Only 2% of the Nation Responsible for the Majority of Our Death Penalty

Earlier this week, the Death Penalty Information Center released a report. They found that 2% of the counties in the United States account for over half of all people on death row and/or executed since 1976. Moreover, they discovered that only 20% of the counties in the United States account for all of the prisoners currently on death row.

The aggressive use of the death penalty by a few counties costs us all money.

When the total costs of the death penalty are divided by the number of executions carried out in a state, the amount can be $30 million per execution. (Source)

This $30 million comes out of our taxes.

Now, before people start in arguing "Well, it would be cheaper to put a bullet in the head" let me share this with you:

• The vast majority of that $30 million is not to pay for the method of execution. It is for the 15 years or more of appeals.

So, you say, "Then let's get rid of the appeals." I say:

• Since 1973, 140 people have been exonerated from death row. That means they were initially found guilty, but through appeals it was found that they were not guilty at all. So, without the appeals, there would be at least 140 innocent people dead. 

Of all the counties in the United States, 85% of all counties have not executed anyone in over 45 years. But in many of those counties, they are still paying for their neighbors who use the death penalty frequently. If you want to know what counties we're talking about:

This map depresses me. As you can see, St. Louis County and St. Louis City both are in the top 15.

For more information, check out the report yourself at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/twopercent

Three Lessons From A Conversation With A Pro-Choice Feminist

Brought on by my latest post on Ignitum Today, I've been engaging in an enlightening discussion with a pro-choice feminist. I want to share with you some of my observations:

1) Pro-lifers need to do a better job at showing that we are for all life, not just the unborn.

One of the first things that the pro-choice feminist threw at me was the stereotype that "Pro-lifers only care about the unborn." We know that your average pro-life activist working at the grassroots level cares about all children. They donate to or volunteer for crisis pregnancy centers to assist women and children with their practical everyday needs. They start homes for pregnant women, like Joseph's House that is being started soon in my town. 

Yes, for those of us who are religious, our right hand is not supposed to know what our left is doing (Matthew 6:3), but we're only giving fodder to pro-choice attacks. We need to do a better job at showing that we are for all life. We need to put our money where our mouth is.

Source, This site has other cool pics.

Our so-called "pro-life" politicians need to show that they understand that women and children need support (in whatever way they feel comfortable providing that support). Politicians need to realize that being against abortion is not enough to earn the title of being "pro-life."    

2) Conservatives and liberals need to talk to each other instead of demonizing one another. Eventually, she and I both agreed that pro-life and pro-choice people care about the poor and people who are already born. I tried to explain to her one of the main differences I've observed between conservatives and liberals: That conservatives want the social safety net to be local and charity based, while liberals are more comfortable with more government intervention. No one wants to kick the poor out on the streets and no one wants anyone to go hungry.

Liberals and conservatives both need to be willing to talk constructively about their differences. The polarization in our culture needs to stop. We aren't getting anything done and we will ultimately tear ourselves to shreds. Instead of staying in our little corners, we need to talk to each other. 

When we talk to each other, we can work on the the issues we agree on and we can learn from one another. Refusing to talk to one another is simply a sign of being insecure in our own beliefs. It's a sign of anger and hatred. Be a sign of love today: talk to someone who is across the aisle from you.

3) It all boils down to the existential questions of: When does life begin? What is a human? That's where the real argument is. We can go around in circles all day with protest slogans and signs, but in the end, this is the question that matters. When we are debating abortion, we are debating the meaning of being human.

This is a question that everyone, regardless of your opinion on abortion, needs to ask yourself. And keep asking yourself. It's not a question you can answer and then walk away, you need to analyze your answer. Is this really the right answer? Is this universally true? Human lives are at stake both inside and outside the womb. 

Often our answers to what constitutes life inside the womb as implications for those already born as well. For example, let's say you come to the conclusion that life starts when the brain becomes active, what does that mean for our definition of "brain death"?

Science can be used to come to the answer, but science cannot provide the answer. Religion can be used to come to the answer, but religion cannot provide the answer. I think if we could all put down our rhetoric and bickering, we could get somewhere by limiting ourselves to the question at hand: What is a human? 

Source.

Yelling at each other is getting us no where. We are more mature than that. Let's all act like it. 

Hug a conservative/liberal/whatever-you-disagree-with today 

Keeping an Alzheimer's Patient Alive?

In Canada right now there is a court case in which a family is suing a nursing home for spoon-feeding their loved one.

Her advanced directives say that she does not want to be fed if she becomes incapacitated. She worked as a nurse and she's seen people die from Alzheimer's. She was abundantly clear with her loved ones that she did not want to die like that.

But the feeding isn't being forced upon her. She's opening her own mouth and swallowing the food. Although her family argues that it's just a reflex, I say that's irrelevant. The important thing is she is doing it, so on some level she's feeling hunger and she's eating.

They say she's in a so-called "vegetative" state. She has to be transferred using a lift. She spends her day in bed or in her wheelchair. Eating is likely one of the only things she can do anymore. And again, that is also irrelevant. Euthanasia is always wrong.

I think my opinion in the case is pretty clear, but this is where it gets murky. The nursing home has threatened to call the police if her family tries to take her out. They have refused to transfer her to a hospice. I think the nursing home is overstepping it's bounds in those respects.

Source

No, she should not be denied food that she is eating on her own, but that does need to be balanced with the family's rights. The family is wrong in insisting that she starve to death. The nursing home is wrong in not letting the family move her. Yes, she needs to be protected from abuse. But, it's still her family.

I've seen people die from Alzheimer's as well. It is not a pretty way to go, but no way is pretty. As Dr. House said (Edited for language):

"Our bodies break down, sometimes when we're 90, sometimes before we're even born, but it always happens and there's never any dignity in it. I don't care if you can walk, see, wipe your own [butt]. It's always ugly. Always. You can live with dignity, we can't die with it."

This case in part shows how advanced directives can be tricky. No one can account for every possible circumstance. Who knows, she might have been only referring to getting a feeding tube or hydration through an IV. Spoon-feeding is not unreasonable, especially if it's not forced. As one person noted on Free Republic, if spoon-feeding becomes optional, what next?

Also, how can we judge her quality of life? We don't know what it's like until/if we get into her shoes. Quality of life arguments have always bugged me. Only the person living the life can judge it's quality and, again, I question the relevancy of the question.

So, if quality of life, how conscious she is of eating and her disabilities are all irrelevant, what is relevant? She's a human being, for starters. Even from a secular perspective, the value of human life has always been seen as an absolute good that can only be taken away for an important, grave reason.

From my religious perspective, life is a mysterious gift that is not ours to take away. God formed us in our mothers' wombs (Psalm 139:13), and only God can take us Home. It's like that Bill Cosby quote, "You know, I brought you in this world, and I can take you out." Only God can do that.

No, no she can't.

The most important thing in this case is that this woman is a child of God. Everything else is secondary. Primarily, she needs to be protected. Secondarily, her family has rights as her legal guardians and I'm not sure if this nursing home has not overstepped their bounds a little bit in this case. I'll be awaiting the outcome of this case. It will be an important decision setting precedence for or against euthanasia in Canada.

Wrongful Birth, Wrongful Life, Pre-natal Testing and C-Sections

This story explains a lot.

My current homestate, New York, is one of many states which does not protect medical personnel from wrongful birth or wrongful life lawsuits.

A wrongful birth suit is when a family sues a medical professional because their child was born with some kind of illness or disability that if caught before birth would have resulted in an abortion.

A wrongful life suit is when an individual sues a medical professional because they feel they should never have been born.

Borrowed from one of the most awesome blogs on the net. Who borrowed it from somebody called Saturn Stills at Sciencesource.com.

When I got pregnant with James, I was told about all of the pre-natal testing they could do. I refused to do them because a) we have no family history and b) most importantly, the test results would not changed anything, I would never have an abortion.  When I refused, I had to sign a waiver saying that I had been offered these tests, been informed of the pros and cons, and refused. Since I was in my twenties with no family history, the doctors didn't really attempt to persuade me either way. I wonder what will happen next time around since we aren't planning on trying to get pregnant again until I'm at least 30.

One of the biggest c-section myths out there and the one that hacks me off the most.

I also wonder if this mentality has something to do with the c-section rates. There are a number of factors in making c-section rates as high as they are. I know, however, in the case of myself and many other women who have unwanted c-sections, they are pressured into it by doctors. And one of the reasons for the pressure? The doctors are concerned that in the course of regular labor, something will go wrong. They are afraid something will go wrong and they'll be sued.

I addressed this topic specifically with my doctor since I knew it was an issue. I told her that I wouldn't sue her for something that is out of her control. Life and death are a mystery. Childbirth is more of an art than a science. Some things just cannot be predicted and controlled.

I can understanding suing someone when there has been gross negligence, but this "sue-happy" culture makes no sense. Someone doesn't have to pay every time something goes wrong. Pardon my language, but shit happens.

And suing the doctor involved in the birth of your child because the child has a disability is sending one message out loud and clear, "This child should not be alive. A handicapped life is not worth living. A disabled life is less valuable than the life of a 'healthy' person."

I can understand that those with special needs children need money to pay for their care, but you don't have to get it at the expense of the innocent doctor. There are many government and charitable organizations to reach out to for help. And if that isn't enough, be an activist for more aid.

Source.

People suing the medical personnel is only making things worse for all of us. It is creating the environment in which few people go into the OB profession because the insurance costs are too high. And people in the profession are scared. And women and children are subjected to unnecessary tests and interventions because the professionals are scared.

Not to mention the message this is sending to world about the value of human life.

The Dead Women of Juarez: A Review

I spent my weekend engrossed in this book. The Dead Women of Juarez is a fictional story about a very real ongoing tragedy in Juarez, Mexico.

At least 400 women and girls have been raped, tortured, and murdered in Juarez in the past 20 years. Hundreds more women are still missing and some locals estimate the real number of murders and disappearances to be in the thousands.

I participated in a demonstration about this when I was a freshman in college. I've talked about it a little before. It involved raw meat all over the quad. Aforementioned raw meat was supposed to be clean, white bones to symbolize these women being found in the desert as nothing but bleached bones.

I thought that this was old news, but apparently it is on-going. Efforts and attention are being diverted due to the growth of the drug cartels. But women are still being murdered.

Just a couple weeks ago, 12 people were arrested for their involvement in the murders of 11 young women who they had kidnapped, forced into prostitution and killed after they were "no longer of use." This has been a rare taste of justice as corruption and organized crime have made investigations and convictions nearly impossible.

And, as this article points out, international and political pressure by groups like Amnesty International have actually kind of backfired in this crisis. The police, being under pressure to solve these crimes, don't do a through job to make sure the right person is convicted. So, then we have two victims, the violated woman and the innocent man behind bars.

However, without international attention and political pressure, nothing would be done at all. The cultures of machismo and marianismo devalue the life of women, particularly if that woman works or attends school outside the home. Many of the victims were students and/or factory workers. Without the outside pressure, arguably, no one (but the victims' families) would care at all.

NY Times

Back to the book: It is a page-turner. It's also very thought-provoking and depressing. The conclusion is satisfying, but it will not wipe the crimes from your mind. There are drugs, sex, foul language and violence in the book, but those topics are all covered tastefully. Sam Hawken, the author, wrote this book to bring attention back to this horrendous crisis. It certainly opened my eyes and I hope it will open your eyes too.

Lumen Fidei #1: The Road to Nowhere

Here is the first installment in a series discussing Pope Francis' first encyclical, Lumen Fidei. Reading through it, there are many quotes that strike me and I want to share them with you all with a little explanation of why I like it.

Source

From #3: "Yet in the absence of light everything becomes confused; it is impossible to tell good from evil, or the road to our destination from other roads which take us in endless circles, going nowhere." 

The analogy I often use about my conversion to the Catholic Church is this:

At first I was angry at God for calling me into this church. What was a free-spirit like me doing in a Catholic Church? But I've come to realize that I'm like the raging waters. I need river banks, otherwise I'll go everywhere, not really getting anywhere.

As the title "Light of Faith" suggests, the light that the Pope is talking about in this passage is faith. Without faith, life becomes confused. Everything becomes relative and individualistic, so there is no right or wrong. And the road to our destination with God becomes lost in all of the other options in this world.

I'm not touching the middle point there about needing faith to know right from wrong. I'm a firm believer that you do not need to be religious to be moral. Morality was never a problem for me. I was pro-life, all life, long before I was a Christian.

However, without faith, I was dabbling in everything. I was changing religious views like I changed my clothes. I didn't really have any direction in life. I had no clue what I wanted to do. I had no community, no place to call home (other than the home with my parents, of course).

Source

As a Catholic, I have a structure and a community that is nearly 2000 years old. I have a wealth of information to read and digest, far more than I'll ever get to read in my lifetime. I can walk into a Catholic Church anywhere on the planet and be able to understand and participate in the Mass. I have a huge and diverse community to be a part of.

Sure, there are things that the Church teaches that I struggle with, just as there are things I completely embrace. Sure, I'm still looking for that close-knit community like I had at the Newman Center that seems to be sorely lacking in the 'real world.' But I view my initiation as a Catholic like a marriage. For better or worse, I'll be a Catholic until the day I die.

In December of 2004 I found the road to my destination. There will always be questions, there will always be doubts, there will be days when I'll almost regret my decision, but I'm always going to stay on my road.

Links to the rest of the series are here.

The Gas Chamber Returns

In other Life news: My homestate of Missouri is threatening to bring back the gas chamber since they can't get their hands on the three-drug cocktail for lethal injection and they have a court case pending on whether or not the one-drug injection is humane.

There's nothing humane about killing a human being.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2267    Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

In Ethics class, the professors explained it this way:

If we are in a village in the middle of nowhere and we have no way to keep the community safe from the aggressor, the death penalty is justified for the safety of the group. These circumstances are virtually non-existent in the industrialized world, so there is no reason for any industrialized nation to practice the death penalty.

I've had lots of discussions with people about the death penalty. Being a very active Catholic, many of my friends are politically conservative and have to justify some conservative ideas in light of their Catholic faith. They'll usually grant me that it's not a deterrent, that it costs more than keeping someone behind bars, and that it is not fairly applied in all cases. What they get stuck on is this: justice. Often, those facing the death penalty are convicted of murdering someone. My friends put themselves in the shoes of the victim's family. They know if someone in their family was killed, they'd want someone to pay.

There are a few ways for someone like me to approach this:

1. Ask them to put themselves in the murder's family's shoes. All that the death penalty will accomplish is the creation of two grieving families. It won't bring the victim back.

2. Ask them to consider the definition of the word "justice." The Catechism defines it as:

1807    Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”

They've already admitted that it is not fairly dealt out. And our judicial system isn't perfect. It's made of people, and any organization made of people is not going to be perfect. You cannot undo the execution of an innocent man.

The first part of this definition calls for the just person to respect the rights of each person. Many of my friends are against abortion; they hold that the most fundamental right is the right to life. As an unborn child has the right to life, so does everyone else.

Execution in China. China is one of only 3 countries that regularly execute more people than the US. The other three are: Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

3. A very good argument against the death penalty from a conservative perspective is this: it limits government. The death penalty is "an expression of the absolute power of the state." What gives the state the right to take life? The same people who are up in arms about death panels should be up in arms about the death penalty as well.

A fascinating article I found as I was researching for this post: http://americamagazine.org/issue/100/ten-reasons-oppose-death-penalty

One Child, Three Parents: What is Wrong with this Picture?

Scientists in the UK have found a way to make a child with three parents.

Yes, you read that correctly.

I wonder if this calls under Pope Paul VI's prophecies somewhere.

In any case, what is exactly wrong with this picture? Scientists have simply found a way for a woman who carries mitochondrial diseases to have a child who is biologically hers. We're only fixing a disease, right?

Source

Let's start at the beginning: We have here a child conceived via IVF. IVF has many serious moral and practical implications. First of all, the success rate is rather poor and it's really, really expensive.  It also creates a life at the expense of others. Life starts at conception, right? Well, more lives are being conceived during IVF than ever see the inside of the mother's womb. The main reason why the Church does not approve of IVF, however, is that it separates sex from procreation. It turns procreation into something that is done impersonally in a lab. To read more, I recommend an article by one of my fellow Ignitum Today columnists, Bernard Toutounji. 

Source

Problemo numero dos: A child's DNA is being messed with. A scholar interviewed by CNN in the original article points out: It crosses "the line that will eventually lead to a eugenic designer baby market." There are already ways for a woman to avoid passing her mitochondrial disease to her children in using a donated egg (see next problem below). The only thing this insures is that the child is genetically related to her. It is laudable to want to spare your child the pain of mitochondrial disease, but where do we draw the line? Let's say, someday scientist link being left-handed to a gene. Well, it's a right-hand world, so let's fix it. And my family needs more boys, so let's mess with the DNA to make sure I don't have any girls. And then we look at places like China with their one child policy and we see where this dystopia is heading. 

Egg donation: Directive 40:

Heterologous fertilization (that is, any technique used to achieve conception by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses) is prohibited because it is contrary to the covenant of marriage, the unity of the spouses, and the dignity proper to parents and the child.

It's a form of infidelity to use someone other than your spouse to have kids. It degrades the other person by using their gametes as a tool. It's degrading to the child who does not have the opportunity to be raised by their biological parent.

Sometimes it seems as if we forget that children are human beings. They are not commodities. They are not the property of their parents. No one has the right to have a child at all costs. Children are human beings. They are gifts from God made in His image with incalculable dignity. We have the responsibility to raise them, shelter them, feed them, and keep them free from diseases. Yes, it is our moral imperative to keep our child healthy, but not to the expense of others.

Censorship on Facebook

This doesn't get censored by facebook:

 

This does:

 

So apparently according to FB, you can objectify women. But if you celebrate a woman in childbirth, that's porn?

And FB calls this porn:

And I will not post the pictures but a very brief search led me to child pornography on Facebook.

As in what looks like under-aged people engaged in sex acts, not two kids artfully photographed in a tub.

THIS MAKES ME SICK!

(PS: I did report the pictures I found to both FB and the proper authorities. To FB's credit, the page was taken down within 5 minutes of my report.)

A World Without Health Insurance?

A South Portland doctor is joining a growing community of doctors who refuse to deal with the insurance companies any longer. He refuses all insurance, posting his prices for services online, and working with patients on an individual basis if they have a problem paying. He's lost some patients who are very dependent on their insurance to pay their bills, but most of his patients have been understanding.

In this world where health insurance is too often synonymous with healthcare, this is scary. People without insurance don't get care until it's too late. Those who do have insurance often have to weigh in the question, "what will my insurance cover and how much?" when making healthcare decisions. The Catholic Church holds that basic healthcare is a right. Not a privilege or a benefit, a right.

This question of insurance, however, brings into play a much misunderstood, ignored and abused Catholic concept called "subsidiarity." Catholics will often treat this concept as it supports or condemns their individual political views. What does it actually mean and how important is it?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about "subsidiarity":

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs." This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Basically, it means that problems are best handled by those closest to the problem. The government oversteps its bounds when it tries to micromanage. When it was originally introduced by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, it was meant as a middle ground between communism and unbridled capitalism.

The foundation of all Catholic thought is the inherent dignity of the human person. From that flows pretty much everything the Church teaches. So, as humanity is the most important of God's creation and all people are created, beloved, and redeemed by God, human organizations are supposed to work for the good of people, not for the almighty dollar or someone's ego.

What does this have to do with health insurance? Insurance companies and money have too much control over people's health. The most foundational right that a person has is the right to life. If they get subpar health care, that undermines their right to life.

As long as this doctor in South Portland and others like him are truly flexible with those who cannot pay, their decision to no longer take insurance is a laudable one. He has shown in the article how cutting out the middle man dropped the prices of some of his most basic services like simple routine office visits. If this is true and can be replicated without completely destroying our economy, maybe his decision should be imitated.

A Catholic social teaching equal to and intimately related to "subsidiarity" is "solidarity." We need to do what we can to help those in poverty. If taking insurance out of the equation ultimately leads to more poor people getting the help they need, I'm cool with it.

"Subsidiarity" was introduced as a middle way between two extremes, neither of which are truly in line with the dignity of the human person. I would also say that "subsidiarity" itself should not be taken to an extreme. We cannot completely eliminate the all of the bigger organizations or make them completely impotent because that could lead to chaos which also does not serve the good of humanity.

For more information, here is a very informative article on Catholic Culture.org.

Lawn Chair Catechism #2: Catholic Retention Rates

I'm a convert to Catholicism. I was one of 73,405 adult baptisms in 2005. I was raised believing in God, but never going to church. I had some bad experiences with a "Southern Baptist" when I was in middle school. After those experiences, I wanted nothing to do with the Christian God. I've been Buddhist and Wiccan. I converted to Catholicism my freshman year in college directly from Wicca.

I was always deeply interested in religion. I remember meditating in the backyard when I was still in elementary school, trying to become one with everything. I always knew there was a God, I never questioned that. I knew there was a God and He (or She) loved me and cared about me. I would characterize my entire religious journey as looking for that God.

I was initially introduced to the Christian God as a hateful and vengeful God. My maternal grandfather was convinced that anyone who was not a heterosexual, white person who went to his particular church in southwestern MO was going to hell. I sent him a letter when I converted to Catholicism. He's probably still praying for my soul.

When I went to college, I was really alone for the first time in my life. I knew no one. I was three hours away from my family. I had the opportunity to redefine myself. I decided to flirt with Christianity just to prove that what my grandfather did to me no longer had any power over me. I wore a cross just to see how it felt. I read the Bible. I visited several nearby churches.

My Conversion Story

I went to the Catholic Newman Center because I had to do a paper on a religion I had no prior exposure to. I was surrounded by Catholics in my dorm building. All of the new friends I was making were Catholic or ex-Catholic. When I went to my first Mass, I had a pretty intense conversion experience. I felt completely at home there even though I didn't understand what was going on.

I was angry with God for calling me into the Catholic Church. What was a free-spirit like me doing joining the Catholic Church? I went on a walk with one of my ex-Catholic friends. He listed all of the things that was wrong in the Church and all of the issues that he disagreed with. I most remember his arguments about the Church being against abortion and the death penalty. He supported both.

That made me stop in my steps. What do you mean the Catholic Church is against abortion and the death penalty? My whole life, all of my family and friends were either for one or the other or both. I was the only weirdo who was against both! And now I find out that this 2000-year-old organization agreed with me and no one had ever bothered to tell me!!!!

That is what started my conversion. I was in RCIA for about a year and a half because I was a non-Christian convert. I would have been in RCIA longer, but I got close to an old man in the parish and they wanted me to get baptized while he was still alive to see it.

 

Not my baptism because none of my pics exist in digital form

 

I was baptized by full-immersion in an old, converted horse trough at the Catholic Newman Center. It was a lot like the gentleman in the picture above, except mine was by a Catholic priest, of course. I was baptized as part of a Sunday Mass. Third Sunday of Advent to be precise, which that year fell on December 12th, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Why Do People Leave?

I cannot comment on my parish's retention rate since I have only been here for two years. I can, however, speak to my experience with former Catholics. Many of my friends are no longer active in the Church, although they used to be very active in our Newman Center.

 

While they all left for different reasons, there is one over-arching theme: We all got used to having a close church family in college. Our Newman Center was like our home away from home. Some of us even called the director "Mom." We did everything together. Many of us practically lived at the Center. Several of us even got our mail there.

 

Then we came out into the real world. I am yet to find a parish that is truly a family like our Newman Center was a family. True, we're all busy with our jobs and our biological families, but it would be nice to have a community again.

 

Many of my friends have left the Church because they don't feel at home here anymore. I can understand them completely. Before I was married, I did a lot of parish hopping in hopes of finding a close community again. 

 

Do you have any ideas about how to build community? I think that building a community would go a long ways toward getting our 20 and 30-somethings back. 

 

 



To read more reflections on Chapter One, head to Catholicmom.com. We're reading Forming Intentional Disciples by Sherry Weddell. It's a good book and it's never too late to join us!

10-Year-Old Needs Lung

In Philadelphia, there is a 10-year-old girl who has been waiting for 18 months for a lung due to some regulations in regards to the donor list. She will die soon if she does not get a transplant.

To quote the entire article (it isn't really long):

A Philadelphia-area family's fight over the rules that govern lung transplants is getting national attention.

Ten-year-old Sarah Murnaghan, of Newtown Square, is dying of cystic fibrosis at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

She needs a lung transplant to survive, but Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policies say children under age 12 should receive lungs from another child, not an adult. That means it will take longer for lungs to be available to Sarah, who has been on the transplant list for 18 months.

The case has garnered attention in the Philadelphia region and across the country, and spurred discussion about the lung-transplant regulations.

Her family has started a petition on Change.org, asking supporters to urge the Department of Health and Human Services to change the regulations.

"This policy needs to change," the petition says. "The OPTN/UNOS Lung Review Board, a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons, can make an exceptional ruling for Sarah. And they can recommend new policies to OPTN."

As of this morning, more than 72,000 people had signed the petition. The OPTN said in a statement this week it can't change its rules based on one patient.

National news outlets from CNN to Fox News have picked up on the story, and some doctors not involved in Sarah's case say the policy should change.

Dr. Devang Doshi, a pediatric lung specialist at Beaumont Children's Hospital in Michigan, told ABC News that such "hurdles and obstacles" lead him to "get frustrated with the system."

He said: "It's a very disheartening thing to hear and read about because you've got a child in desperate need of a transplant to survive ... and people less qualified in terms of severity are able to get that organ instead of this child because of what's in place."

Art Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University's Langone Medical Center, told the television station that children should be given priority over adults, because kids can have more healthy years with the new lungs.

Caplan elaborated to NBC News that children should get priority in part because many adult transplant patients need new lungs because of their own actions, like smoking, while children are "non-culpable." 

"I think we should go back and revisit the system and I think we should give more weight to kids," Caplan told NBC.

Sarah's family has said she has only a few weeks to live and needs a ventilator to breathe.

I'm in complete agreement that the guidelines need to be revisited. They seem awfully unfair to children in need of lungs. There are simply not many children donors. Some parents who lose children see donating the body as an honorable thing so that other parents don't have to experience the same loss. But, other parents see it very differently. Their child had been taken from them and they can't bear the thought of their child being cut up. Both of these ideas are natural. Neither set of parents should feel ashamed of their feelings.

On the other hand, while I think "need" is a good qualifier, I think that "age" and "personal culpability" could be a slippery slope. So, is a 40-year-old life worth less than a 10-year-old life simply due to age? Is a skinny person more valuable than a fat person simply because they don't overeat? Yes, age and culpability can and should be considered as factors, but they can't be the final deal-maker or breaker. A skinny, young life is not by default more valuable than a fat, old life.

Life is life and God loves us all. Each and every life has unimaginable dignity and value. I don't envy the people who have to make these decisions about organ transplants. Their job must be horrible.

Sick kids shouldn't die because parents don't want to donate their dead kid's organs. From what I've seen, there is no reason why she can't get an adult lung. At the very least, I'd think an adult lung would be better than no lung at all. If she's within weeks of death's door, by all means, change the regulations and get her a lung now.

Sign the petition here: http://www.change.org/savesarah

Update
Update again

Born to Save Her Sister's Life: The Morality of Saving Lives

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last week, Marissa Ayala graduated college. She was conceived by her parents 20 years ago in the hopes that she could be a bone marrow donor for her 16-year-old sister who was dying of cancer.

Ethically and pastorally, this case would be a nightmare. You are dealing with a family who is looking at the very real possibility that they will be losing their daughter. They are watching her waste away. They have been unable to find a donor. In one last act of desperation, they try to make a donor themselves.

Of course, baby Marissa would not have been able to agree to the procedure. A bone marrow transplant can be a dangerous and painful procedure. I don't know exactly how they harvested the marrow, so I can't make any specific comments in that regard. There are about 3 or 4 ways that this procedure could have been done.

My third favorite book, after the Bible and the Catechism, is surprisingly unhelpful in this particular case.

I LOVE THIS BOOK.

The guidelines it gives for one person donating to another include: there needs to be a serious need on the part of the recipient that cannot be fulfilled any other way, the functional integrity of the donor cannot be compromised, the risk taken needs to be proportionate to the good result, and the donor and recipient needs to give free and informed consent. (pg. 106)

In this instance, the donor cannot give free and informed consent, the parents are given that responsibility. Arguably, their consent is not free at all, being weighed heavily by their concern for both the donor and the recipient. The need of the 16-year-old was clearly grave. While the donor must've gone through some pain, her functional integrity was only maybe temporarily compromised. The risk to the younger daughter was certainly proportionate to saving her older sister's life.

I don't know if this family went to any clergy in making their decision. If they did, God bless that clergy-member. If faced with a situation like this, I would only be able to help the family explore their options and help them to look at the situation thoroughly from multiple points of view. I would help them understand all of the implications of their actions and pray that the Holy Spirit guides them.

Yes, it is not right to use a person. But, a decision like this cannot be easy. The letter of the law is one thing. When the rubber hits the road, when Truth meets everyday human experience, that is when things get hard.

7 Quick Takes (#8) Cool News Edition

--- 1 ---

This is a couple days late because I was traveling this weekend. I've left MO where I've been for the past month visiting friends and family to go back to NY. I'm homesick already. Anything to cheer me up. :(

--- 2 ---

 

This momma braved the tornado that hit Moore, OK while in the hospital, in full-blown labor. 

--- 3 ---

 

This baby was saved by a 3-D printer. Ain't modern medicine cool?

--- 4 ---

 

Say it with me: Awwwwwwww... This guy made an engagement ring that could light up whenever he was near her. 

--- 5 ---

 

I know it isn't very Christ-like of me, but I can't help feeling good about this. The founder of Girls Gone Wild was convicted for false imprisonment and assault. He is exposed once again as the piece of work that he is. I hope he someday realizes how completely immoral it is to take advantage of drunk women to make a buck. 

--- 6 ---

 

Maybe we can learn a few things from Japan about how to treat mothers in the workforce.

--- 7 ---

 

I think we could all learn a thing or two from this woman. She didn't look in a mirror for a year, including her own wedding day. In our culture which is so obsessed with looking good, I think we could all benefit from covering a few mirrors.

 

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

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