HeadlineBistro

Marriage prep makeover?

The National Catholic Register has an informative article on how marriage prep programs in various dioceses are evolving to meet the challenges of ministering to today's modern, engaged couples.

It's easy to lament the state of preparation for the sacrament -- or lack thereof -- in which all too many Catholic brides and grooms come to the altar. As one person involved in marriage enrichment courses put it to the Register: "Priests ... have eight years of training for their vocation, and most Catholic couples have eight hours of training for their vocation."

The article further notes:

As Catholic marriage rates decline, many of the couples who do marry in the Church today are older and cohabiting, often impacted by divorce and societal pressures, and have been away from the Church as young adults. Not surprisingly, they often lack both an understanding of the sacrament of matrimony and practical skills to live it out.

Yet overall, the Register article reveals signs of hope regarding the Church's approach to guiding couples through the sacrament of marriage: From the top, there's a new document in the works from the Pontifical Council for the Family, which will offer practical applications on how to cultivate a deeper understanding and committment to marriage -- not only among engaged couples, but even beginning in the formative years of childhood. At the local level, many dioceses are seeking ways their marriage prep programs can combine teaching necessary, practical skills -- communication, for instance -- with helping couples better appreciate the richness of the sacrament itself. From focusing on Pope John Paul II's theology of the body as a starting point for discussing marriage and human sexuality, to tackling head-on the reasons for the Church's stand on issues like contraception, IVF and cohabitation, more and more courses are providing couples with a solid arsenal of tools and knowledge to live out a healthy, holy marriage. There's a long way to go, but I'll take good news any day.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

DOMA in Jeopardy?

The legalization of same sex marriage in New York raises serious questions about the future viability of the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 and defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The law also protects states from having to recognize same-sex unions from another state. In theory DOMA presents an impediment to gay activists using New York’s same-sex marriage legislation to challenge laws in other states. However, the deep-seated desire among gay activists to capitalize on the momentum gained this week is causing renewed concerns that DOMA is under threat.

Indeed, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, has been on the forefront of those attempting to repeal DOMA. Gillibrand has co-sponsored the Respect for Marriage Act, which seeks to repeal DOMA. She also joined with Democracy for America to launch a national online campaign to rally support for the cause. According to Senator Gillibrand, “The reality is that the Defense of Marriage Act prevents all legally married same-sex couples in the U.S. from receiving over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that straight married couples enjoy. We must repeal this unjust law.”

Of more concern to supporters of traditional marriage are the thirty states which currently have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. If DOMA is repealed these states could potentially face future federal legislation mandating the recognition of same-sex marriages.

The threat to DOMA was clearly evidenced in February when President Obama said he would “no longer assert its (DOMA) constitutionality in court.” This was little more than a direct invitation to activists to challenge the law in court. Last year, a federal judge in Massachusetts found much of the law unconstitutional, and this month more than a dozen federal bankruptcy judges in California jointly ruled that a key section of DOMA was unconstitutional. In March Democrats in both houses of Congress put forward measures to repeal the law.

How did we get to this point in our society? Just 15 years ago a liberal Democratic president signed DOMA into law with wide support from both parties and the American people. Today six states have legalized same-sex marriage and DOMA is in jeopardy.

Joe Carter, writing for First Things, explains how ideas once thought unthinkable gradually gain acceptance and eventually become policy. I highly recommend this fascinating but sobering article “How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps.” Perhaps, the approval of same-sex marriage in New York, and the looming repeal of DOMA, will serve as a necessary wake up call. As Carter writes:

"America has produced an overwhelming number of Christians who are adept at explaining why they can support issues that are antithetical to Christianity and depressingly few who can give reasons why we should adhere to the teachings of scripture and the wisdom of the church. History has shown that dedicated Christians can…reverse the shift from “policy” to “unthinkable.” But it requires a people who have courage and conviction and a willingness to be despised for the truth. Do current generations have such virtues? Probably not. But I’m holding out hope that our grandkids will be born that way.”

--David Naglieri

"Car and Driver", Papal-style

If you're planning on seeing the pope in the near future, you might get a chance to see him with his new set of (eco-friendly) wheels.

Yes, the Pope will be receiving a new popemobile.

But don't expect to be able to go out and purchase one for yourself: the machine is "a custom-made M-Class plug-in hybrid based on the technology found inside the Mercedes Vision S500 plug-in hybrid."

In some ways, Pope Benedict doesn't so much "choose" the vehicle, as "receive" it; Mercedes has given vehicles to the pope for decades. 

But while the gift doesn't express his personal taste so much as Mercedes' generosity, you car-buffs out there might be interested to recognize a confrere in his predecessor, Pius XII.

In this endearing address to Members of the Car Club of Rome in 1956, he spoke highly of automobiles—almost like a wine connoisseur would speak lovingly of wine; I can't decide whether he sounds more like a BMW advertisement, or simply like every reader “Auto Week” magazine I know:

The car is certainly one of the most expressive symbols of the modern age, his desire for comfort, speed, technical progress. We do not know what should be the most admired in its devices: their power and increasing their agility, the mechanical refinements, provided by the elegance of their profiles.

I love in particular how, the way he describes it really brings out the beautiful masculinity of mastering a machine 5 times your speed and 10 times your size. (Note: I couldn't resist leaving in the gendered language of the Italian when it refers to the automobile as a "she").

"No doubt the car will appear often less as a means of transport as a wonderful object of entertainment, which demands great skill and confidence, dominion over yourselves and physical endurance. You love to feel your power and dominion to ease the energy it contains in its sides, and you will win easily flattered by her resistance, her whims, sometimes her stubbornness, and thus have the opportunity to prove your mastery of the steering wheel, your experience of the road and your mechanical skills."  

For you fans of "American-Made" vehicles, you might be happy to know that Pius XII's favored vehicle was a Graham-Paige, gifted to the papacy just days after the great stock market crash of the 1920s - an interestingly parallel to Mercedes' continued care for the popes despite today's economic difficulties.

And next time you take your own for a spin, you might keep in mind his own papal “rules of the road”:

"But you do not forget…to respect road users, be courteous and fair with other drivers and pedestrians, and show them your obliging nature. Pride yourselves in being able to master an often natural impatience, in sometimes sacrificing a little of your sense of honor so that kindness is a sign of true charity. Not only so you can avoid unpleasant accidents, but also it will help to make the car a tool even more useful for yourself and for others, and is capable of giving a genuine pleasure."

Now that's a sentiment that most guys I know can relate to.

 -Maureen Walther

Mixed news on divorce in the New York Times

At first glance, the article seems hopeful. Divorce has "lost its groove," the New York Times headline proclaims, or at least it has among the hipster-Brooklyn crowd.

“What happened?” asks the writer Claire Dederer in her memoir, “Poser,” which examines life as a new mother in Seattle. In the 1970s, “the feminists, the hippies, the protesters, the cultural elite all said, It’s O.K. to drop out.” In contrast, “We made up our minds, my brother and I and so many of the grown children of the runaway moms, that we would put our families first and ourselves second. We would be good, all the time. We would stay married, no matter what, and drink organic milk.”

“The notion of divorce has become one of failure again,” said 42-year-old Stacy Morrison of Park Slope, an author of another divorce memoir. “It used to be, ‘You’re free, rock on!’ Now it’s, ‘You couldn’t make it work, you failed.’ ”

The article continued on by declaring, "Among a certain demographic, marriage is viewed as something that, like work-life balance, yoga and locavore cuisine, needs to be continually worked at and improved upon."

Bizarre comparisons aside, the piece does a good job discussing last year's study by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, which revealed a trend of college-educated Americans divorcing at significantly lower rates than the rest of the population. For instance:

Now that the children of a divorce generation have grown up and have children of their own, it is inevitable some will divorce, despite their worst fears and best intentions. Most marriages that end in divorce fall apart in the first 10 years. But according to the widely cited Marriage Project study last year, among college-educated couples who married in the mid-1990s, the likelihood of divorcing in the first 10 years of marriage fell 27 percent compared with college-educated couples who married in the 1970s.

In a 2008 survey, only 17 percent of college-educated Americans agreed with the statement, “Marriage has not worked out for most people I know,” compared with 58 percent among the less educated.

So that's the good news. What I find unsettling is the article's conclusion.

Because these "children of divorce" -- the latchkey kids of the '70s and '80s -- suffered profoundly the effects of their parents' split, they will go to great lengths to ensure their own children's happiness after they undergo a divorce, themselves. At what point, though, does this just because a band-aid solution for the parents' own wounds -- assuaging their guilt for putting their children through a similar situation to what they faced in their youth?

Dr. Monet, of Mount Holyoke, and her ex-husband eat dinner together on Fridays with their 9-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter. Birthdays and holidays are spent in each other’s company.

“Once I realized that we could raise the kids together and still be a family,” said Dr. Monet, who started a blog called Postcards From a Peaceful Divorce last year, “I realized it wasn’t divorce that’s devastating, it’s the way divorce is handled.”

When Nina Collins, 41, a former literary agent, divorced her husband, she said both her lawyer and therapist emphasized: “Divorce is completely different from when your parents split up. If your kids feel loved and they don’t see hideous behavior, they’ll be fine.”

“Of course, there’s still trauma,” Ms. Collins said. “But I think it’s gotten a lot more humane for everyone.”

A common belief is that if the divorce is done properly, the children benefit more from the separation than from living in a family with a compromised marriage. Ms. Gilman, echoing the sentiments of many divorced mothers, said, “In the end, I actually think it was a very positive thing we did for the kids.”

I'll be clear -- if it's a matter of kids living in an abusive environment, then their safety is absolutely a priority. But, "humane" or not, let's not glamorize the fact that even modern-day children of divorce still lack the stability and security of a two-parent home, as well as the love of their mother and father for each other that serves as a foundation for that home.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

Discovering the consequences of legalized euthanasia

In her column on Headline Bistro today, Pia de Solenni comments on the U.S. bishops' recent document on physician-assisted suicide, including the less-often discussed ramifications of euthanasia that have been reported in places where the practice has been legalized.

According to this article from Mercartornet, reprinted today on CrisisMagazine.com, she can add the disturbing practice of recycling donated organs from euthanized patients, which has been quietly underway in Belgium for the past there years.

The author quotes a British doctor who heads the UK-based Christian Medical Fellowship:

I was amazed at how nonchalantly the issue was dealt with as if killing patients and then harvesting their organs was the most natural thing in the world. … The matter of fact way the retrieval process is described in the paper is particularly chilling and shows the degree of collaboration that is necessary between the euthanasia team and the transplant surgeons – prep them for theatre next to the operating room, then kill them and wheel them in for organ retrieval. All in a day’s work in Brave New Belgium.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

 

Asterisk * Marks the Death: Mourning the Buried Tragedies in Illinois' Abortion Records

As Alabama becomes the fifth state to signed into law more protection for the 20-week-old unborn, Illinois faces accountability for a web of disinformation in its own books.

According to the Chicago Tribune, vague records, holes in reporting, and failed follow-up accountability has left much potentially life-saving information out of government records.

Among the findings: in 2009, about 7,000 abortion procedures were not reported to the state, and nearly 4,000 reports of abortion complications “were missing the required description."

According to Guttmacher—the pro-choice gold-standard institution for abortion statistics—just under 55,000 Illinois women had abortions in 2008.

Presuming the number of abortions was similar in 2009, that means about 7% of all IL abortions had complications with inadequate information provided. And those are just the cases without information about what kind of complications there were.

The new danger is that providing no information masks whether a case is malpractice or natural complications. Without facts, it’s impossible to correctly evaluate the real risk specific procedures pose to the pregnant woman. Without facts, it’s impossible to correctly evaluate the real risk specific doctors pose, as well.

The abortion industry is not a stranger to secrecy. Abortion providers have a high standards of privacy regarding abortion records, abortion referrals, and personal abortion history. One oft-state reason for this is to assuage fears about the stigma of particular pregnancies and/or of having an abortion.

In an age when even advertisements including the "small print" warnings, precisely because the decision is largely a personal, private, and protected decision, it seems all the more important that accurate information about the issue is made available—and readily available—to those who make the decision.

Sometimes too much information to the patient is a problem. As shown in Live Actions' recent undercover reporting, dozens of Planned Parenthood clinics around the country have employed individuals who have blurred the lines between privacy of the patient and endorsing illegal activity, giving tips on how patients can avoid getting their experiences of sex with a minor and even sex trafficking reported.  

But in Illinois, even regulation by the authorities has shown significant failures.

According to the Chicago Tribune, reporting “is the only tool Illinois authorities have to monitor some abortion providers, yet regulators may be allowing doctors and clinics to operate off the books. Regulators collect reports from 26 providers, but the abortion rights research group has identified 37 providers doing business in the state."

In other words, regulators didn't receive reports from nearly 30% of Illinois abortion providers.

In a strange comparison, it seems that, in serving the 1 in 3 women who have an abortion, 1 in 3 IL abortion providers abort government reporting.

Unreported complications - or even malpractice - isn’t a stranger to the state.

In 2008, as Illinois legislature became known as the arena where Obama cut his teeth on abortion laws (especially laws regarding “botched” abortion), Fort Wayne obstetrician-gynecologist Geoffrey Cly struggled with the issue from the other side: administering to victims of shoddy abortionists.

At least three of his patients suffered from complications from abortions, including one woman who had to have her uterus removed due to a series of complications from the incomplete removal of tissue—a procedure that would not have been made necessary if the abortion was “properly” performed or followed up on.

Dr. Cly then pushed the country to step up its requirements for abortion providers which could “subject unaffiliated doctors to greater peer review and follow-up.”

It’s said that 4-weeks in the womb, the baby is the size of a period at the end of sentence. In Illinois, an abortion-related death is recorded a little bigger than that...but not by much. According to another article in the Tribune, in those state records, anything under 51 is not accounted for with a number. Thus, since reported abortion-related deaths number below 51, it is simply marked with an asterisk.

So while some would see the asterisk as a badge of honor—i.e. fewer than 50 incidents—each hidden statistic hides a story.

One of the women “numbered’ by the symbolic asterisk, was wife of Maurice Stevenson who died of a blood infection after a Planned Parenthood abortion. The organization could not confirmed whether her death was reported. The 2002 records were “in storage.”

Also according to the Tribune, a couple organizations could not confirm that whether other recent abortion-related deaths—2009, 2008, 2000, 1999, and 1998—were properly recorded or not.

From a statistician’s point of view, it’s an understandable—and common practice—not to give an official headcount for groups making up a small percentage of the whole. Even if the abortion-related death slot were maxed out—with 50 abortion-related deaths of the mother in that year—it would be 1 death for a little over 1,000 abortions.

But from a human point of view—and taking into account that Illinois has significant underreporting of complications—a little more detail could convey a world of meaning. 

It might even bring a little more moral accountability to a practice that a majority of Americans - by a 12-point margin - call “immoral.”

-Maureen Walther

No kidding!

Another reason involved fathers help kids, of course, is that families often function better when two parents are working as a team to give children what they need, supporting each other's efforts.

Read more at the Wall Street Journal -- "The Secret of Dads' Success: How Fathers' Teasing, Tickling, Wrestling Teach Kids to Whine Less and Be More Independent."

-- Elizabeth Hansen

What's a Christian to do about Ayn Rand?

Two months after the release of Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 in theaters, discussion and debate over Ayn Rand, Objectivism and the philosopher-novelist's disdain for altruism and Christianity continues, including a column on First Things' website last Wednesday that pulled no punches in arguing why the philosophy espoused by Rand's fictional heroes is incompatible with Christianity.

"Rand's doctines are Satanic," writes Joe Carter -- and he means that literally, with the rest of his piece, "The Fountainhead of Satanism," describing how the founder of the modern day Church of Satan -- Anton LeVay, who also penned The Satanic Bible -- openly credited Rand as his inspiration. Carter writes:

Perhaps most are unaware of the connection, though LaVey wasn’t shy about admitting his debt to his inspiration. “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings,” he once told the Washington Post. On another occasion he acknowledged that his brand of Satanism was “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Indeed, the influence is so apparent that LaVey has been accused of plagiarizing part of his “Nine Satanic Statements” from the John Galt speech in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

Devotees of Rand may object to my outlining the association between the two. They will say I am proposing “guilt by association,” a form of the ad hominem fallacy. But I am not attacking Rand for the overlap of her views with LaVey’s; I am saying that, at their core, they are the same philosophy. LaVey was able to recognize what many conservatives fail to see: Rand’s doctrines are satanic.

I realize that even to invoke that infernal word conjures images of black masses, human sacrifices, and record needles broken trying to play “Stairway to Heaven” backwards. But satanism is more banal and more attractive than the parody created by LeVay. Real satanism has been around since the beginning of history, selling an appealing message: Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.

Hyperbolic or a fair assessment of the roots and reach of Objectivism?

Striking a more tempered note -- though no more forgiving of Rand's many flaws, both personal and philosophical -- is an article by Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute, posted on Patheos.com the day after Carter's ran on First Things.

"Who Really Was John Galt, Anyway?" Fr. Sirico asks, referring to the iconic hero of Atlas Shrugged whose climactic speech championing the individual and railing against collectivism was considered by Rand herself as the most concise summary of her philosophy. Fr. Sirico writes:

There is in Rand an undeniable and passionate quest, a hunger for truth, for the ideal, for morality, for a just ordering of the world. She is indeed frequently adolescent in this quest, yet this may be just what appeals to so many idealistic young people who read her before reading the Tradition in depth.

One of the most famous opening lines in literature is the question she poses and uses as a device throughout Atlas, a question now on display at Tea Party rallies: "Who is John Galt?" The answer is not immediately given in the book; it (he) remains mysterious throughout much of the novel. Yet it inexorably emerges: Galt is for Rand the ideal man—the Man of the Mind (the logos); the One upon whom the world and its creative capacity depend. He is, in a real sense for Rand, the God-Man.

 "I disagree profoundly with Rand; her attenuated definition of faith as unreason and her notion of sacrifice as wholly lacking dignity are unrecognizable to a Christian," he continues toward the end of the piece. He goes on, however, to quote G.K. Chesterton: "Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God."

"...[T]here is in each heart an innate human thirst for beauty and Truth," Fr. Sirico concludes. "The question Rand poses at the outset of Atlas Shrugged reveals more of this sad woman than I think even she realized. One can only pray that in the infinite mercy of the God in whom she did not believe, that Rand in the end may actually have found out who John Galt really is."

Despite their different tones, are Carter and Fr. Sirico essentially pointing out the same theme in Rand's work? In articulating her philosophy of radical individualism, and in exalting John Galt as Objectivism's Christ-figure in the world of Atlas Shrugged, Rand's grasp for truth devolved into an ideology that exalts  -- demands, really -- each person's self-interest in all realms of life, from morality to economics. In her revolt from the Socialism of her Russian homeland, Rand rejected one godless ideology, but for what? Another cold system, one that supplanted mercy and compassion with self-interest? Doing away with God, man's reason and self-determination take His place; in place of the God who gave His life for man is a man who rises above the collectivist masses by embodying Rand's Objectivism and declaring, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Her system -- like any other ideology -- is a narrow prism through which to view the world in an attempt to make sense of it. And like any other prescription for happiness, freedom and fulfillment crafted by human hands, it will fall short. There is only one Ideal Man whose "life was the light of the human race," and no charismatic businessman, economic system, philosophy -- or fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- can take His place.  

-- Elizabeth Hansen

"Jane Roe" plays cameo in one of two upcoming movies on the theme of abortion

According to the LA Times—the newspaper of the movie capital of the U.S.—“Two movies with anti-abortion messages seek distribution.” And if the pre-distribution news is correct, they take very different approaches.

Both of them - at least to those "in the know" - carry clear off-screen indications that the movies are intended to strike a cord with those involved in the abortion debate.

As the LA Times notes, one of the movies - "Dooby" - includes a cameo appearance by Norma McCorvey (better known as "Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade, and who is now pro-life) plays a pro-life cameo. In fact, the movie is set in her hometown. The other movie - "Life Zone" is by a director (and republican candidate for NJ house) Ken Del Vecchio, who sees his movie as a clear message piece again abortion.

With neither in the theaters yet, it's difficult to tell what they're like. And the biggest question...will they get a distribution deal and actually make it to the theaters? But here's what's known so far:

“Life Zone”

Director: Kenneth Del Vecchio

Genre: horror-flick-meets-morality-tale — with a very supernatural twist at the end.

Plot: Three women go in for abortions, and wake up in unreal predicament. They appear to have been abducted from the abortion table, and are being kept in a different facility until they give birth. Kept by a repulsive, overbearing, video-conferencing jailer, and attended by a female doctor, they undergo a seven-month “think-tank” regarding the facts and morality of abortion.

Interesting because…: the situation is a picture-perfect pro-choice nightmare—women forced to carry to term. (I kept rereading the LATimes title doubtfully - is this really an anti-abortion movie?) It takes a natural process—pregnancy and giving birth—and puts it in an unnatural context: forced dependency (actually, much like the “forced dependency” of an unborn child). As one character notes, the only way anyone is getting out alive is by giving birth. But then there’s a twist—is this real life, or the afterlife?

My hunch: is that it is one of the most clever plots to take abortion head-on. But does it go too far in moralizing al Dante at the end? Leading to the question: Is there a “wrong way” to do an anti-abortion movie?

 

“Dooby”

Director: Peter Mackenzie

Genre: Small-town mystery

Plot: A mysterious drifter (John Schneider) “quickly makes himself indispensable to a small Texas town. The secret of Doonby’s past lies in the only person in town he doesn’t like — a gynecologist named Dr. Cyrus Reaper (Martin Sheen’s brother Joe Estevez).” (LATimes summary)

Interesting because…: Besides choosing "Jane Roe" connections, another interesting choice is that it approaches the male-view of abortion as a mystery. While you read about people having abortions  to “cover up” that they were pregnant or sexually active, abortions are often even more hidden  in the lives of men. As one website says, “Men are hidden partners in every abortion decision.” Not in the room, often not even part of the decision, it leaves so many questions, many elements of mystery to unravel—mysteries that cannot be solved.  For some men, there are so  It’s a mystery who they might have been if their child lived, how they got to be “that man” who encouraged an abortion or couldn’t provide enough for his girlfriend/wife to feel comfortable having their child, or couldn’t protect his kid for more than a trimester. Moreover, these become cold-case mysteries in the hands of another man—the abortion doctor. And since men often struggle with emotions on their own rather than “talking it through” with another person...is this a sort of cultural, theraputic self-reflection?  

My hunch: is that it’ll be well-crafted, an interesting combination of subtle and punchy (literally), telling a story with abortion, rather than being an “abortion movie”—and offer a masculine view of abortion regret/memory/intrigue rarely explored in Hollywood. It’ll be interesting.

-Maureen Walther

'Islands of Plenty'

This month's issue of Columbia features an article by Stephen Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, on the theory of overpopulation and its alleged impact on economic prosperity. Mosher focuses specifically on the Philippines, where proposed legislation seeks to implement government-funded "family planning services" (including contraception and an encouraged two-child policy), and notes that, despite UN leaders' insistence on the soundness of China's one-child policy, all is not well in nations where abortions or sterilizations are routinely mandated in the name of population control. To make matters worse, often these practices come via the generosity of foreign governments (including the United States):

It would be bad enough if it were just a matter of China denying one-fifth of the world's families the right to have children. But the excessive use of force in the pursuit of a population control agenda extends to numerous developing countries around the world.

To give just a few examples: Women in Indonesia have been apprehended at gunpoint by the military for mandatory sterilizations; hundreds of thousands of Native Americans have been pressured by the Peruvian government to accept tubal ligations; and government-run hospitals in Mexico routinely sterilize women after they give birth — with or without their consent.

This is the sort of thing that happens when, in Pope Benedict's words, "development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures" (28). In other words, when we use foreign aid as a carrot to get governments to act, all too often they turn around and use the stick on their own people. Given the long and dismal catalog of abuses, it is unlikely that a birth control program can be both government-run and non-coercive, especially in the context of a developing country.

-- Elizabeth Hansen