Inequality and the Death Penalty

In recent weeks, there have been two high-profile murder cases brought to trial, Jodi Arias and Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell, after a plea deal, has been sentenced to life without parole. Arias will likely be seeing the death penalty. What does that say about the American judicial system?

 

Kill one man brutally in one state and you're sentenced to die. Kill three newborns and lead to the death of a woman through gross negligence in another state and you're sentenced to life without parole. Does this seem right? Is this a fair and equal application of law that will ultimately lead to the perpetrator's death?

 

Disclaimer: I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds. Murder is murder, even if it's committed by the state, and murder is always wrong.

 

 

Now that I've gotten that off of my chest, there are some major inequalities in the implementation of the death penalty in this country.

 

For example:

 

• Only 50% of murder victims are white, but over 75% of the murder victims in cases in which the murderer was executed were white.

 

• 42% of the people on death row are black, but blacks only make up 13% of the general population of the US.

 

• If you murder someone in the southern or the western US, your chances of the death penalty is higher than if you lived up north or in the east. 

 

 

Justice isn't blind. It isn't blind at all. The death penalty targets blacks and it targets the poor. Even if you don't agree with me that the entire concept is immoral, you must agree that the system needs a radical overhaul. The poor need the legal counsel they deserve. There are people on death row due to ineffective defense counsel. Racism needs to get out of the courtroom.

 

 

 

 

For more information:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

 

Praying Through, Not To, Mary

Praying mantis praying through, not to, Mary. I didn't know they were Catholic.

This is one area that Catholic and non-Catholics get tripped up on all of the time. What is it with Catholics and Mary?

The most realistic picture of Mary I've ever found

Mary is the mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I think that all Christians can agree with that. Mary carried Jesus in her womb, gave birth to Him, raised Him and was one of His closest followers. I would hope that all of that is pretty straight-forward.

Catholics have a thing about saints. We have a ton of them.

I mean, a ton of them.

 

 

Like, a whole lot of them.

Nobody has bothered counting them, there are so many. Best estimates are somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000. And being canonized doesn't mean that you then get to go to heaven. It means that the Catholic Church recognizes by your life, works, and miracles in your name that you are already there. We know there are more saints than are formally recognized by the Church.

Now, I start by talking about the saints because Mary is a saint. She is considered to be the highest and most perfect of the saints, but she's still a saint. Now, what makes her so much better than the other saints?

First of all, there must've been something about her that made God choose her to bear His Son. Catholics believe that Mary was born without the stain of original sin. Original sin is a stain that we all get from our first parents Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God in the garden. We believe that she must've been sinless because she carried God in her womb and God cannot co-exist with sin.

Then we observe human nature. All good kids honor their mothers, right? And Jesus must've been the best kid of all, right? So. we know Mary is in heaven and as the mother of God, we figure she's pretty close to the throne.

Through the centuries, the Church has held Mary up as a role model for all the faithful. We see her willingness to have Jesus (Luke 1:26-38). We hear about her pondering things in her heart (Luke 2:19). We wish we had the openness to Jesus that Mary had and the ability to ponder Jesus' deeds and sayings like she did.

Praying through a saint is like asking your best friend to pray for you. We figure these saints are in heaven and they can talk to God directly about our needs. Mary is considered the closest of the saints, so she is given the most respect and attention from the Church. That is the best summary of an answer that I can give.  

We call her the Queen of Heaven because that's what we figure she is.

 She did give birth to Jesus, after all.



Those Guys Must Be Drunk: Reflection for Pentecost Sunday

The first reading this Sunday is from the Acts of the Apostles. In my humble opinion, I think we cut it off too short. If we go a few more verses:

They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, “What does this mean?” But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.”

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words. These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning." -Acts 2:2-15

It's little details like this that makes the Bible human for me. I just imagine myself in the crowd at the Pentecost, hearing these guys from Galilee speaking in many different tongues. The first thing that would pop in my head would be, "Those guys must be drunk." And then I put myself in Peter's shoes and one of the first things I'd say in my own defense would be, "It's too early in the morning for any of us to be drunk."

Source

Other stories where the humanity of the people in the Bible shine through include:

• Pretty much any story featuring Peter. Our first Pope was very human, from offering to walk on water and failing, to promising not to deny Jesus, then doing it three times only hours later.
• Mary's response when finding Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:48). "What are you doing, son? Your father and I have been worried sick!"
• On a more serious note, Joseph's initial plans to dismiss Mary (Matthew 1:19). That would be a very normal response in that time period when your betrothed is found pregnant.

7 Quick Takes (#7) Warrior Momma Edition

--- 1 ---

There ain't nothing ugly about this picture. (Pardon the language though.)

Source: This awesome site called "How to be a dad"

--- 2 ---

 

This momma gave a part of her liver to her baby who couldn't wait any longer for a donor.

--- 3 ---

 

Women like Stacie Crimm, the mother of this little girl, who gave up cancer treatment for their unborn babies.



--- 4 ---

 

Of course, I'd need to mention the mothers who have scars across their guts and sometimes even deeper scars on their souls from births that went wrong. We've had a long, hard road to travel in recovering from our children's births. 

--- 5 --

 

A couple months ago, there was a tragedy in my neck of the woods. A man carjacked and kidnapped a mother and daughter. He tied up the mother and raped the daughter. The mother escaped and got the man's attention so the daughter could run away. The mother was murdered. The daughter is safe. The man is in prison, apparently having a hard time.

 

The mother clearly sacrificed herself for her child. She had the courage to sacrifice herself in such a horrendous situation so that her daughter could live. It's almost insulting to call her only a "warrior." She is clearly much more than that.

 

--- 6 ---

 

Doctors gave up this baby for dead, but this warrior momma gave her daughter skin to skin contact and within minutes her heart rate became normal and she was breathing on her own. All this mother wanted to do was to make sure "she didn't die being cold," but she ended up saving her life.

 



--- 7 ---

Source

 

And a talk about warrior mothers cannot be complete without birthmoms! These are the women who held on to their babies for 40 weeks, gave birth to them, and then gave them up for adoption. These women are no less mothers than the women who raised them. They did what all mothers have to do, sacrifice themselves for their babies.

 



For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Communion Hosts Dispensers?

Since 2007, there have been these nifty things on the market called Communion Host Dispensers.

These Jesus PEZ dispensers are in use in 375,000 churches, at least one of which is Catholic. So, this makes me wonder, what would the Vatican say about such things?

Please wait as your local theology student researches answer (source)

After a couple of hours of looking through everything I have, I see nothing that explicitly says that communion has to be given by hand or that it cannot be given by a dispenser like those above. This is possibly due to the fact that in some Catholic Churches of other rites, it is not given by hand.

Like so.

Next question: Why does this go against our sensibilities then? Why are we so completely bugged by a Jesus PEZ?

Not this.

The first thought I have is directly related to the phrase "Jesus PEZ." It's disrespectful to take communion the same way we take candy. Communion is unlike anything else we eat and it shouldn't be consumed in an ordinary way.

These dispensers are silver and gold, though. And isn't it important to take communion in the right frame of mind? Can't it be reverent regardless of the trappings?

The old-school definition of sacrament is: an outward sign of an inward grace. So the outer trappings really do matter.

Being in the right frame of mind is all well and good, but the appropriateness of your behavior counts. Behavior makes a difference. Take for example smiling: If you smile even when you're depressed, it will make you feel better. Act reverently, even if you're not particularly feeling it, and you'll start to feel it. But act irreverently and, even if you do feel reverent, the feeling will go away.

So, what about this makes Catholics make this face?

 

Simply put, we take actions and outer trappings very seriously, especially when it comes to our Sacraments. The inner life affects the outer actions. The outer actions certainly affect the inner disposition.

 

 

It might sound shallow to you, but that doesn't make it less true.

How God Sees Us

My son and I are visiting family right now and this weekend my husband joined us. Off and on all weekend, I'd look over at my husband holding our son and I'd wonder at how absolutely beautiful they are to me.

I wish I knew how to draw. I wish they could both see themselves the way that I do.

And at Mass, it made me think about how God sees us.

Not like this. (Source)

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.-John 3:16

Yeah, I know, it's repeated so much it's cliché. But maybe it's repeated so much because it's true. And maybe it's repeated so much because we need to hear it. And, just maybe, we could stop repeating it if we would all just finally believe it.

God is Love. God loves us more than we could possibly imagine. God created us simply because He loves us. God experienced suffering and death for us. He gave us free-will to love Him back, because it's not really love unless it's given freely.

Can you imagine how beautiful we must be to Him?


Me neither.

 

 

 

The following is a 3 minute video that made the rounds on Facebook a while back. In it, a sketch artist draws women based on how they describe themselves and on how they describe each other. It is discovered that the women described one another much more favorably than they described themselves. So, if we are that attractive to each other when we don't even know each other, how attractive must we be to God?

 

Pro-Life Feminist's Response to Gosnell Verdict

“Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty and will get what he deserves. Now, let's make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care.” -Ilyse G. Hogue, president, NARAL Pro-Choice America

Full statement from Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on the conviction of Kermit Gosnell:

“Justice was served to Kermit Gosnell today and he will pay the price for the atrocities he committed. We hope that the lessons of the trial do not fade with the verdict. Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.

“From the lack of funding available for low-income women to access abortion services, to the sharp decline of reputable providers in Pennsylvania, to the gross negligence of authorities to enforce the law after complaints were filed against Gosnell, each aspect of this case must be a teachable moment for lawmakers: until we reject the politicization of women's medical care and leave these decisions where they belong — between a woman and her family and her doctor — women will never be safe. The horrifying story of Kermit Gosnell is a peek into the world before Roe v. Wade made legal a woman's right to make her own choices.

“NARAL Pro-Choice America's annual Who Decides? publication has given Pennsylvania an ‘F’ grade precisely because it has passed medically unnecessary laws that restrict access to safe and legal abortion care. It is my sincere hope that the women in Gosnell's clinic did not suffer in vain and that Pennsylvania, and every state, will step up and join us in making the protection of women’s ability to get, safe, high quality, and legal abortion care a top priority.” - Taken from NARAL website

Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty in 237 of the charges brought against him, including 3 counts of first degree murder in the deaths of three newborns and involuntary manslaughter in the case of a woman killed by an overdose of anesthesia. Worse case scenario, he's facing the death penalty. Best case scenario, three life-time sentences. He is in his seventies so, either way, he will not be seeing the light of day ever again.

NARAL is taking the opportunity to decry the fact that these impoverished women could not have access to safe, legal abortion. Pro-lifers are hoping that this ruling marks a change in prevailing attitudes about abortion. I would like to take the opportunity to decry another set of circumstances.

The poverty rate in Philadelphia is 25.1. It has the highest rate of deep poverty of all of the top 10 most populous cities in the US. Women are more likely to live in poverty than men. The poverty rate for families with children is over 30 percent. That means one in three families with children in Philadelphia are impoverished. Half of all families led by women are in poverty. Very many women in Philadelphia live at, or below, or profoundly below the poverty line.

Abortion isn't going to help these women out of poverty. More educational opportunities, more jobs, more financial help will get these women out of poverty. Abortion is just fixing the immediate "problem" without really ending the cycle of poverty. These women don't need to end their pregnancies, they need a roof over their head and food to eat.

I hope that the Gosnell case can teach us that. Forget better access to abortion. That's just a Band-Aid on the gaping wound of deep poverty. These women should never have to chose between a job and a child, between an education and a child, between feeding herself and keeping a roof over her own head and a child.