator Claire McCaskill in support of the bill. In his letter to Senator McCaskill, who should vote on the DREAM act in the coming month, Bishop Finn wrote: “Simply put, it is the right thing to do.” He noted that he and fellow bishops weren’t able to support past attempts to pass the DREAM act because they were packaged with less favorable bills that, for example, supported abortion in military hospitals, but since the act is being introduced alone, he and the other bishops are able to throw their support behind the measure.

- Brian Dowling

 

The virtual school yard: Part II

While consensus on the issue appears well out of reach, some experts agree that it is not just important but imperative that parents keep up with social networking trends.

Marianne Medlin of Catholic News Agency is another to stress the importance of parental involvement - but not just where cyber bullying prevention is concerned. In a Dec. 7 column highlighting the effects of “hyper social networking,” Medlin zooms in on a debate that was sparked by a Nov. 9 Business Week report which stated “that teens who “hyper texted” (over 120 messages sent per school day) and “hyper social networked” (over three hours spent on networking sites per school day) showed an increase risk of dangerous health behaviors such as smoking, drinking and sexual activity.”

According to researchers at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine in Cleveland, hyper-networking was also associated with an increased likelihood of stress, depression, suicide, poor sleep, poor academics, television watching and parental permissiveness.

Medlin interviews Teresa Tomeo, a former journalist and syndicated talk show, who says that many parents are so caught up in their own addictive media habits that they lack the discipline to challenge their kids to use media responsibly.

“Parents need to be more involved…They need to educate themselves, set and stick to guidelines and not be afraid to be parents or to set limits and restrictions on the amount and types of media usage.”

Adding a much needed spiritual perspective on the issue is Fr. Michael Warren of Denver who expresses concern about the spiritual and the interpersonal risks of these new technologies. As examples of the more ominous affects of faceless communication, he cited intense isolation and the inability to form real, selfless relationships with others.

“In real face to face encounters you stand before me as a real person in your own right, invested with value that does not originate in me,” he told CAN. “But in the cyber world I am the determiner of all value and therefore am free from the demands of the face to face encounter.”

He explained that through online communication, "the only value you have in my eyes are the values I permit you to have in my own small world."

Fr. Warren also pointed to the concern of “having this mentality spill over into one's spiritual life.”

“As a person becomes habituated to living this way, it is not likely that God will be spared this indignity,” he said. “Like everything else in my cyber world, God will have the value I allow him to have, and I can 'defriend' Him just as easily as I do everyone else."

Despite the dangers of social networking, Fr. Warren is one of many who agree that these tools also present an equal opportunity for good -- so long as they are used in proper and moderate fashion.
Tomeo herself agrees noting that “the Church in Her wisdom recognizes the advantage of online communication for faith outreach”– as evidenced by both Pope Benedict XVI and the U.S. bishop's encouragement that technology be considered as a means of evangelization.

At the end of the day, where teens and social media are concerned, most can agree that parental involvement is the key in ensuring healthy habits surrounding the ever-evolving means of communication. Fr. Warren summarizes it best when he says:

“The domestic church is a place where children should develop the essential virtues of social communication face to face…Parents should also help their children to know what the true ends of friendship and communication are…These discoveries help the young know that they cannot define themselves but are to understand themselves as part of a larger world over which they do not have command.”

Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri