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

Shock and Awe Does Not Promote Dialogue

So, the other day I came across a story. This group called FEMEN stripped off their tops and drenched an Archbishop as he quietly sat there and took it. The group does not agree with Church teaching in regards to homosexuality or abortion. In this "protest," they were particularly addressing his recent comments saying that gays are called to be celibate.

I am all for protests. People's voices need to be heard. I'm all for intelligent, rational people disagreeing. The only way the world will become a better place is if people of different views come to the table to talk things out and compromise.

But, seriously, what were these women hoping to accomplish. The drenched archbishop deciding that gay sex is okay after all? Some devout Catholic watching this deciding that their church is wrong?

Really, all you might have accomplished is riling up your base and giving yourself the smug feeling of, "man, I really showed that homophobe bigot, didn't I?" Yeah, you might catch some headlines, but that's just because most of the world is laughing at you for being the textbook "psycho feminazi." You're not being taken seriously, you're not converting anyone to your cause, and you're not promoting any meaningful dialogue.

I've been there. I've been a protester trying to get attention. I've thrown raw meat all over my school's quad. I've engaged in street theatre. I've organized walk-outs. Except for maybe the meat thing, I've never done anything as stupid as this. My street theatre was at least educational. I invited media to my walk-outs in order to get the word out as to what we were protesting about. Nobody ever got naked. While we stretched the rules, we never damaged anyone's person or property.

You should all be embarrassed, but you're probably on too much of a self-righteous high to care.

 

PS: The Archbishop comes out of this looking better than you do. And I'm not just saying that because I'm Catholic.

The Cloud of Witnesses: Reflections on the 4th Sunday of Easter

All who were destined for eternal life came to believe,
and the word of the Lord continued to spread
through the whole region. - Acts 13:48b-49

Apostle Andrew spreading Gospel in what is now known as Russia

I, John, had a vision of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue.
They stood before the throne and before the Lamb,
wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands. - Revelation 7:9

Jesus said:
“My sheep hear my voice;
I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
No one can take them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,
and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.
The Father and I are one.” - John 10:27-30

There is one clear overarching theme this Sunday: The spread of Christianity to people of every nation and the great cloud of witnesses that proceeded us to Heaven. There are 2.18 billion Christians in the world, around half of them are Catholic. This is all from a relatively small band of Jewish men and women from Galilee. How crazy is that?

The vision from Revelation that we read about this week (Revelation 7:9, 14b-17) is a view of the martyrs in heaven. John sees that these martyrs dressed in white robes carrying palm branches, both of which are traditional symbols of martyrdom. Someone explains to him that they are now happy and fulfilled in Heaven. Now, when we think of martyrs, we will think of St. Stephen being stoned (Acts 7) or St. Peter being crucified upside down.

We don't think about the fact that Christians are being killed for their faith today. In the history of Christianity, about 70 million people have died for their faith. Sixty-five percent of those martyrdoms have occurred in the last century. Let me repeat that: 65%. That's around 45.5 million people! Most of these martyrdoms have occurred under Communist and fundamentalist Islamic regimes.

Christians in the countries colored red on this map face persecution   

The modern face of the persecuted church: A bombed out church in India

 

We have an ever growing cloud of witnesses. Not to belittle our current issues with the HHS mandate and stuff like that, but here in the United States we at least have the freedom to go to church. We have the freedom to pray and to read the Bible. We can get together in public places with other believers. We can protest governmental policies we don't like. There are many, many Christians in the world who cannot do any of those things.

 

Think about that the next time you are too tired for church on Sunday or you don't feel like doing your prayers. (Just like you think about the starving kids when you throw away your leftovers.) 

 

Read more:

 

Voice of the Martyrs

 

Recent news stories about the persecution of Christians (Each word is a link. All of the stories are from this month)

 

An article about Christian persecution in Israel by John Allen Jr.

Are Drones Moral?: A Catholic Perspective

When it comes to morality questions, I tend to follow my gut. If I feel a moral discomfort about something, even if I can't put words to my concern, I don't do it. Unless I have grave reasons to go against my intuition, I do not support things that make me feel uncomfortable. When I first heard about the drone program (months before the NBC leaked memo), I didn't like them. I wasn't able to say why. Just something seemed inherently unfair about sending unmanned machines in to assassinate people with "smart" bombs even if those people were sworn enemies of the US.

I know all of this is old news, but I wanted to think about it long and hard before I said anything. My specialty is medical ethics, not war. Although I did come across a very insightful article that made a connection between being anti-abortion and anti-drones. The first time I heard an argument that gave voice to my concerns however was through The Daily Show's Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Now, he did get criticized by a lot of people for not being harder on her. But this did get the ball rolling in my mind about what exactly about this program bugs me. What was it? When the memo leaked, I found more voices in the media giving words to my feelings. In the following video from MSNBC's The Cycle, I find myself agreeing strongly with conservative talking head, SE Cupp.

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

So, what does my Church say? First of all, my Church would applaud my tendency to follow my gut. Assuming one's conscience is formed by Tradition and Scripture (or at least one makes an earnest attempt to form it by the Church), one can always trust one's conscience.

Since this controversy has hit the fan, the USCCB has not issued a statement specifically about the drones, but they have said things about the "war on terror" in general and in 2011 they did write an open letter to our National Security Advisor saying "...we encourage the US to review the use of unmanned drones." In last year's Rosary Novena for Life and Liberty, drone aircraft is mentioned as an example of how the technology used in killing is more advanced, but "the end result is the same for the victims."

In looking through the Catechism (CCC) and statements made by the Bishops I run into a little problem. How the heck do you categorize drone strikes? Do I look up war? Do I look up self-defense? What about assassination? Luckily for me, all of these things say similar things.

Borrowed from here.

The need for Absolute Certainty

In the case of the death penalty (CCC 2267) and in war (A Pastoral Message: Living with Faith and Hope After September 11), we cannot use lethal force without absolute certainty that we are punishing the correct person. This requires if not due process than at least an accountability structure in place.

"Accountability and transparency" is notably lacking in this instance. It seems as if we simply need a high-ranking official, presumably President Obama, to make the phone call and it's as good as done. Where is the certainty in that?

Side-rant: This is one of the areas where this entire issue makes me sick (you know, aside from civilian casualties). Where are the anti-war activists? I belong to basically every tree-hugger mailing list in the US and I have never received anything about these drones. I had to actively search on the Amnesty International site to see one report and an action. To put this into perspective, torture has it's own section. For the record, I'm a pro-life Democrat (as near impossible as that is some days) and it makes me sick to see so many liberals and Democrats defend the president out of some kind of party loyalty. The same Democrats who questioned the policy under Bush are defending its expansion under Obama. (Some articles about it.) What? Because you trust Obama more? I trust no human being with this kind of power. We are not God. Now back to your regular programming...

Grave and Certain Threat

Just War Theory (as summarized CCC 2309) clearly states that:

"The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain."

The memo states that the person targeted for the drone strike must be an "imminent threat." Commentator after commentator after commentator has pointed out that "imminent threat" is twisted and turned nearly meaningless in this policy. So, this requirement of "just war" is arguably not met. Certainly, terrorism is lasting and grave, but without some sort of due process (see above), how can you be determine that a particular person is imminently going to attack? In order for an act of war to be just, it must be in response to a real threat, not an imagined one.

Proportionate Response

In CCC 2264, St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted saying that moderate means of self-defense is always morally licit because one is bound to care for one's own life more than another's. Even if lethal means are necessary, it is acceptable to do whatever you need to do to defend your life. That said, it is unlawful to use more force than necessary. The drone policy reflects this in stating that capture must be infeasible. But, once again, who is the judge of that? And, is capture or death the only way we can defend ourselves? Would it be more proportionate to use the billions we're spending on drones in beefing up security? I'm sorry that I have more questions than answers on this issue, but I think these questions need to be raised.

Prospects of Success

Killing one terrorist inspires many others. Our war on terror isn't gaining us any friends in the middle east. A war is only just if there are "serious prospects of success" (CCC 2309). IMHO, this part of Just War Theory has not been met in a very, very long time in any of our armed conflicts. But I regress, I have no evidence for the first two sentences in this paragraph. All I have are quotes from people who know the region much better than I do and my own observation seeing terrorists celebrated as martyrs.

Take our strikes in Yemen for example. It made an enraged populace more sympathetic to Al-Qaeda. This only led to more violence, leading many people to question its effectiveness. (Tip of the proverbial iceberg.)

So, when killing one terrorist makes ten more, when is the killing going to end? Here's some more Daily Show for you:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

My conclusion, I know that what is legal is not always moral and what is illegal is not always immoral, but it does bother me that only a third of all supporters of drones are concerned about the legality. I have recently lost all respect for one of SE Cupp's colleagues on The Cycle over this very thing (granted, he didn't have very far to fall). 

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

CCC 2312 clearly states:

"The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. 'The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.'"

People who are for the drone program have said that we are in war, we are in a different kind of war, so anything goes to defend ourselves. This is fundamentally wrong. The state of war does not rob our enemy of his or her humanity. Because they are against us does not make them any less human than those who are for us. This is the primary reason that my conscience cannot support our current use of drones.

My Catholic conclusion, looking at Just War Theory and statements made by the bishops, it would seem as if the appropriate Catholic response would be to question the morality of how this program functions. I could see, however, how a Catholic in good conscience could support the program in general.

For example: CCC 2309 states:

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Although I don't agree with ipso facto judging many lives to be more valuable than one (each life is infinitely valuable), our best estimate is that the number of civilian casualties of drones is in the hundreds while the attacks on 9/11 killed nearly 3,000. So, it can be argued that the evils of drones are not as bad as the evils of terrorism that the drones protect us from. But I still say we need more transparency and oversight.

Writing of interest:

An MA Thesis that argues that Just War Theory legitimatizes the CIA targeted killing program

A paper titled "The Right to Life in War and Peace"

An interesting NCR article

HIPAA, Mental Health, and Gun Background Checks

Yesterday, President Obama signed 23 Executive Orders to get the ball rolling on tougher gun control measures. One of these has been quoted in the media as saying:

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. (Source)

This order would make mental health records part of the background check that is done before the purchase of a gun. Right now, states are supposed to provide a list of people who have been involuntarily institutionalized for the sake of background checks. Very few states actually do this, however, due to concerns about HIPAA.

HIPAA is the acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. This law passed in 1996 protects patients from numerous privacy violations in regards to their health care records. If you have been to a doctor's office recently, you've probably signed at least one document related to HIPAA. You've likely had to sign something giving the doctor permission to discuss your records with their colleagues. I'm sure you've had to sign something saying that you have read and you understand the clinic's privacy policy.  These are just two of the many documents required by HIPAA.

HIPAA assures that only the people who need to have access to your health information has access to it. There are a few exceptions to this however. For example, your information (minus any identifiers like your name) can be used in research. Also, when served with a subpoena, your doctors can release your information if it is needed for the investigation of a crime. The one exception that I could find that is related to this issue of gun control is:

Serious Threat to Health or Safety. Covered entities may disclose protected health information that they believe is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to a person or the public, when such disclosure is made to someone they believe can prevent or lessen the threat (including the target of the threat). Covered entities may also disclose to law enforcement if the information is needed to identify or apprehend an escapee or violent criminal. (Source)

<sup>(Covered entities are the people who are allowed access to your records.) 

Under this exception, if you could argue that someone with a mental illness poses an imminent threat to society at large, their records could ethically be used in background checks.</sup> 

While some of the most recent mass murders did have a mental illness, study after study has shown that past mental illness is not a predictor of future violent behavior. People who have suffered from a mental illness are statistically no more likely to commit a violent crime than someone who is mentally healthy. Studies have shown that mental illness alone does not cause violence. Often in the case of mentally ill murderers, the mental illness is compounded by drug use or a triggering event in their lives (ex: divorce or death in the family). Mentally ill mass murderers are often not diagnosed with a disorder until after the crime was committed. So it would seem that using mental health records in background checks would be a pointless violation of HIPAA. (Source)

Sure, it would make us feel better to know that there are barriers for the mentally ill to get their hands on guns, but it would not actually make us any safer and it would violate the privacy of millions of individuals. Most mass murderers have no history of mental illness. This would simply be an example of using anecdotal evidence instead of actually looking at the numbers. We know that the shooter at Virginia Tech was mentally ill, so all mentally ill people cannot be trusted with guns. Well, we know that the Virginia Tech shooter was an Asian-American too, so should we bar all Asian-Americans from having guns?

It seems to me that this is just another symptom of the stigma of mental illness in this country. I think that is one of the real issues. People don't get help because they are afraid they will be looked down upon. Health insurance companies still do not treat mental illness as seriously as physical (another one of the Executive Orders signed yesterday will hopefully help with that). The mentally ill are not dangerous crazies. They are ill, like someone with pneumonia is ill, and they need our support.

Source

I can't believe I'm arguing for gun rights. I am arguing for reasonable gun control measures that will actually make us safe, not creating dangerous precedents for HIPAA violations.

Interesting article about the fallacy of using past behavior to predict future behavior

A Catholic analysis of the Russell Brand interview with Westboro Baptist Church members

Above is a 11 minute video of an interview that British comedian Russell Brand did on his show with members of the Westboro Baptist Church. For those who don't know, Russell Brand is quite the eccentric bad boy. He has had a lot of struggles with the law and drugs. He credits his practice of meditation in helping him to conquer his various demons. The Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand, have made a name for themselves protesting at military funerals saying that God is letting our men and women in uniform be killed because our country is too tolerant of homosexuality. Needless to say, Brand and his audience vehemently disagree with Westboro's views. In this interview, the two parties are surprisingly respectful of one another. Of course, as a religion and ethics nerd, I found the whole thing facinating and I want to look at Brand's and the Westboro Baptist views through Roman Catholic eyes.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!       Now, let's get our geek on!

 From a Catholic perspective there are major holes and major truth in both of these positions. There are many ways I can tackle this. The one way I have decided upon is topical. The points I want to make fall into three categories: The Bible, the nature of sin, and the nature of love.

Disclaimer: This analysis is based solely on the interview linked above. Any other statements made by either the Westboro Baptist Church or Brand have not been taken into account.

The Bible

I would say that Brand's understanding of Scripture is closest to the Catholic understanding, but not in anyway completely in line.

Close, but no cigar

The Westboro Baptist Church seems to be strong supporters in the Reformation idea of sola scriptura. That means that for them, the Bible is the one and only authority when it comes to knowing God's will and that the Bible is to be taken literally.

In the Catholic faith, we would have to agree with Brand's statement at 5:05 that "The Holy Spirit doesn't have a pen." Scripture is certainly inspired by God, but it was written by man. We would take it a step further, though, than Brand does when he says that the Bible is only meant to point us toward the one God who is Love. We don't believe that the Bible is merely a pointer. The Bible does also contain Truth. But to get the fullness of God's Truth, as Catholics, we believe that you need to take both Scripture and Tradition into account. Scripture and Tradition are used as a kind of checks and balances. Nothing in either one can contradict the other and they are both valid tools in the search for Truth.

The Nature of Sin

In the case of sin, the Westboro Baptist Church would be closer than Brand in the Catholic understanding. However, in their understanding of God as seemingly hateful, they are very, very far off the mark.

Which is ironically, exactly what "sin" means

 The phrase "love the sinner, but hate the sin" is way, way older than these guys think (see 6:52). It actually comes from St. Augustine. Yup, Billy Graham nor Gandhi thought it up. A Catholic saint did. And, actually, it's a pretty good summary of the Catholic perspective on homosexuality.

Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church does not hate gays. What some people in the Church (such as Archbishop Dolan, who I will be writing about later) have trouble with is this: Why do some people seem to limit their identity to their sexual orientation? You are so much more, pardon my crudity, than who you have sex with! You are a beloved child of God. God knitted you in your mother's womb. God sent His only Son to die for you. God is with you every second of every day, especially in the Eucharist! We would argue that everyone's main identity, it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, white, black, tall, short, or purple, everyone's main identity is found only in God!

Our issue with homosexuality is with the act itself. God created our bodies. God basically created sex. We as Catholics feel that one of the main purposes of sex is procreation. God made us to make and raise children in a loving, married family. Anything that falls short of this goal, any sexual act that does not at least contain the possibility of leading to new life, is missing the mark, is "sin." We believe that homosexual activities are unbecoming of a beautiful child of God. That is something that we would agree with the Westboro Baptist Church about. We completely disagree with their belief that God hates gays, but we do agree with their belief that homosexual behavior is sinful.

The Nature of Love

Similarly, we would agree with Brand's contention that God's primary identity is Love, but we do not agree that this "love" means that anything short of murder is acceptable. As stated by the Westboro members in 1:35, it is sometimes more loving to point out the sins in another person than to accept all of that person's actions. One of our purposes in this life is to help one another get closer to God and ultimately to Heaven. That sometimes means showing some tough love. Now, I'm sure that very few Catholics would agree that protesting at a military funeral is an appropriate display of tough love. But, going on a talk show to spread your Truth might be.

God definitely does stand for tolerance, love and beauty as eloquently expressed by Brand at 4:14, but God's "tolerance" is not "tolerance" as it is currently used in every day speak in the US. "Tolerance" is currently defined as "a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those who differ from you." (italics added) God loves the sinners. God loves the sinners deeply, passionately, madly, and thoroughly. (Remember the "lost" parables.) But God doesn't love the sin. God hates the sin for bringing dishonor to and ensnaring the beloved sinner.

"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death."- Romans 8:2

God isn't tolerant in the way we mean tolerant. God is Love, but because God is Love, He hates all that does harm to and blemishes the beloved. The Church would agree with Brand that Love, not hate, is the primary message of God. But we feel precisely because the main message is love, God hates sin all the more because it goes against His love.

I feel that it is very telling of Brand's perspective on homosexuality that he almost implicitly links homosexuality with the love between a short, interracial couple (around 7:21). He clearly believes that homosexuality is something that you're born with that you have no control over. He feels that just as interracial couples had to fight long and hard against prejudice, so must gay couples; that interracial dating is on the exact same moral plane as homosexual dating.

First legally married interracial couple in Louisiana, married in a Catholic Church

The Church recognizes that a homosexual orientation can't be fixed, that people are born with it and that is part of who they are. But just as unmarried people, married people where one of the spouses cannot have sex, and religious people are all called to celibacy, gays are as well. The Church would not put interracial marriage and gay marriage on the same moral ground. In fact, the Catholic Church was one of the first (if not the first) church to recognize interracial marriage (We even have a martyr for the cause).

In Conclusion

Neither Russell Brand nor the Westboro Baptist Church are in complete agreement with the Catholic Church on this issue (not that I think either of them would care). But, I hope that I have used this interview to make some sense out of what the Church does believe and to provide some compare and contrast to see the Church through a spiritual lens (Brand) and a fundamentalist lens (Westboro).

God is Love. He does love the sinner, but hate the sin. And the Church does have some reasons to think that homosexual acts are sinful. That seems like a good summary.    

In defense of Accepting Abundance

"I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - falsely attributed to Voltaire

Well, the internets have been alive as of late over a 839-word post by Stacy Trasancos over at Accepting Abundance. She expresses her despair of her children being exposed to PDAs by homosexuals at the park. She doesn’t look forward to her children’s questions, luckily it sounds like they are too young to understand anything now. She doesn’t feel comfortable taking them to the park because of this. The post ends with her, as a mother, expressing her concerns with how the world is going. She feels like she shouldn’t leave the house with so much evil in the world. As homosexuals fight for the freedom to live out their sexuality, she bemoans the loss of her freedom to raise her children in the kind of society she would like to see.

And the response she has received from various pro-gay, politically liberal people on the internet only proves her point. She *feels as if* her family is being attacked by a society that permits such evils as abortion and IVF. Now she *is* being attacked by people who wish her evil and call her unspeakable names. Homosexuals are fighting for the freedom to live as they wish. They want their freedom of speech. What about Stacy Trasancos' freedom of speech? People have the right to speak out for gay rights, why can’t she have the right to speak out for her beliefs? And they are not just her beliefs, they are the beliefs of the entire Church. The attackers should all be ashamed of themselves. They want tolerance, but only for people who agree with them.

I want all of those who are bashing her to know I’m praying for them.

"Lord, we pray for the power to be gentle; the strength to be forgiving; the patience to be understanding; and the endurance to accept the consequences of holding to what we believe to be right.
May we put our trust in the power of good to overcome evil and the power of love to overcome hatred.
We pray for the vision to see and the faith to believe in a world emancipated from violence, a new world where fear shall no longer lead men to commit injustice, nor selfishness make them bring suffering to others.
Help us to devote our whole life and thought and energy to the task of making peace, praying always for the inspiration and the power to fulfill the destiny for which we and all men were created." -Prayer for world peace, 1978

 St. Monica, patron of mothers, pray for us!

Why do you stay? Response to "Staying Power"

In response to Staying Power by Cynthia Reville Peabody:

Why do you stay?

The question seems to come with the assumption that something is wrong with the Catholic Church. I won't argue. There are some things wrong with the Church. If there weren't, it wouldn't be an organization made up of human beings. The author of this article, however, seems to consider the main problem being the status of women in the Church. How can women stay in a Church that considers them second-class citizens?

Why do I stay?

The fact that I cannot officiate the sacraments does not make me feel like a second-class citizen. While I would not be against women being allowed to be priests, this is not an issue that I feel passionately about. This is not an issue that makes me love the Church any less.

Just because a priest can't marry or have children like I can, doesn't mean he's being prejudiced against. Similarly, just because I can't officiate the sacraments does not mean I'm being prejudiced against.

As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say, "Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, "Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? -1 Corinthians 12:12-19

This passage in 1 Corinthians continues by expounding on how the parts of the body of Christ cannot do without one another and even the least honorable parts of the body are important.

I cannot be a priest. I can be a wife and mother. I could have gone into religious life. These options are just as honorable as the priesthood.

Of course, when I think of the Church, I think of it's priests, but I also think of the catechists I know (who are predominately women). I think of women like the author of the aforementioned article who work as activists and prophets in the name of Christ.

I don't feel like women are denigrated into the church basements or each others' houses. We are very visible as lectors, cantors, and Eucharistic Ministers. When I go into a parish office, the first face I usually see is a woman working either as a secretary or a parish administrator.

It may be high time for the Vatican to recognize our efforts again, but the Vatican has recognized us before. We are blessed! We have dignity! God works in and through us! To dwell on the issue of women in the priesthood is wasting all of our valuable time and energy. There are many other issues deserving of more attention.