Yet Another HHS Update

I haven't posted about the HHS mandate recently, though believe you me it has been in the background or forefront of my mind.  I am both a beneficiary and a victim of Obamacare: I stayed on my father's policy later than would have been allowed, but now I am about to embark on my own healthcare voyage.  Because of the contraceptive mandate, my school has dropped student coverage, which was going to be my route.  In the wake of the elections, I've had a hard time not being depressed by the anti-life state of the nation.

Now, however, cases are starting to hit courts and courts are starting to give answers.  Here's an article about a Bible-publishing company who won their case... though I am sure it's not the end of the story for them.  And it's definitely not for others (such as Hobby Lobby) who lost and are appealing.  The rationale for decisions, based on the limited information from these two articles, seems to be that the courts want to exempt religious organizations but not religious employers (i.e. individuals) from providing contraception.

Women and Office Supplies

Due to politicking, retreating, and researching, I don't have a long time to get on my soapbox about the most recent presidential debate.  Much as I would love to comment on my mental image of "binders of women," which then led to images of filing cabinets overflowing with women and eerily dovetailed with recent discussions of pornography and sex trafficking.  (I don't understand the objectification of people.  I really just don't.)

However, in spite of the fantastic images Romney conjured, the plan of action he gave (for use on an individual level) was laudable.  In place of my analysis/soapbox, have a look-see at this one here.

Crisis Averted

Besides the president, several other political offices will appear on my ballot in two weeks, including Senator and Representative.  Being a "swing voter" (I've rarely if ever voted a straight ticket for one party), I ponder each position before voting.  And I was having an impossible time figuring out upon whom I should bestow my vote for the House.

The two choices in VA 11th: Chris Perkins (R) and Gerry Connolly (D).  I'm not a fan of Connolly.  Besides being tired of him for voting against pro-life and for pro-abortion legislation, I have watched his poor constituent relations annoy my sister for the past few years.  However, Perkins is a pro-choice Republican, so basically disagrees with me on everything.  I broke my rule about never voting in primaries to vote against him, so I would not be in the situation.  Up until this weekend, I had more or less decided to leave that question blank.

However, by the grace of God, I have a sister who is politically aware and takes the time to help me out.  So she found the candidate for whom I should vote: Chris DeCarlo, who is rapping his way to Washington.  That's right; this modern-day Mr. Smith is using educational raps to make his way to Congress, where he will fight political corruption.

Crisis averted.  I  have found a politician to support.

Voting Catholic

One of the most consistent frustrations for a politically and religiously aware Catholic preparing to vote comes from her fellow-Catholics: the tendency to collapse all differences between candidates to this issue of "pro-life."  Don't get me wrong -- abortion and other policies about human life are huge.  I have an "I vote pro-life first" sign in my window.  (The other side, the one I really like, says, "I AM the pro-life generation!")

Our obligation to protect the life of pre-born children, however, does not overturn or cancel out our obligation to care about other issues or to be guided by moral standards to create just policies in other areas.   (Really, it just shows the tragedy of our modern political divide.  Could you imagine not having to vote pro-life, because both candidates were?)  So even if we vote pro-life first, we need to know there are other important questions in politics.  Even if they do not change our vote, they exist, and we as Catholics need to care about how our government addresses other issues of justice.  We also need to know what our Church teaches about them.

The Virginia Catholic Conference puts together voter education literature every election.  They publish candidate's approaches to issues that are of interest to a Catholic understanding of justice.  It's not the most comprehensive resource, but it at least puts questions other than abortion on the table.  Take a look-see here (for the presidential race) and here (for the VA senatorial race).

If you aren't sure on Catholic approaches to the issues, read the senatorial one first, because it contains more information about the bishops' position.  There is, of course, no official Church teaching on policy matter.  The bishops offer guidance based on the Church's teaching and their understanding of the current national situation.  It's called prudential judgement.  The first criterion will not change; the second can and does; and opinions of how the two fit together can legitimately vary.

That doesn't get anyone off the hook about caring about these issues.  It just raises our obligation to become informed so we know how to become involved in the political process.  Even if we vote pro-life first, 364 days of the year (or 365 in the case of presidential election years) are not election day.  Those days require our involvement as well.

Red & Blue

That last political post was supposed to go down a different road, but I got sidetracked when I started typing about seeing Romney.  Before I do Take II, I want to give a shout-out to Maggie and Frank who answered my trivia question about running mates!

So.  Major election coming up in November.  Hold your breath and get excited for the upcoming onslaught of promises, attacks, and counter-attacks.  I love the energy that grips the nation at this time of year.  I hate the partisan lines that get drawn and the foolish inflexibility follows them.

I'm pretty sure I have linked to Leah Libresco at Equally Unyoked before, but since I found her blog it has become hearty food for thought, so you will keep seeing her.  She wrote about her experience in a debate group that focused on not just valid but true and convincing arguments -- and the value they found in admitting that they had been wrong.  

Leah did not take the topic into national politics, but I want to.  Consider Romney's stance on abortion and the flack he is getting for changing it.  This issue showcases the Catch-22 of US politics: if you are wrong (and we are all bound to be at some point), you can hold on to the wrong for dear life and be consistent, or you can change views and be thought a flip-flopper.  (Is that a word?  It should be.)

While we certainly need a leader who can stand strong and firm, there is virtue in taking in new information and letting it inform your views.  As Leah points out, there is virtue in knowing how to handle being wrong.

Campaign Season

It's my favorite time of every four years: election season!  As of Saturday, all the speculation about who will run with and against whom ended, and we know the players: Obama-Biden against Romney-Ryan.  (Random question and a prize for the winner: has any president ever switched his VP when he ran for re-election?)  I get fed up with the intra-party politicking that leads up to this moment, but now we have the real players in the game.

In honor of having the real players in the game, I attended a rally for Mitt Romney on Saturday.  I would not let my parents get photographic evidence of this event, but now I am admitting in writing.  He announced Paul Ryan as his running mate earlier that day in Norfolk, so I had the unexpected luck of seeing and hearing both of them.

After waiting in a winding line and hearing my mother's worries that we would not get in, we made it to the rally and found standing room where, if I stood on my tiptoes and twisted my neck and the lady in front of me was not standing on the edge of the pillar, I could see illuminated faces of politicians floating over the podium.

This prime viewing real estate became extremely valuable when the speeches ended and the crowds rushed forth to watch the buses pull away.  We were at the front then, pushed up against the barriers at the side of the street.  George Allen was working the crowd from the pavement, so we shook hands with him, and he stopped to chat with each cluster of people along the way.

To my blue friends: do not worry -- I am not turning red!  To my red friends: do not worry -- I still don't like Obama.  I simply loved the chance to be in the middle of our beautiful, messy political process and feed off the emotional energy of the excited crowds.  Also, I got to snap a few photos for a little old lady standing next to me and enjoy her delighted gratitude, possibly the best part of the day.

Where Have All the Young Girls Gone

A few weeks ago, I found myself in an amusing situation.  Larry, a good friend, and I were all at a Theology of Tap.  Larry and the friend got into a debate about a topic that Larry and I have covered countless times over the past years.  I have argued with Larry and this friend (separately) often enough that I knew all their arguments and counterarguments, as well as their style of arguing -- what each tone, hand gesture, facial expression, and phrase meant.  So I saw the exact moment when they hit an impasse and started to argue in circles.

The frustrating problem with following the debate on a subjects such as Right to Life issues and feminism is that most people have reached that point.  Politicians and activists reach it in different places, and different activists reach it in different places, but most people seek new audiences, rather than new debates.  (Which is a fine strategy: one of our greatest social problems is indifference and new people need to hear our messages.)

With the introduction of legislation regard sex-selective abortion, there was a chance to spark new debate and raise a host of problems often unseen.  I am ashamed to admit that, while I knew about the proposed legislation banning sex-selective abortion, I did not really follow the debate.  Then I read this commentary in the Post, which hurt both my feminist and my pro-life heart.  Kaur's main point is that both sides failed to address the real problems related to sex-selective abortion because they were each so deeply entrenched in their pro-life/pro-abortion agendas.

We should do better than that.  Whether or not abortion should be legal, the fact is that where baby girls are aborted because they are not male, something is very wrong.  This issue should unite across the aisle because it isn't so much about whether or not abortion should be legal as it is about how we value human people.  Devaluing baby girls means devaluing grown women.  Devaluing grown women means devaluing all people.  In rhetoric, both parties and both agendas claim to value human persons.  If Kaur is right, the debate has reached a point where human persons are forgotten.

Call to Action

A "friend" posted this article on Facebook, and since it's about Obama and Catholicism, how could I not click?  (Also, being from the Washington Post, I felt it could not be completely ridiculous.)

Michael Gerdon summarizes recent actions of the Obama administration that he calls its "War on Catholicism."  Perhaps it seems extreme, but he's alluding to a quote from Sebelius.  His case rests on two main incidents: 1) the decision to cut funding to a Catholic Charities program that helps victim of human trafficking and 2) a policy mandating the coverage of birth control in insurance policies, including those of Catholic institutions that are not "churches."

(Side Note:  It amused me a little that Gerdon thinks "Catholics were reassured" by Obama's rhetorical at Notre Dame.  It did not reassure those who were upset about his invitation.)

I'm sure you can imagine my internal rant about HHS's decision to stop funding a program that has been proven effective at helping trafficking victims, simply because they don't refer for abortions.  (If you can't imagine it begins: "I'm sorry, are you saying that abortion is the solution to human trafficking?")  So I won't subject you to that.

I hope for policy changes because, as Gerdon states, the victims of these policies are not the bishops: they are the poor and vulnerable about whom (*gasp!*) the Church cares.  More than that, I realize the importance of Catholics being involved in the political process to change them, because Obama and Sebelius won't on their own.

However, right now, policies are what they are and there is a distinct possibility that Catholic Charities won't get the grant back.  What happens then?  Does a lack of funding mean that Catholics stop caring for the poor and vulnerable?

Quite the opposite.  If Catholic charitable organizations aren't getting funding from the government, this serves as a wake-up call for Catholics in the pew.  We care about people: our next door-neighbors, our next world neighbors, and everyone in between.  So if the government doesn't fund effective aid organizations, we must.  (Not that we should stop giving if the government starts.  The wake-up call is to a duty that has always existed.)  It's something politically conservative Catholics have been saying for a while: It is not the government's job to love our neighbor.  It's ours.

The Death Penalty and Excommunication

A few weeks ago, when I posted about the death penalty, a friend sent me this article.  The author draws a parallel between the death penalty and abortion, and concludes that if a politician can be denied communion for supporting abortion, shouldn't the same apply to politicians (or Supreme Court justices) who uphold the death penalty?

The short answer is no.  In brief, the Church teaches that some actions are always wrong: intrinsically evil.  These actions cannot ever be morally justified.  Period.  Other actions are made wrong because of surrounding circumstances, either internal or external to the actor.

Example: Adultery is always wrong.  Period.  Marital sexual relations can be wrong (think of spousal rape), but are not so by nature.

According to the Church, abortion is always wrong.  Period.  Therefore, supporting it in a public and effective way separates you from the Church; a politician who does so excommunicates him/herself.  Because a state has the duty to protect its citizens, sometimes the death penalty is permissible.  (The Church's position against it comes from modern circumstances, which render it unnecessary.)  Thus a politician is not supporting an intrinsic evil, but rather going against the prudential judgement of the Church.  And therefore not excommunicating him/herself.

The US bishops released a statement to this effect during the 2004 campaign, according to my Christian Moral Principles professor.  If I can track down the document, I'll share.

Misunderstandings

Being pro-life to me means a consistent ethic of life.  When I hear rhetoric about "the sanctity of life from conception to natural death," I take it at face-value.  All life is valuable and no human being has the right to take that life away.  I admit tough cases: self-defense or the protection of others/society.  However, the death penalty, in most cases in modern America, falls very clearly on one side of this line.  It is no longer about self-defense or defense of society, but rather about retribution, couched in language of "justice."

Hopefully, I don't need to point out the ways in which this pastor is wrong.  Asher shared this article with me a few weeks ago; give it a read-through.  A Southern Baptist seminary president makes the case that the death penalty supports the sanctity of life.  Why?  Because it affirms the value of life.  The article does not make clear in its quote exactly how Albert Mohler supports this claim by any logic, probably because no valid logic really can support his position.

Let me be clear: when we decide as a society that we can kill someone who has committed a crime, we act from revenge and retribution, not justice or self-defense.  And most assuredly not from a desire to affirm the sanctity of all life.

Separating the Men from the Boys

I posted this article on Facebook Sunday to complete an earlier conversation.  It generated a lot of conversation, so apparently it has more value than simply inspiring a feminist rant.  I use the term "value" loosely -- it inspires conversation, not just Beth-rants, which are a dime a dozen.

So first, read here: "Do Men Think Smart Girls Are Unattractive?"  It has a provocative title and is a quick, easy read.

I've heard praise and critique for various parts of the article but here is the Cliffs-Notes version:
1) It should be satire.  (Thanks, Julia!  I agree!)
2) Some men are intimidated by the challenge to a better self that smart girls pose.
3) While some smart women want to be full-time mothers, even conservative women get upset at his overarching generalizations.
4) Buono doesn't even answer his own question.  (Read carefully.  It's true.)
5) General expressions of overall disgust and fury.

It's easy to see where Buono starts to go wrong: the title. Men shouldn't be pursuing smart girls. That makes them pedophiles. They should be pursuing smart women.  Let's start by setting the genders on equal footing.  You are men.  We are women.  If you are boys and we are girls, we need to start by talking about how to grow up.

He then shifts the question.  It's no longer about "smart girls." The problem isn't intelligence.  It's that women are successful, driven, and pursuing a career, which Buono assumes happens because they can't find a man who's grown up and decide it's the next best option.  But really, they are only "career single women" because they have "no incentive to be otherwise."  Not, heaven forbid, because she actually likes engineering or public relations or teaching or computer programming.

He does have a few good lines.  I've had a small sampling of masculine support for his claim that smart women intimidate men with the challenge of what they could be.  And it is true that "a woman will give the world to a man she knows loves her, respects her, and accepts her for who she is."  But sometimes a part of that love, respect, and acceptance is realizing that she really is a person with passions and pursuits outside her family in the public realm.

On the flip side, as a classmate pointed out, women need to stop effacing themselves in pursuit of men.  I think women face a voice whispering to them: "You're not good enough."  (I don't know if men encounter the same problem.)  When we don't believe that our best is good enough, it's hard to put forth our best.  It will fail and the backlash will hurt.  So we hide ourselves and offer only little pieces shaped into what we believe society wants.  (That's a drastic picture; it happens on small levels.)  It's scary how subtle and pervasive these influences are.  Even smart, confident women hear them and react.

Okay -- end rant.  Please comment!  Disagree, correct, clarify, and especially enlighten me!  I only have the experience of myself and a few others to go on -- and the world is bigger!

Likewise You Wives

Sunday evening marked the commencement of a graduate Theology of the Body group.  There, I rediscovered the fact that as a Catholic feminist, I exist sometimes in an odd sort of tension.  After all, my God chose to portray Himself as Father, to become incarnate as Son, to pass on His authority in 12 men, in place of the kings of old.  In a way, this pattern has probably done me some good: keeping me from becoming a man-hating feminist.  After all, how can you had the group to which your Savior belongs?

Some things are harder for me than others.  I've gotten over the male hierarchy thing.  But when it comes to certain parts of the Bible... "Likewise,  you wives, be submissive to your husbands" (1 Peter 3:1).  Similar lines appear in other places in the Epistles.  I live my life most of the time blissfully ignoring these passages.  But I don't exactly get to pick and choose and events like a TOB group bring gender roles to the forefront.  I'm not so good at submission -- if you know me, I hope you are laughing now.  Submission to God -- sure that makes sense.  Submission to a valid and respected authority who has reason to be above me -- I'll do that.  Submission to a potential future husband -- problematic.  

I've heard a few explanations of this passage, most of which either explain why the passage is temporally specific and therefore ignorable now (problem!) or why women should submit (another problem!).  So when I found this article, I expected to be underwhelmed.  Instead, I found the sentiment behind it vaguely attractive and worthy of more thought.  As I learn more about Biblical interpretation, I'm not convinced of this article as sound interpretation.  More prayer and research are needed before I fully ascribe to this way of resolving the difficult passage, but it makes for an interesting start.  

Elect Jesus For President

They had signs all over the town of Hurley, VA suggesting just that. I really wanted one of those purple signs, but alas, I never got one.

However, my mom shared this comic with me. It needs no commentary : enjoy!

Feminist Leanings

If I haven't said it enough on here, or out loud in frustration, exasperation, or excitement, here it is again: I am seeking what it means to be a true feminist. And how to balance feminism and Catholicism, two interrelated aspects of myself. This search takes up space in the back part of my mind almost constantly and on some occasions rises to the surface.

Yesterday, my mother saved a newspaper article for me about the rise of a new feminism. The headline reads, "Evangelical women create their own brand of feminism." (The online version has about 3 different headlines, none of which are quite the same as the print one.) It's a trend I noticed two summers ago during my internship with SFLA. Women bringing their femininity to the forefront as they rise to power on the Republican side of the aisle. I went to an event on Capitol Hill hosted by Concerned Women for America, one of the groups mentioned in the article. (We were subsequently evacuated from the Capitol building.)

According to Miller, this new branch of feminism combats the traditional left-leaning of feminism by presenting strong women with strong right-wing tendencies. These women also see traditional "family values" (specifically marriage and motherhood) as a source of strength. I love that women are complicating narrow notions of feminism, especially the idea that a feminist is pro-choice; I want to be, to use Miller's phrase, a "pro-life butt-kicker."

However, this new brand of feminism does not satisfy me. Apart from the obvious problem that I do not subscribe to many conservative ideals, I have fairly significant issues with other aspects of the movement that Miller describes. Michele Bachmann, the example of the new feminist, "credits her professional success to the submission of her will to Jesus and her husband." The new feminist is "a Christian wife and mother, above all." Marriage and motherhood are beautiful, valuable, and important vocations. But attaching supreme value to them excludes many women called to other vocations. Some women are single or have no children for now; others are single and have no children as more permanent state of life. They too belong under the umbrella of feminism.

So I thank Bachmann and Palin for their contribution to the discussion surrounding feminism. I'm glad they've come to the table and posed questions and challenges. They just haven't given the answers for which I am searching.

Americanism

A few weeks ago, I posted on "Patriotism from the Pulpit," sharing a Busted Halo article. A friend commented on the question of placing flags in spaces of worship (specifically, next to the altar at the front of the church. He commented:

...[I]t might exclude non-theists from America. We hear so often that one has to be religious to be a good american. Your own article holds up as an example an organization founded on the idea that "being Catholic could make you a better American." Then vice president Bush took it a step farther when he said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." It seems to me that all the symbolic associations between the country and the christian god contribute to that kind of prejudice. Do you have any thoughts on that?

If you haven't read the article, I'd recommend doing just that to hear the original line of thought. Here are some of my thoughts on this, organized as best as I can.

Before one can answer the question, "Does being Catholic [or Christian, monotheistic, religious, etc] make you a better American?", one has to answer the question, "What does it mean to be a good American?" This question of course can cause endless debate and I am fairly certain that no two people would answer it the same way. However, for a working definition I propose:

Being a good American means having a loyalty to and a love of the United States. It means having the common good of the nation as a priority (although not necessarily the top priority). It means a commitment to serve and preserve our nation while striving to make it a better place for all.

That statement contains a lot of vague language, but I think it will suffice for my discussion. Also, for clarity of language, I am going to use the term "patriot" to refer to a "good American" from here on out, mostly because I don't want to imply that only people in the US are Americans -- there's more to these two continents than our nation.

Now that all that is out of the way... Does being a Catholic make someone a better patriot? Can an atheist be a patriot? In my own life, being a Catholic has had two effects on me that might have an impact on my patriotism. First, being Catholic means I strive to be a better person. It is what keeps me honest, makes me work hard, motivates me to care for others, and in general is responsible for the "good" things about me. These qualities, I believe, make me a better patriot.

Second, and in my mind more important, being a Catholic gives me a sense of the importance of the common good. As a Catholic, I am a member of a universal Church, who stresses the unity of all her members. I know that my good and my neighbor's good are bound together and that I am, in a mysterious but real way, one with others. This idea makes me predisposed to see other people as part of a "we" rather than a "they." Thus, seeking the common good of the nation makes sense to me. As does improving my country -- because whatever my country does affects not only my life but my conscience.

[N.B.: These are ideals to which I strive and where my faith leads me. I do all of this very imperfectly.]

So. Along these lines of logic, being a Catholic does make me a better patriot. Those two ideas are intrinsic to Catholicism, so in this way, being a Catholic should make one a patriot. I can't speak for other religions, since I don't know any well enough.

Now for the second part of the question: Can an atheist be a patriot? According to my working definition of a patriot, the two are in no way, shape, or form mutually exclusive. I pose this question: Can an atheist seek the common good as a priority and seek to effect real, positive change in his country? I see no reason why not. As long as a person can conceptualize the good of others and seek it as a good, I see nothing to prevent that person from being a patriot. As long as a person can find reason to serve and improve the fellow human beings who occupy this nation, it doesn't matter if that person believes in God.

One final question: Does being a patriot make someone more "American," any more a citizen of this nation? Does failing to be a patriot make someone less of a citizen?

New Forest Earth

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the young man who started this non-profit : http://newforestearth.org/. He works with communities in rain-forests to develop sustainable businesses. Which is to say, businesses that sustain the community and the rain-forest at the same time. I made that last bit italics, because I get so excited every time I say it and I wanted that to come out in the font. Too often in our society we place two good objectives in opposition to each other, and New Forest Earth refuses to do that. I know it is a small scale, but it brings me so much joy to find people who promote the environment and people's livelihoods and don't see the two in mutual opposition, even in an immediate sense. Maybe I just spend too much time with political extremists.

Also contributing to my enjoyment of New Forest Earth : the products. Jewelry, chocolate, and journals. What else do I need in life? (At least in a material sense.)

What Does It Mean...?

Sometimes, when I am in the mood to be active and when it is nice outside, I take a walk. Sometimes, I go out to the historic part of town and just walk. Shortly after the return from Pennsylvania and Ohio, I took a walk alone with my thoughts. I had barely been walking for five minutes when a person started to keep pace with me. He turned to me and said, "Excuse me. I am doing research for a class and I was wondering if I could ask you some questions."

Having been a sociology major, and done my fair share of clandestine and open observation, I agreed. We continued to walk down the street as he explained that he was in an Eastern Asia studies class and needed to practice field research. He asked me to recall my past 24 hours, using as many action verbs as possible, so I got to tell the story of the epic road trip home. Then he asked a couple questions: 1) What does it mean to me to be American? and 2) As speculation, what would it mean to be Japanese American?

If you have been reading a while, you may have seen my meditations on patriotism. In any other conversation, I would have commented that I don't feel a strong identity as an American and that, more or less, I dislike the mainstream ideas associated with "American" : obnoxious cultural elitism, "freedom" in an absence of truth, a sense of entitlement, consumerist values. (Okay, that is the cynical approach to what it means to be "American." Newsflash -- I'm cynical.)

I didn't want to tell a perfect stranger that I don't like being American. If there is anything more smugly superior than my idea of an "American," it is a person who is smugly superior to "Americans." So, standing in city where our country was born, I considered the question seriously. As much as I dislike the left's and right's manner of hijacking my national identity, I am American. It is a huge part of my identity, so huge that most of the time, I don't see how much of me it affects. But it's there, because I have lived my entire life in America, in an American family, attending (public) American schools, watching the American political system. So I thought.

I told the student that to me, being American meant having certain rights and freedoms. But with those freedoms, I have certain responsibilities. So being American means that I have all the freedoms our founding fathers gained for us. But American isn't perfect, so I have the responsibility as well to effect change in our society. The founding fathers secured for us all these rights and freedoms not in order to create the perfect government, but in order that future generations might have recourse against a government which they knew would be imperfect. In the back of my mind, I was thinking of G.K. Chesterton. I've only read one of his books (he's on my list, but JPII is taking a long time right now!), but one part struck me: being patriotic, he explained, is not unconditional support for anything your country does, but rather caring enough about your country to want to correct its flaws.

As for what it meant to be Japanese American, I offered a few speculations, that were really nothing more than speculations. He then asked what I thought it would mean to be Japanese in Japan. Again, nothing more than speculations, in light of different history, culture, and value systems. We chatted and walked back down the streets, until we reached a parting place.

What the World Saw

If you were in Washington, DC a week ago this afternoon, you saw hundreds of thousands of people, of different ages, religions, and political views coming together from across the nation with one common factor : they recognize abortion as murder and want that murder to be legal no more. The crowd flooded the Mall, traveled together through the streets of the capital, and slowly dispersed in after pausing in front of the Supreme Court building. It was full of an energy and vibrancy created by a group of people who are finding mutual hope and encouragement in one another.

If you were not in Washington, DC a week ago this afternoon, you might not have even realized that the March for Life was happening. Or happened. As usual, it made barely a blip in the news media. As usual, those blips gave their readership no idea as to the size of the event. NPR, for example, gave it a brief shout-out -- before it really even happened. The Washington Post, our good hometown paper, made it out to be a religious and political event, interesting Catholics and conservatives. And while many people there had religious and/or political motivations (including your faithful writer, on the religious side), to take that view narrows the meaning and the strength of the pro-life movement. Not all pro-life people are Catholic -- the president of the College's Students for Life group, for example. Not all pro-life people are conservative -- myself, for example.

By far the most frustrating angle I found came from this photoblog on MSNBC, which demeans the March in so many ways that I can't articulate them -- my words get messed up as they all try to come out at once. None of these pictures capture the essence of the March for Life... until you get to the last one. A young man, staring at the Supreme Court building, silently. His sunglasses reflect a police officer on the steps of the building. The word "LIFE," written on red duct tape, covers his mouth. He is standing in solemn witness for the unborn, silently accusing our nation of the wrongs it has done.

If you find a Catholic or a pro-life news source, it will provide more comprehensive coverage of the March for Life. But most of the world sees through the eyes of NPR, the Washington Post, MSNBC, or similar sources of news. We shouldn't be surprised then, when people catch a glimpse of the true pro-life world and are surprised.

On God and Politics

Once again, I share with you my admiration of Stephen Colbert. I really appreciate how much he gets spot-on about Christianity and the way his satire allows him to get away with it. However, as one of my friends pointed out, those issues that separate the Democratic party from the ministry of Jesus are, well, rather important. And, of course, political action must go hand-in-hand with a life-style that reflects the same values, something none of us do perfectly.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog March to Keep Fear Alive

Incremental Steps

"Even this narrow exception of condom use, however, is an acknowledgment by the pope that the journey to holiness is usually a long-term process...[I]ncremental steps, which may or may not withstand moral scrutiny on their own, can reflect long-term moral growth in the context of a greater path to holiness." ~John Mattras, of Busted Halo (my emphasis)

Pope Benedict XVI's comments on condoms and AIDS have been all over the news, overshadowing anything else he spoke about in his recently released interview-book. Here is the official news from the Vatican on that book. If you've been anywhere near the internet for the past three or four days, you have heard the uproar from all sorts of people in all sorts of forums. The Busted Halo article on the subject talks about gradations of morality -- that some sins are graver than others -- which stays in line with Catholic teachings. If you want a more official perspective, the Vatican clarified what the Pope meant. And did it again, in a shorter form, if you don't have much of an attention span.

From what I understand, nothing the Pope said is horribly revolutionary, though it certainly is a new addition to the conversation about AIDS. As I commented yesterday, society likes to lose track of what things are. A condom is not objectively evil. A condom is a thing. Things in and of themselves have no moral weight. The way in which something is used has moral weight. Now the Pope distinguishes between manners of using things and surprises everyone, because even most Catholics have come to think that condoms are evil.