Video: Protecting Traditional Marriage and Preserving Childhood Innocence

Two videos this morning about two important causes....

First, the battleground to preserve traditional marriage in the United States is currently in the state of Maine. The victory won in California through the passage of Proposition 8 last November in California is threatened if the referendum for traditional marriage in Maine is defeated (30 out of 30 of the previous state referendums have all preserved traditional marriage, but this vote in the liberal state of Maine is down to the wire - and it will take place on November 4th).

Here is the latest video from Stand For Marriage Maine:



A second and related cause is the protection of Childhood Innocence in our nation's schools. Homosexual activists are attempting to teach school kids inappropriate material about the homosexual "lifestyle" starting as early as kindergarden (this really is happening already - and almost always its the parents who are the last to know) One of the leaders of this "queering" movement, Kevin Jennings, was appointed by President Obama to the Deparment of Education.

Now through the efforts of American Principles in Action, we're trying to get him expelled:



I've written extensively on Jennings here, and will write on the situation in Maine soon.

Here are five effective ways you can help:

1. Link to this post from your blog, website, facebook profile, or through sending emails
2. Watch, favorite, rate, comment on and/or embed each of these YouTube videos
3. Join the Facebook groups Expel Kevin Jennings, and Stand For Marriage Maine, and invite your friends. Re-tweet this message for Jennings and this message for traditional marriage.
4. Visit http://www.expeljennings.com/ to sign the petition requesting Jenning's removal, and visit http://standformarriagemaine.com/ to find a variety of ways you can help them save marriage in Maine
5. Pray for the protection of children, and for the preservation of traditional marriage

I know there are many causes that are worthy of our attention these days, but these are two critical issues close to my heart, where small, organized actions taken by us can have a great and beneficial effect. Together, we can win this.

Thank you, papists!

Mark Wahlberg gets married in the Church

Catholic actor Mark Wahlberg is trying to make things right....

Mark Wahlberg is now part of the married bunch: The actor wed his longtime girlfriend, model Rhea Durham, on Saturday.

The couple exchanged vows before 12 family and friends at Beverly Hills' Good Shepherd Catholic Church, People reports. The bride wore a white, strapless Marchesa gown, as well as Neil Lane jewelry, while Wahlberg donned a black suit and a silver tie.

Daughter Ella, 5, served as flower girl. The couple has two other children, Michael, 3, and Brendan, 10 months.

Wahlberg revealed last year that he and Durham, together since 2001, were contemplating a trip down the aisle this month. "We're talking about getting married in August," he said. "It's a good month." - TV Guide

Robert George writes on "Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts" in today's Wall Street Journal

Today in the Wall Street Journal, American Principles Project founder Robert P. George writes:

We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage. Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.

Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.

It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.

[Read the entire article here.]

PQOTD: "Following the prevailing winds and currents of the day is childish"

This is an extended Papist-Quote-of-the-Day, because every word is golden. It is a preview of the Pope's upcoming social encyclical given by Pope Benedict himself as he closed the Year of St. Paul this week (bolding mine):

"Paul wants the Christian faith have a 'responsible', an 'adult faith," said the Holy Father. "The word 'adult faith' has in recent decades become a popular slogan. It is often used to refer to the attitude of those who no longer adhere to the Church and her pastors, but choose for themselves what they want to believe and not believe - a kind of do-it-yourself faith."

Benedict XVI continued: "Speaking against the Magisterium of the Church is presented as courageous. In reality, however, it does not take courage for this, since you can always be sure of audience applause."

"Rather it takes courage to adhere to the faith of the Church, even if it contradicts the 'scheme' of the contemporary world," said the Pope. "It is this non-conformism of the faith that Paul calls an 'adult faith.'"

The Holy Father gave two examples of an 'adult faith'. First, "to commit to the inviolability of human life from the very beginning, thus radically opposing the principle of violence, in defense of the most defenseless humans." And second, "to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for life as a law of the Creator, restored again by Christ."

For Paul, said Benedict XVI, "following the prevailing winds and currents of the day is childish." (LSN)

Put that in your relativist pipe and smoke it (because we all know there is only one right end to smoke a pipe).

Study: Breastfed babies get higher grades in school

I should probably have saved this story for a "Friday off-beat" news item, but I figured some of us could use a Tuesday diversion.

Reuters Life! (honestly, I have trouble trusting news sources with exclamation points in their name) ... anyway, Reuters Life! reports:

Breastfed babies seem more likely to do well at high school and to go on to attend college than infants raised on a bottle, according to a new U.S. study.

Professors Joseph Sabia from the American University and Daniel Rees from the University of Colorado Denver based their research on 126 children from 59 families, comparing siblings who were breastfed as infants to others who were not.

By comparing siblings, the study was able to account for the influence of a variety of difficult-to-measure factors such as maternal intelligence and the quality of the home environment.

The study, published in the Journal of Human Capital, found that an additional month of breastfeeding was associated with an increase in high school grade point averages of 0.019 points and an increase in the probability of college attendance of 0.014.

Frankly, those infinitesimal gains don't impress me. They seem well within the margin of error. But hey, a study that promotes breast feeding as good thing? That's fine with me. Especially considering what passes for "health news" these days.

"Only a Catholic Kid"

Aww:

“This morning, my two-year-old son dipped his fingers into the tray below the ice-dispenser on the fridge (full of water) and then proceeded to make the sign of the cross.”

I knew there was a good reason I kept Faith & Family in my blog reader.

Do your young kids/siblings do things like this that reveal their papist affiliation?

"Reunion of 'tenth-born children' sets Guiness Book world record in Argentina"

Now here's a cool idea:

Forty one people who are the “tenth-born” child in their family met in Buenos Aires in July to honor St. Gianna Beretta Molla, establishing a Catholic “Guinness” world record.

Promoted by the Argentinean Catholic daily, “Cristo Hoy,” which has one of the largest circulations in Latin America, the event attracted the attention of the press because of its message of love for the family and life conveyed by those who attended the gathering. (CNA)

I wonder if American Catholics could hold an event to challenge it.

On Egg Donation and Cultural Narcissism

Stories like this one by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, which point out the demographic implosion taking place in the west because of sub-replacement level birth rates, are popping up more and more often. What's surprising is that they have now reached the awareness of such online liberal strongholds as The Huffington Post and New York Times Magazine.

Nicely enough, when the Rabbi begins to diagnose the problem, he begins with a point made by Pope Benedict:

... Pope Benedict summed it up best. "Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present."

While the article blames the falling birthrate on poor government policies that do not enforce maternity leave or subsidize post-natal care, as well as inflexible working conditions for women, a far more important reason is growing Western narcissism. As the west becomes richer it is also becoming more self-absorbed.

Children consume time and resources both of which young adults would rather focus on themselves. Better to have the availability, and the cash, to jet to Paris for the weekend then push a kid on some dumb swing. Not that we don't love kids any more. We do, but in an abstract as-long-as-it-doesn't-interfere-with-our-freedom kind of way. Having them in our thirties, and about one or two max, minimizes the disruption.

... The Western cult of narcissism is spoiling our kids, making us neglectful of our elders, spawning an out-of-control material insatiability, and destroying us -- quite literally -- by having us die off without a replacement generation.

And of all the many remedies available that might free us from our growing self-absorption, having one more baby than we originally planned for our marriages is the best remedy of all. (HP)

The most one commentor can do in response is trot out some outdate overpopulation predictions that have long since been disproven. And wouldn't you know it? LifeSiteNews today reports: "Communist Government in Indian Province Proposes Crippling Sanctions against Having a Third Child"

And on a similar note, more women are choosing to donate their eggs as a way to make spare income:

Now more than ever, women are donating their eggs to make ends meet.

So, who's doing it, and how easy is the process?

Melissa, who declined to give her last name, admitted the main reason she's donating eggs is because she's struggling financially.

... At the Center For Egg Options in Illinois, the number of women donating has increased significantly since April.

"There's no reason to think that suddenly there's 30 percent more people who have suddenly had this inner feeling to help out people and what's changed, it’s the economy," said fertility specialist Ed Marut. (Fox 5 Vegas)

And so when a narcissist decides to have a child, they don't even have their own. Now that's self-destructive.

Update: Author believes California bishops' response to "gay marriage" was "tepid"

I said, she said:

But the response from some Catholics so far has been tepid. Take the following statement released by the California Catholic Conference.

{she quotes it, then comments:}

“Maintain support” for traditional marriage? Catholic support requires more episcopal muscle than the release of a mild statement. Because the Church is "the universal sacrament of salvation" (Lumen Gentium), our shepherds should be mobilizing Catholics to fight back. Every Catholic priest, religious, businessman, teacher, doctor, banker, grocer, landlord, professor, and college student should be sent out with a mandate to fight for marriage.

Again, maybe a topic like "gay marriage" deserves a press release longer than one page.

Confratenity of Catholic Clergy defends Humanae Vitae on its 40th anniversary

Stories relating to Humanae Vitae (explicitly and implicitly, or tangentially) have been increasing lately in anticipation of its 40th anniversary on July 25th. Notably among these is the outrageous decision of "Catholics for Choice" to publish an open letter to Pope Benedict criticizing the church's constant teaching against artificial contraception.

I'm happy to see, therefore, that the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (who generously invited me to their convocation in Baltimore last week) is jumping into the breach:

The leader of "Catholics" for Choice argued that in some countries where Catholic institutions exercise great power, people "are dying as a result of the ban" on contraceptives. His statement presumably referred to the argument that AIDS is spread by the lack of access to condoms.

However, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a group of 600 orthodox Catholic priests and deacons, meeting in Baltimore last week, strongly endorsed the Church's teaching. Referring to the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which Pope Paul VI reinforced the traditional teaching, the Confraternity approved a statement asking "all its brother clergy to teach, explain, and defend this timely encyclical."

"While sometimes a difficult teaching to embrace and maintain, it is nevertheless the only means to uphold the natural law and to safeguard the sanctity of the human person, marriage, and the family as well as civilization itself," the Confraternity proclaimed. The group pointed out that in the 40 years since Pope Paul issued the encyclical, the steadily growing public acceptance of contraception has been associated with epidemics of sexual promiscuity, deviancy, venereal disease, divorce, illegitimacy, and other problems including sharp increases in breast cancer and uterine cancer. (CWNews)

LifeNews has more on the story. You can also read more on the Catholic and Christian newswires.

Please consider making a donation to the CCC or sponsoring your priest for a CCC membership to support the good work they are doing and spread awareness their joyful, firm obedience to the Church's teaching.

Does Having Kids Makes You Happy?

Newsweek says it doesn't, and cites surveys.

I say they should reevaluate their questions.

Plus, I find it very intriguing that they would choose to publish such an article so close to the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. What, are they trying to console all those folks who chose to contracept instead of having children, telling them, in other words, that they're probably happier off for it?

On ignoring the "f" word in questions of early puberty

Liberal Feminist blog Feministing.com, in their "weekly feminist reader" notes this article in Colorlines ("the national newsmagazine on race and politics"), which claims that plastic is the reason why black girls enter puberty earlier than white girls:

"A 1997 study, conducted at pediatricians’ offices nationwide, found that girls were showing the first signs of puberty about a year earlier than was considered normal. Most striking was that Black girls were beginning puberty about a year earlier than white girls."

What I found most striking is the entire article never once mentions the many many studies which claim that early puberty normally occurs in situations where there is no biological father present during the girls' upbringing (it's a pheromone thing). African American homes in the United States, sadly, often do not have the original biological father present through the entirety of childhood.

In other words, lack of a father, not the presence of plastics, can begin to account for some of the disparity in the statistics along ethnic lines.

But if there's anything I've learned from reading these radical feminist blogs, it's to never accept a sound sociological/biological explanation when a hypothetical ecological/lifestyle solution can be offered instead.

New on the blogroll: Faith & Family Live

I'm happy to see that Faith & Family Magazine has started an informative blog:

Family life is hard work, and those of us who strive to live Catholic family lives can face unique challenges. As we help each other along the way, we hope that our magazine and blog will affirm something that is already written on every mother's heart: That motherhood is a privilege. That family life is a joy. And that though being a wife and mother is likely to be the single most challenging thing any of us ever do, it is also likely to be the single most important thing any of us ever do as well. We invite you to pray, laugh, cry, and share the good and the bad right along with us. We hope that you will join us as we work toward building a Christ-centered community where we can encourage and support one another in the joyful, challenging, important work of Catholic living.

It's called Faith & Family Live.

Parishoners of St. Blog's will notice Danielle Bean on the list of contributors. Graduates of Ave Maria College (like me), will be happy to see Arwen Mosher as a regular mommy blogger.

Video: Laugh, then help a big Catholic family win $25k

From Marcel LeJeune of the MarySaggies blog:

Some friends who have a wonderful Catholic family of 9 kids, all home-schooled, are in the final 10 of a $25,000 college scholarship contest (and the parents are Aggie Catholics if you needed more incentive). They created a great video, but now need your votes to help them win. Go here to vote for them (yes, you have to fill out a short registration).

Hey, it's worth the time. If you're feeling industrious, consider blogging it or sending out an email!

New Missouri bill proposes tax deductions for stillborn infants

STLToday:

Lawmakers have proposed a measure that would allow parents of stillborn children to claim them as dependents for one year when filing tax returns.

... "This bill recognizes that the person was a child of this state, a child of a family of this state," he said.

Dempsey noted that the Legislature passed a measure in 2004 that allowed parents of stillborn children to receive a birth certificate. The state tax deduction, he said, is the next logical step.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, has a 100% rating from Missouri Right to Life. Missouri Family Network, similarly, is associated with many pro-life causes.

I'm all for inventive ways to work around Roe v. Wade. And it is interesting to note that Missouri already grants birth certificates to still-born children. I wonder if they would grant a birth certificate to a child that survives a botched abortion attempt only to die soon after? Sadly, the law has already demonstrated a sustained ability to ignore paradoxes like that one presents.

[ph/t: feministing]

What is causing the depopulation in Russia?

This no longer qualifies as an "offbeat" story. The following is a demonstration of the critical depopulation situation in Russia caused by rampant contraception, sterilization and abortion (there are, for instance, more abortions than live births in Russia each year - 13:10).

Reuters:

The governor of a central Russian province urged couples to skip work on Wednesday and make love instead to help boost Russia's low birth-rate.

And if a woman gives birth in exactly nine months time -- on Russia's national day on June 12 -- she will qualify for a prize, perhaps even winning a new home.

"It's normally something for the home -- a fridge or a television set," Yelena Yakovleva at the Ulyanovsk regional administration press office, said.

"It doesn't matter if it's a girl or a boy."

...This year a record 78 babies were born on June 12 at the main hospital in the regional capital of Ulyanovsk, beating the 2006 total of 26, said chief doctor Andrei Malykh.

...A mass wedding and special lessons for children at school on how to deal with having a brother or sister are also planned in Ulyanovsk city, which is about 900 km (560 miles) from Moscow.

At the town's central post office, a sign urges locals to write love letters for free to anywhere in Russia, with postage pre-paid.

This week First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, a possible successor to President Vladimir Putin, said he wanted to stabilise the population at about 142 million by 2015 and boost it back to 145 million by 2025.

But I ask you, to what factors does Reuters attribute the problem of underpopulation?

Russia wants to reverse a trend in which the population is shrinking by about 700,000 people a year as births fail to outpace a high death rate boosted by AIDS, alcoholism and suicide.

This is what the AP says:

Russia's population has dropped since the 1991 Soviet collapse, fed by declining birth rates, a low life expectancy, a spike in emigration, a frayed health care system and other factors. The country — the world's largest — now has just 141.4 million citizens, making it one of the most sparsely settled nations. And experts estimate the population could fall below 100 million by 2050.

At least this paragraph mentions "declining birth rates", although it fails to explain the causes for this phenomenon that I mention.

How bad is the situation?

Last year, President Vladimir Putin called the demographic crisis the country's most acute problem and announced a broad effort to boost the birthrate, including cash subsidies for couples giving birth to more than one child. Women who give birth to their second or third child receive $10,000 vouchers to pay for education or home repairs.

More acute than global warming? My, that's saying something.

The Moralities of House (3x21, "Family")

"Nothing like a dead patient to send you back to your choir boy roots." - House to Foreman

A few days late with this week's House M.D. review. Sorry, some other topics crowded this one out!

As I explained a couple weeks ago, I intend to write a short summary of the moral issues in House, M.D. for the remaining episodes in the season. Last week I did 3x20 "House Training" and the week before that, 3x19 "Act Your Age."

First things first - *spoiler warning*. I'm writing with the presumption that readers are either familiar with the show, have seen the episode in question, or are not worried about having plot arc points given away. Also, House treats of fairly explicit themes often ("viewer discretion advised"), so be warned. Enough said ...

3x21, "Family"

Here's the TV preview spot for this episode:


PoliteDissent provides a weekly plot recap of each episode, and then (helpfully) evaluates the medical claims made by the show.

The Moralities:

This week's episode was, as PoliteDissent notes, much more an episode about ethical dilemmas rather than interesting medicine, playing upon the fact that House's team is trying to save a boy by operating and experimenting on his brother (and vice versa).

House: Is back to his regular abuse of patients and especially their parents, who he tries to browbeat into giving him the permission slips he needs. Again, “giving parents the option of making a bad choice is a bad choice.” House believes its better to circumvent their consent and go for what he sees as objectively the best medical course of action. His blowup with Wilson in the hallway is uncalled for, and completely typical. He does apologize, but in his own way. He also orchestrates a one-on-one conversation with a the leukemia brother, in order to convince him to give up his life for his brother.

Chase: “And it’s Tuesday. It’s the day I remind you I like you and I want us to be together.”

Cameron: *sputter*

Foreman: Is having a tough time getting over the patient he lost in last week’s episode. The main thing that irks him is how he lost the patient by, in his mind, acting like House would have, coldly calculating the odds. His worry about the possibility of losing another patient prompts him to go behind everyone’s back and talk to the parents about the option – a very irresponsible action. And of course, the most shocking moment of the episode, where Foreman plunges a needle into the healthier brother’s bone marrow without anesthesia, is a show-stopper. But morally? I guess you can weigh on the one hand the incredible pain of being stabbed against saving the life of that person’s brother. But what is most troubling is that as Foreman is doing this the boy is screaming for him to stop! I can’t help but think this is poor writing and that in real life such an action would result in the immediate suspension and criminal prosecution of Foreman. At any rate, the way the episode treats it is that Foreman is becoming more and more like House, and is so scared of becoming him that he’d rather submit his resignation. We’ll see if he goes through with it by season end, but of course, it’s very doubtful.

Wilson: I think House’s withering criticism of Wilson has some foundation, namely, that Wilson believes so much in patient autonomy because he’s unwilling to live with the guilt of advising someone wrongly. He councils the family to “protect themselves as a whole” and choose a surgery that hurts one brother but saves the other simultaneously. Wilson continues to demonstrate his effective way of dealing with House’s pathological social problems. “You’re Pathetic, I didn’t mean that.” “Yes you did.” “Times infinity.” “Yes you did… you’re pathetic.”

The Parents: Come across very well in this episode. They do defer very often to Wilson when the situation quickly becomes tangled. The hardest choice they face is whether to intentionally infect one son with a disease in order to discover how to heal the other before he dies of it. House puts it this way: “you either leave with one dead son or two.” The parents simply refuse this option. They won’t give up on either son, especially if saving one means intentionally destroying the (admittedly slim) chances of one.

The Patients: The brothers are good figures, who, at 10 and 14, are willing to sacrifice their lives for one another, with the stated reason that “you’d do the same for me.” I appreciate that leukemia brother reaches a point where he starts talking about “it’s my time to go”, and then has his life saved at the 11th hour. It’s not over till it’s over, especially for a fourteen-year-old.

The Big Morality: The main question in this episode is to what degree you can intentionally sicken one patient in order to derive benefits for another person. It starts with intentionally weakening the immune system of one brother to more quickly ferret-out his illness (with the intention of curing it). The second major stage comes when they consider open heart surgery on the healthier brother to (it gets complicated) provide healthy bone marrow to the one with leukemia. “Either we cripple one son or kill the other.” Matters reach a fever pitch when House suggests transplanting the sickness from the healthier brother to the sick one, effectively using him as a live Petri dish to quickly discover what is killing the healthier brother. The moral question becomes to what degree, and for what foreseeable benefits, one can intentionally sicken someone for another person’s benefit? Clearly the brother with leukemia was not “doomed” to dying, because he in fact survives, and therefore the argument for making him worse (that he could not get better anyway) evaporates. There’s much to consider here.

Oh, and … the dog?!

Next Week:

Here's the TV preview spot for next week's episode:

More House resources:

• If you want to catch up on House, Amazon has the First and Second seasons on DVD.
• The official House website at Fox.
• Wikipedia page for House, with brief episode summaries.

Legalize: All pictures copyright FOX and found here.