| #177 vvvvvvvvv01.05.2006 - 09:23 |
| Regarding your indy article Sex is Normal... Sadly, your conception of the Catholic Churchs teaching on sexuality is wrong. Not just wrong, but I sense it is the product of poor catechesis (unfortunately a problem running rampant amongst baby boomer religion teachers). First of all, the Church is not, as you say, in the Dark Ages. More people, unlike yourself, are returning to Catholicism because of the Popes teachings. And JPII isnt dead yet. Even though his energy is waning, he is still mentally sharp, and as long as he can communicate by writing, he is good to go. I wouldnt label him as anti-contraception either. He is pro-life (as opposed to the prominent pro-death stance that Americans call choice). Unlike the pro-death alternative, pro-life encompasses more than just contraceptives and abortion. It deals with promoting the culture of life in the culture of death (read Evangelium Vitae if you want to know more about this). The Pope pretty much brought down the Iron Curtain in Poland, which no doubt led to communisms demise throughout Eastern Europe. Gaudium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) says: Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator. This paragraph echoed the concerns of the pro-life movement, Pope John Paul II included it in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae: (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM). By the way, the priests are able to keep their hands off little boys, unlike your claim. The statistics show that the incidence of priests who abuse children is way lower than the incidence of lay people who abuse children. If you want information on this subject, you should check out a Protecting Gods Children seminar. The diocese of Peoria and many other dioceses throughout America are using this program to train priests and Church volunteers in ways to avoid sexual abuse. Now onto sex... You are mistaken that Catholics are preoccupied with sex. Perhaps your Catholic teachers never emphasized the proper part of Church teach on sex. Contrary to your claims, Church teaching is not militaristic regarding sex. Instead Church teaching is based on the attitude that sex is one of the greatest gifts from God. The sexual act is designed to be both a unitive and procreative act. If one is screwing each other faster than [his or her] face broke out, then it is obvious that people are ignoring the unitive act. Birth control destroys the procreative part. Not to mention it is against the Natural Law. Clement of Alexandria, for example, stated that To have coition other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature. Contrary to what your teacher have taught you, sex isnt evil. Sex isnt bad. It is beautiful, and because of its nature, reserved for within marriage. In this past century with the advent of birth control, the family has been going downhill. You may scoff at the idea that the decline of family and the morals is related to things like birth control and abortion, but America used to be more family-centered before the pills and condoms, and nowsadlysex is seen mainly as pleasure, which goes back to the quote from Clement of Alexandria. Pope John Paul II (AKA the dying anti-contraceptive pope to you) said in paragraph 13 of Evangelium Vitae: It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe Gods law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception. Or how about paragraph 51 from Gaudium et Spes: This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both. endangered. As you can hopefully see, sex isnt just normal; its beautiful. It isnt beautiful when teenagers screw around. It isnt beautiful when a couple marries and then refuses to be open to children. Its hedonistic and makes us no more than pigs or dogs having sex. Again, I apologize for your poor catechesis, but you must know that your points are not valid unless you have actually read what the Church really teaches. Catholics for Free Choice is a schismatic cafeteria-style of Catholicism. Their points are not valid as they are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. For whatever reason, its members say they are Catholic, but then do not believe in anything the Church actually teaches, which, my friend, is the joy of being Catholic. No other Christian religion has any kind of teaching whatsoever. The Indy paper hit the nail on the head when it said that evangelicals only believe in the Bible and what it teaches, and their Bible isnt even the whole Bible. My friend from my undergraduate school (also a Theology major) and I used to comment that it must be hard being an evangelical Christian because all they have is the mutilated Word of God, thanks to people like Martin Luther. If you want to criticize the Church, then be sure you read good theology. Works by people such as Henri deLubac, Hans Urs von Balthesar, Yves Congar, Joseph Ratzinger, and of course, the dying anti-contraceptive Pope himselfJohn Paul II. Sincerely, Jennifer Van Dillen, Graduate student, French BA, Theology and French, Franciscan University of Steubenville Mary Krones replies: First off, my disagreement with some of the Churchs teaching is not based on poor religious teaching, but rather my personal opinion. Your comments of pro-life and pro-death in regards to contraceptives and abortion are opinions as well, as the issue can be phrased in the opposite direction, as pro-woman and pro-choice versus anti-choice and pro-authoritarian. Arguing over statistics when it comes to peoples children and molestation is neither convincing nor appropriate. There should no Catholic priests molesting little boys. To say that priests are supposed to know better than that would be the understatement of the decade. Most Catholics are concerned with real life issues, such as having children when they are ready to, and adequately providing for them, not what the Clement of Alexandria or Natural Law definitions from the eighteenth century. Like many Catholics, I view sex as something beautiful that can exist inside or outside a marriage. I say this because I do not belief the Bible or the Church should always be taken seriously. Everything declared by the Church is human interpretation, not directly spoken by God. So even good Catholics should take everything said by the Church with a grain of salt. I also belief that an important aspect of faith is to constantly be questioning that faith. To blindly follow one persons opinion (even if that person is JP II) is foolish. |
| #176 JEN01.05.2006 - 09:22 |
| Letters on religion 13 Nov 2003 By - (verified) Letters on the religion issue (Nov. 5) To the Indy: I have read your paper many times, and though I do not agree with some of things you all write about, I respect you as an organization who seeks the truth and wants to inform people about the truth in government,among other subjects. However, I was disappointed by what was written about the Christian group, Intervarsity. I do not think it discriminatory to not allow a practicing homosexual to take on a leadership position in an organization such as Intervarsity. The Bible has a clear stance, in every Bible that I have ever read, on homosexuality. The act of homosexuality is wrong, according to the Bible (it exists in the Old Testament and the New Testament, particularly in the book of Acts when Paul is condemning the Church for allowing these practices continue right in front of their faces). Why would one want someone who clearly violates that to be in a leadership role? The Bible has a clear stance on premarital sex, so why would an organization that reflects the beliefs of the Bible put someone who has sex with a boyfriend or girlfriend in a leadership role; after all, is that not hypocritical? If I got drunk every single weekend but then stood as a leader of a Christian organization when the group has clearly stated that drunkenness is wrong according to the Bible, who would respect me as a leader? Nobody would, if they believed what the Bible said was true, and therefore, the organization would have no credibility. Would Jane Bohman of the Illinois Coalition Against the Death Penalty want a person who clearly believes the death penalty to be an appropriate task to sit in a leadership role in their organization? No, because the organization has a clear belief system against the death penalty and nobody would respect the organization with someone with those beliefs in that type of position. I have had homosexual friends in the past (although, they have all graduated and gone on to do bigger and better things), so I am not anti-gay. They know that I do not think their lifestyle is appropriate because of my faith and what my faith believes, but I still love them, and they know that. As someone who believes in the Bible, I cannot accept one aspect of the Bible and not others just because it is not convenient for society today. Who should respect that? I am not trying to attack in this response, just clarify why it would be inappropriate to allow a homosexual to lead in a group such as Intervarsity. Thank you for your time, and have a wonderful day. Sincerely, Brittany Smith John K. Wilson replies: Clearly, it is discriminatory to ban gay leadersthe only question is whether its the kind of discrimination thats allowed under law. Unlike a private organization, this debate applies only to a public universitys recognition and subsidy of a group. If InterVarsitys members have this belief system (which is anti-gay, no matter how much you love your gay friends), then they are free to select anti-gay leaders. The question is whether they can institutionalize this bias by demanding an enforceable constitution which bans dissent, even if the members of the group want a dissenting leader. If everyone is sinner, how does someone decide which sins justify banishment? For example, why ban drinking (since the Bible clearly endorses it)? If premarital sex by InterVarsity leaders is banned (though it happens in Bibleeven Adam and Eve werent marriedand lots of Christians do it), does the same ban apply to those who lie or who disrespect their parents or who covet their neighbors Lexus? Theres plenty of nonsense in the Bible that Christians ignore because its archaic and stupid. Why not include homophobia with, say, the bacon ban when you decide to ignore the Bible? And how can you ban someone who sincerely believes that the Bible does not condemn all homosexuality? Surely there must be room for disagreement about the meaning of the Bible, since it does not explain itself. On what grounds can anyone ban certain ideas from being considered? InterVarsity members may think homosexuals are evil, but theres always hope they may see the light and change their views. At a public university, InterVarsity cant prohibit this possibility. To the Indy: You might want to take another look at Veggie-tales. Im not angry at Keith Gottschalk, because he doesnt address the real issue of Veggie-tales. I am Jewish, and I work at a Jewish Community Center (similar to a YMCA) summer day camp. I wrote a song for them about the story of Jonah from the Old Testament, and they raised their hands and told me they know the story already. I was very surprised and happy when they started describing to me a story from veggie-tales! Jewish children are watching a Christian program? Why would the parents allow this to happen? Ill tell you why. Veggie-tales, along with every other mainstream Christian medium, keeps its association with the Christian faith on the down low. This program doesnt even mention its Christianity in marketing or anywhere during the movie. It doesnt come up until the end of the video, when they relate what they just learned to scripture from the New Testament! Thus, little children are watching these programs, enjoy the funny characters, then realize that their fun and education is related to the Christian Bible! And the parents dont see this because either they as a family dont watch the whole thing, or because the parent leaves the child alone to watch, to keep him/her busy. The point is that Christian society is trying to sneak its way into mainstream to contaminate others beliefs and slowly mold the m into good, saluting Christians. Rock groups such as Evanescence (though I love their music), Creed, Michelle Branch, P.O.D., are all singing about Jesus, but disguise it with you and darling. Radio stations like the Fish in Chicago advertise on billboards as Safe for the whole family! Well, not a Jewish family! Then, I have to wake up at this school and see every channel covered with evangelists and gospel music! Its not right, nor is it fair. Thanks, Adam Bellows To the Indy: Regarding your indy article Sex is Normal... Sadly, your conception of the Catholic Churchs teaching on sexuality is wrong. Not just wrong, but I sense it is the product of poor catechesis (unfortunately a problem running rampant amongst baby boomer religion teachers). First of all, the Church is not, as you say, in the Dark Ages. More people, unlike yourself, are returning to Catholicism because of the Popes teachings. And JPII isnt dead yet. Even though his energy is waning, he is still mentally sharp, and as long as he can communicate by writing, he is good to go. I wouldnt label him as anti-contraception either. He is pro-life (as opposed to the prominent pro-death stance that Americans call choice). Unlike the pro-death alternative, pro-life encompasses more than just contraceptives and abortion. It deals with promoting the culture of life in the culture of death (read Evangelium Vitae if you want to know more about this). The Pope pretty much brought down the Iron Curtain in Poland, which no doubt led to communisms demise throughout Eastern Europe. Gaudium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) says: Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator. This paragraph echoed the concerns of the pro-life movement, Pope John Paul II included it in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae: (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM). By the way, the priests are able to keep their hands off little boys, unlike your claim. The statistics show that the incidence of priests who abuse children is way lower than the incidence of lay people who abuse children. If you want information on this subject, you should check out a Protecting Gods Children seminar. The diocese of Peoria and many other dioceses throughout America are using this program to train priests and Church volunteers in ways to avoid sexual abuse. Now onto sex... You are mistaken that Catholics are preoccupied with sex. Perhaps your Catholic teachers never emphasized the proper part of Church teach on sex. Contrary to your claims, Church teaching is not militaristic regarding sex. Instead Church teaching is based on the attitude that sex is one of the greatest gifts from God. The sexual act is designed to be both a unitive and procreative act. If one is screwing each other faster than [his or her] face broke out, then it is obvious that people are ignoring the unitive act. Birth control destroys the procreative part. Not to mention it is against the Natural Law. Clement of Alexandria, for example, stated that To have coition other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature. Contrary to what your teacher have taught you, sex isnt evil. Sex isnt bad. It is beautiful, and because of its nature, reserved for within marriage. In this past century with the advent of birth control, the family has been going downhill. You may scoff at the idea that the decline of family and the morals is related to things like birth control and abortion, but America used to be more family-centered before the pills and condoms, and nowsadlysex is seen mainly as pleasure, which goes back to the quote from Clement of Alexandria. Pope John Paul II (AKA the dying anti-contraceptive pope to you) said in paragraph 13 of Evangelium Vitae: It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe Gods law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception. Or how about paragraph 51 from Gaudium et Spes: This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both. endangered. As you can hopefully see, sex isnt just normal; its beautiful. It isnt beautiful when teenagers screw around. It isnt beautiful when a couple marries and then refuses to be open to children. Its hedonistic and makes us no more than pigs or dogs having sex. Again, I apologize for your poor catechesis, but you must know that your points are not valid unless you have actually read what the Church really teaches. Catholics for Free Choice is a schismatic cafeteria-style of Catholicism. Their points are not valid as they are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. For whatever reason, its members say they are Catholic, but then do not believe in anything the Church actually teaches, which, my friend, is the joy of being Catholic. No other Christian religion has any kind of teaching whatsoever. The Indy paper hit the nail on the head when it said that evangelicals only believe in the Bible and what it teaches, and their Bible isnt even the whole Bible. My friend from my undergraduate school (also a Theology major) and I used to comment that it must be hard being an evangelical Christian because all they have is the mutilated Word of God, thanks to people like Martin Luther. If you want to criticize the Church, then be sure you read good theology. Works by people such as Henri deLubac, Hans Urs von Balthesar, Yves Congar, Joseph Ratzinger, and of course, the dying anti-contraceptive Pope himselfJohn Paul II. Sincerely, Jennifer Van Dillen, Graduate student, French BA, Theology and French, Franciscan University of Steubenville Mary Krones replies: First off, my disagreement with some of the Churchs teaching is not based on poor religious teaching, but rather my personal opinion. Your comments of pro-life and pro-death in regards to contraceptives and abortion are opinions as well, as the issue can be phrased in the opposite direction, as pro-woman and pro-choice versus anti-choice and pro-authoritarian. Arguing over statistics when it comes to peoples children and molestation is neither convincing nor appropriate. There should no Catholic priests molesting little boys. To say that priests are supposed to know better than that would be the understatement of the decade. Most Catholics are concerned with real life issues, such as having children when they are ready to, and adequately providing for them, not what the Clement of Alexandria or Natural Law definitions from the eighteenth century. Like many Catholics, I view sex as something beautiful that can exist inside or outside a marriage. I say this because I do not belief the Bible or the Church should always be taken seriously. Everything declared by the Church is human interpretation, not directly spoken by God. So even good Catholics should take everything said by the Church with a grain of salt. I also belief that an important aspect of faith is to constantly be questioning that faith. To blindly follow one persons opinion (even if that person is JP II) is foolish. Dear Editors and Staff, I wanted to thank Anthony DiMaggio (and Keith Gottschalk) for their articles on Christianity in the 11-5 edition. It is sad, but true that those that yell the loudest, in any organization, are often the ones doing the least and causing the most trouble. What is also true is that those working the hardest are often not recognized for their efforts. For every loud-mouth disc jockey and political lackey, please keep in mind that there are dozens of men and women working in organizations like World Vision and Samaritans Purse to do as Christ asked: feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and share the joy of Jesus resurrection. Within our own community many saints quietly donate money and time to the homeless and to churches that do what they can both here in town and on a global scale. Most of the worlds Christian population is not made up of Affluent Americans, thank God. To learn more about some of these organizations I would suggest visiting the website of Evangelicals for Social Action, the organizations I noted above, and calling local churches to see how you might also get involved. Down the centuries many Christians have walked the narrow road, subverting the dominant culture and living out the passionate love and Truth of Jesus teaching. There is no danger of these people giving up or of the love of Christ dying out in our world. We are simply all imperfect, but working hard nonetheless! Sincerely, Emily McQuillan, Sr. English Major Dear Indy, Recently, I read a letter from one of your readers stating, What good is it to wipe your butt, when you still wind up with deuce all over your hand?....Well, after reading your religion issue (which covers only Christianity by the way) I couldnt help but but notice a huge chunk of this deuce all over my left hand. This, I did not like. Why? Because, I believe that Christ is King. I believe, he came down to Earth not only to show us how to live, but to save us from the trash weve allowed into our lives. In reading your Religion Issue, I noticed you did not bash Christ, only his followers. Ive been a Christian for four years now, and I could go on and on about the different evils, and ridiculous distractions in our church today. However, though I do attend a church, I do not seek it, it is in Christ I find my satisfaction, not his people. The purpose of the church is simply to glorify God, and be amongst other individuals looking to do the same(just like joining the NRA, or the Albino Squirrel Club). And just like any other organization run by humans, there are flaws. What matters is not the building, or the music inside it, but the Truth in which they seek. When someone becomes a Christian, they are not magically transformed. Simply put, they have their sins covered. The rest is up to them. Some Christians sit on the couch and wait for Heaven, while many others pursue him, and are incredibly transformed through the strength and power that lies our creator. I myself can testify to this same transformation. Ive had many experiences throughout my life, indulged in a vast array of psychedelics, and alcohol, and all fall short to what I have found in Christ. This is where I have found my solution, Indy. Start with Christ, and go from there. I believe that if everyone was fully human (as Christ was), the problems with corporations, Bush, and the Middle East would cease to exist (then what would we write about?) Now comes my challenge to you. What is your solution? Honestly, what is it, and where to we start? Instead of a whole issue devoted to the problem. Id like to see an entire issue devoted to the solution. An issue with practical steps, and answers to the question of life, and how then shall we live it. After all, maybe Christ is holding out on me. Yours Truly, Dave Smith John K. Wilson replies: I dont speak for everyone, but I think the solution to life is answered on a weekly basis in the Indy. Its reason and action. It is understanding the truth and then acting to promote it. The problem is that many people claim to follow Christ, and yet have vastly different interpretations of the Bible. The command to follow Christeven if it were not a waste of time to worship a long-dead religious nutdoes not really answer many practical questions about life. If belief in Christ helps end an addiction, thats nice. So can a rational decision. But in the end, religion can become its own problematic addiction: the idea that faith can solve every problem and individual reason is unnecessary. |
| #175 hhhhhhhh01.05.2006 - 09:21 |
| When Pope John Paul II visited St. Louis, he gave those who saw him an experience to last a lifetime. Here, readers share their memories of the day they saw the pope, and why they will never forget it. The day Pope John Paul said mass at the Dome was my father\s birthday. My dad had died four months earlier, so there couldn\t have been a more memorable way to honor my father. My son and I had two tickets to the mass. Our seats were in the last row at the very top of the stadium and we were behind the altar. I thought, how will we see anything? Once the pope entered the arena, I realized it didn\t matter. His mere presence filled the space with love. We were only able to see his frail, hunched back throughout the ceremony, but his spirit touched me and my son, who was only 12 at the time. When the pope passed away, my son immediately called from college to see if I had heard and to reflect on our visit to see him. I feel so blessed to have shared that special day with my son, the pope and my dad. Kathy Murano Wildwood I remember being at the Convention Center watching the mass on the huge TVs as if it were yesterday -- I still remember what I wore! My family is Catholic and our church gave us passes to go see the pope\s mass being broadcast. While my three younger siblings were just happy to have an extra day off school (my mom decided to make a long weekend out of this experience and stay, she was so excited), I was 14 years old and realized just how special this experience was to become. My younger brothers were small enough that they were able to make their way up front of the crowd (people tend to be nicer to small children when the pope is around, I guess), and got very clear pictures of the pope in his popemobile. For a Catholic, an experience like this is comparable to that of meeting the president or seeing a historic play at Busch Stadium. I had already planned a trip to Italy for my spring break next week, but now I am 100 times more excited knowing I could possibly be around when the next pope is chosen. I consider myself very fortunate and hope to pass these stories down to my children and my children\s children. Sara Schmittgens, 20 years old St. Peters I remember when Pope John Paul II visited in 1999. I anxiously awaited his arrival on Lindell Boulevard and stood for hours until he arrived and was transported from a limousine to the Popemobile. It was well worth the wait and I would do it again in a heartbeat. I remember that the Popemobile appeared to go by quicker than I expected but I was able to take a few pictures as he passed by. I still have them and treasure them dearly. I took the day off work and I cherish this memory and will remember this for the rest of my life. I recorded all of the other Papal events on my VCR -- the youth rally, the mass at the dome and the prayer service at the Cathedral, as well as the various processions in the popemobile. These are memories that I will treasure forever. I even have a copy of the special editon that the Post-Dispatch put out the day of the mass. John Paul II was one of the most, if not the most, influential public figures of my lifetime. The next pope has very large shoes to fill and I wonder if we will ever have another pope like John Paul II. He promoted world peace quite often and I think it is only fitting that with all of the world leaders coming to his funeral that this is the occasion to begin to spread a serious message to spread world peace. It is exactly what John Paul would have wanted and it is only fitting that after his burial that the world leaders would send this message out and hope that everyone will continue to follow what John Paul had preached to us so many times. Conrad Knoten Riding down highway 44 in the old school bus at 2:45 a.m., it seemed as if the whole world was Catholic, as school bus after school bus surrounded us on our way to the Dome. The organization was phenomenal. We were paired up with a new family on our street, whom we car pooled with to Meramec Junior College. We all knew we were going to experience a religious bond that would only happen once. We just had no idea how powerful it would be... When we were let out downtown, the mood was exciting, calm, and prayerful. We had stayed up the night before, mesmerized by the televised vision of the Pope at the youth ralley, and yet no one was tired. My husband -- a recent convert -- and myself, a product of Catholic school education, were spellbound by the holiness of the event.There was no pushing or shoving, no children crying, though there were many in attendance...To see the bishops, priests, and nuns in their official garb held to the idea that today was indeed a very special and holy event. Each parish seemed to seek out their pastors,and you could hear little cheers as they passed in procession. Sacred Heart (Valley Park) parishioners had only to look for our (then) pastor\s trademark cowboy boots to know that our immediate spiritual leader was there. This was truly the holiest experience I have ever had. The words of the Pope, his holiness so obvious to all around him, were unbelievably moving and inspiring. This was undeniably the proudest day of my Catholic faith. Though there may be so many external issues that surround different faiths, to know that at the core of our faith is this holy man, was enough to last me my whole life. Denise Perisho Ballwin At the time of the Pope\s visit in 1999, I lived on Lindell Boulevard, almost directly across the street from the archbishop\s residence. Needless to say, I had several wonderful opportunities to see him those three days. One of those evenings, from my fifth floor apartment building, I watched His Holiness in the popemobile pull up to the rear of the archbishop\s house, from my kitchen window. Since then, I have often fondly reflected on that experience: How many people can say they saw the pope from their kitchen window? I was a seminarian in the archdiocesan seminary from 1968-74. During that time, I was a liturgical musician, and got to be very familiar with the music of a young Vincentian seminarian at the time, Rory Cooney. I particularly loved his song "Here I am Lord". After I left the seminary, I never heard his music or his name again. Then, during Pope John Paul II\s visit in 1999, at the youth rally, that song was played, accompanied by liturgical dance. I had always remembered that beautiful song, and how appropriate to hear it 25 years later during the Holy Father\s visit. John C. Connolly St. Louis I was honored to attend the Papal Mass with my mom in January 1999 (5 ½ months before she died of complications from cancer). When my mom heard of the visit she just lit up and I knew we had to go. When that day arrived she was feeling great and we had an amazing experience sitting up in "Heaven" as she called it. I will never forget her face when the Pope came in and began mass. Sue Bearden St. Louis, MO At times, I think that I am all alone with regards to faith, my beliefs and how one should act with regards to our families, friends and especially neighbors. Two events in my life with regard to John Paul have reminded me of the universality of the Church and the inherit faith that most people really do want to believe in God, as our Creator, Redeemer and Friend and that there is truly life after death, salvation in world much more beautiful than this one in which we live today. Those two events would be the visit to St. Louis in January of 1999 and now his death. I was fortunate to be one of some 110,000 faithful who woke at 3 a.m. one morning to meet with parishioners and board a bus at 4 a.m. so we could arrive at 5 a.m. in downtown St. Louis and sit for some three hours or so, to await the arrival of his eminence. The dome was electric with anticipation and there was a sense of celebrity in the air. What we finally were introduced to was one humble, holy man of God. But it was as if we had met Christ Himself. Its encouraging to learn that there really is goodness out there. That life isnt all about self, greed, desire for power and control. That people really care for others and it\s not all about murder, rape, sex, war, molestation and robbery. Its welcoming to know that people want to believe in God, the Supreme Being, the Lover of all mankind. John Bischof The summer after my high school graduation my family and I attended the Polish Falcons Festival at St. Stanislaus Church. Pope John Paul II had just been elected and Polish people everywhere were surprised and thrilled with the unexpected announcement. At the Festival, my dad purchased a bumper sticker stating "Happiness is Having Polish Pope," with a smiley face on it. We put it on our old station wagon with pride. In August, my mom and I loaded up the car and we headed down I-70 to Mizzou for my move into the dorms as a freshman. All along our route, people passing on our left kept honking, waving, pointing at the back of our car...we weren\t sure what was happening. I think we pulled over once to see if we had a flat tire. It was curious, because all of the passers-by had been smiling. It wasn\t until we pulled up to my dorm and lifted the tailgate to begin unloading my stuff that we saw the bumper sticker. Evidently we weren\t the only ones happy to have a Polish pope. It was such an exciting time for all Catholics. Anne M. Pokoski Clayton My wife Linda and I traveled in Italy in 1995. On Friday, June 9, we went to the Vatican with a letter of admission to the Vatican Gardens. When we exhibited our admission documents, the Swiss guard noticed that we were Trumans from Missouri. He asked whether I was related to President Truman. I said that he had been my great-uncle. The guard was so gracious that Linda asked to take a picture of him and me. He replied that ordinarily that was not allowed, but in my case he would make an exception. I assumed that both the photo and the explanation were a Swiss version of Italian hospitality. Then we walked, unescorted, all around the Vatican Gardens, realizing that popes walked here to pray and relax. For our part we took photos. After Mass (June 11) the Pope stood by the altar, waving as people clapped loudly. Then he circled the altar, accompanied by waves of applause. The man to my right yielded his place to a young boy who stood on a chair next to us, hoping to see. As the Pope walked by he stopped and shook the hand of that boy. We were within a couple of feet of the Pope. I might have shaken his hand but would not relinquish my camera. In all my travels I have lost only one roll of film. It was the roll on which I took photos of Pope John Paul II standing by me. For some time afterwards I called the hotel from the States, hoping that I had left the film in my room. I never recovered the film, but I have pictures of the Pope from another roll, and my memories are fresh John Ross Truman St. Louis Our aunt, Jean Rewczuk was housekeeper at the rectory (of St. Stanislaus Church in 1969) and she and her sisters served that meal to the Cardinal Karol Wojtyla and other dignitaries. Father Pawlowski acted as host. It is our understanding that he was the one responsible for persuading the Cardinal Wojtyla to come to St. Louis. Our grandmother, Teofila Chrostowski was one of the many Polish Americans who saw Karol Wojtyla as a hero for opposing Communist rule in Poland and promoting religious rights to the people. Our grandmother supported her family back in Poland over the years by sending money, clothing and other care package items. Cardinal Wojtyla was very warm with her and told her she reminded him of his own mother whom he lost at age 9. Our cousin Charlie McCarty served as the chaffeur that day and stated the Cardinal insisted on riding with him in the front seat. Charlie changed his radio station to easy listening but the Cardinal asked to hear "what the young people were listening to." The Cardinal displayed a great sense of humor and teased with him during the drive. Charlie had several stories about their rides together that day. We were all excited and pleased when this special guest was elevated to the position of leader of the Church. Mary Jo Carlson As a Catholic young adult, I always appreciated how John Paul II held us in high esteem. He valued our youth, and he didnt compromise the truth whenever he presented it to us. While I never met him, I will always hold the 1999 youth rally close to my heart. My seat was on the aisle on the floor, so I was literally four feet away from him as he rode up to the stage. When he spoke, it seemed like he was speaking just to me, and as I prepare to enter the religious life this summer, I will always remember the words he spoke that evening: Remember: Christ is calling you; the Church needs you; the pope believes in you and he expects great things of you! Jennifer Van Dillen St. Charles I can tell you that when it was my turn to stand before him at Savvis Center, a real sense of nervousness came over me. My legs started to shake, and my hands started to sweat. I knew this was on national TV, so I was trying real hard not to fall over or do anything to ruin the moment. Just being in his presence was an experience that was really special. Pope John Paul II stood over me and blessed my feet with his hands, then his top aid gave me a rosary as a gift from him. We were told beforehand that we were not to make any movements to touch him. It was a real mind-altering experience, when I was near him I felt like I was near Jesus. He made me reevalute life and what is important. I dont think that anyone that I will ever meet the rest of my life will be able to make me feel the way that he did. His presence is indescribable, when I looked at his eyes, I could see God. Jack Cribbin St. Louis My fondest memory of Pope John Paul II was when I handled the official canonization tour for Phillipine Duchesne in 1988. Five hundred and thirty alums from around the world gathered in Rome to celebrate the canonization of the Sacred Heart nun who founded convent schools in the United States. Marge Schott was among the group. She insisted on having a private audience with the pope. He agreed to come aside during our audience and meet her and accept her special gift. Knowing Marge, none of us knew what was in the box. When we saw the huge smile on the popes face we knew it was something special. She gave him a Cincinnati Reds jacket with John Paul II embroidered on the back. He put it on and was photographed later that year wearing it while skiing in Cortina. This man loved everyone he encountered. The feeling was mutual. Joan Kiburz Clayton Having been up since 2 a.m. on that unseasonably warm winters day, both my wife Lynn and myself found ourselves in a trance-like mood as we returned to Harrahs Casino onboard a large coach. Most of the day had been spent standing in line; hours at Harrahs to board the bus taking us to the Dome, and hours to enter the Dome. The entire bus seemed to be in silent reflection of what they had witnessed just hours ago the celebration of Mass by Pope John Paul II. Clearly the highlight of the Mass was John Pauls homily, his message to the 110,000 gathered. As we headed back to St. Charles, Lynn said to me Do you know what most impressed me from His homily? I sat and thought for a moment or two and responded yes, I do She then went on to tell me how I was not nearly as smart as I thought I was, and how could I possibly know, out of the thousands of words spoken, which ones she remembered most. As the family goes, so goes the nation, I told her. She sat and stared and asked me how I knew. I was not sure how I knew, yet I did. Words cannot describe how we both felt; we both knew our marriage was stronger, and we had a clearer understanding of each other. On that unseasonably warm winters day in 1999 both Lynn and I realized how dedicated the other was to raising our children, Maggie, Joe and yet to be born Dee and how much we loved each other. It was a life-altering experience. Mike McMurran St. Charles I was one of the music teachers whose students sang in the choir at the papal youth event in 1999. It was a long day. I remember some of the adults there were asking the question, This is an elderly, frail, conservative, Polish priest who became the pope. What do all these kids see in him? It occurred to me as the evening progressed that these teenagers in the Kiel Center were the kids who went to church, participated in their youth groups, loved their parents and teachers, got good grades, and did what life asked of them. These were the teens who made good decisions and stuck by their beliefs. No one usually pays much attention to them, but John Paul II did. Tonight, the pope belongs to you, he told them. They sang and prayed and had a great evening together. I sat and watched and learned a great deal that night. There are thousands, millions of young people who celebrate their spiritual lives without cynicism, publicity, or financial gain. John Paul told them to meet the challenges of the Gospel, because you are so worthy of it. John Paul gave these kids his time and attention when so many of the rest of us fail to do so. No wonder they loved him so much. Steve Nobel Kirkwood I was thrilled to get four tickets to the Mass at the Dome when the pope was in St. Louis. My two nieces and cousin went with me. After rising at 2 a.m. and driving to a central location to board buses, we were on our way. When we finally reached downtown, the lines to get in were very long. The people in the lines with us waited respectfully and quietly to get their seats. After we were seated, it was another few hours before Mass. When the pope finally was driven into the Dome and we were able to see him for the first time, we all were so moved. I know I had tears in my eyes...what an experience. It was the only time I have seen a pope in person, and to attend a Mass celebrated by him was awesome. I believe we got home around 4 or 5 that afternoon. I still have all my souvenirs as a remembrance of that special day. Linda Polka Lake Saint Louis My daughter, grandson and I made it a point too see our beloved pope. His visit here made our special city blessed by the visit of such a saintly man of God. Our city had two greatest Christian leaders enter our soil: St. Louis and John Paul. We truly are blessed. I cried over Pope John Pauls death. He touched our hearts like a family member. Torn between his entering heaven and the selfishness of missing him and wanting him with us brought tears to our eyes. A great man that truly served God. When he went down the street a few feet away at his St. Louis visit he seemed so pure and beautiful. You could truly see that his devotion to God made him glow in a real sort of way, it made everyone Catholic and non-Catholic love and respect him. It was simple: He walked like he talked in his leadership serving our Lord. Patricia Bialik St. Louis The day I recieved the call that I had the honor of two tickets to see the pope is one I will never forget. It happened to be my birthday. I did, however, have a decision to make. You see there were four in my family and only two tickets. A few days later I was blessed with two more tickets. It was an experience that I shared with my husband and two daughters, one we will never forget. The feeling of overwhelming joy washed over you as the crowd waited for him to enter the Dome. When he did I saw tears in everyones eyes around me. I felt a warmth that I hadnt felt before, I knew this was a once in a lifetime event, one to cherish forever. This past Saturday upon hearing the news that the pope had passed, I shed a single tear, not of sadness but happiness for him, because he was joining our father in a place where that warm feeling is every day. Christina Middendorf St. Louis area I was born Catholic but not raised, so when a friend called and asked if I would be interested in being an usher at papal mass, at the Dome, I jumped at the opportunity. It was my job to get an entire section of people out of their seats, up the stairs to the waiting priest, take Communion, and then back to their seats within 15 minutes. I will never forget the sights etched onto my memory from that day. The sight of literally thousands of flashes going off as His Holiness entered was staggering and surreal. No sports event or rock concert had prepared me for the spectacle I witnessed. From the first moment until the last I was completely enthralled by Ill Papa. Even when his homily was unintelligible, the power of his words rang through the hall. The captions had a hard time keeping up with his Latin and when I tried to follow along I would frequently lose step with his words, I finally stopped looking at the screen and just enjoyed the sound of his voice. But the most exhilarating thing about the whole event was the fact that, even from the distance of the balcony, his sparkling blue eyes never belied his age nor his illness. Like I said, it will remain etched in my memory forever. Thank you for allowing me to share my experience. Tony Perez Affton In January 1999 I was an eighth grader who wasnt necessarily excited about about my faith, nor was I all that concerned about the upcoming papal visit to St. Louis. I attended St. Simon the Apostle Catholic grade school. The school was given an allowed number of tickets to the papal teen rally. All the sudden I found myself on a bus at 6:30 a.m. with a bunch of my classmates headed toward the Arch. We started the morning off by marching from the Arch to what was then the Kiel Center. We sang the whole way there. Once in our seats we were entertained by many religious music groups, one being the group DC Talk. Most the people I was with would have never sat through these groups but it didnt take long until we were up singing along to words that celebrated God. The popes speech was much later in the day but that didnt mean we, teens were tired when he arrived. When it was clear John Paul II was in the building the whole Kiel Center started to chant John Paul 2 We Love You. I cant say I remember what the pope said that day but I can remember the amazing feeling of looking around the Kiel Center and seeing thousands of teens celebrating their faith. Although I was only in eighth grade I knew that many Americans saw teens only as trouble makers, but this papal rally renewed my faith in people and mostly in my fellow teens. I wouldnt trade my experience for anything. John Paul II was a man that brought people together and he definitely had that effect on the teens on St. Louis that day. Claire Conway South County, St. Louis I was a greeter volunteer at Kiel Center when Pope John Paul 11 came to St. Louis. I was going through a bad time in my marriage and just being there amidst all of the inspiration of him, gave me such a feeling of peace. He was the most kindest, gentlest man you could ever meet. An angel from God on earth. Pam Rose Imperial, Mo. I sang in the St. Louis Archdiocesan Choir during the papal visit. I remember the popes first night in St. Louis when he was presiding over the youth rally at the Savvis Center. We were rehearsing inside the Edward Jones Dome in preparation for the mass the next morning. While we rehearsed they had a live feed of the activities in Savvis Center playing over the large screen video board, and we all enjoyed seeing the Pope being handed his very own Blues jersey and stick, and then imitating taking a shot with the stick. I remember too sitting outside my hotel on Lindell Boulevard, just a block north of the Archbishops residence where the Pope was staying, and I waited nearly four hours just to catch a glimpse of the Holy Father as he drove by. I saw the pope three times that weekend, during his parade down Lindell, at the papal Mass, and at the evening service. I got chills each time. The most amazing thing I remember was after singing at the Dome for the Mass with the St. Louis Archdiocesan Choir, we rode back to the Basilica to prepare for the evening prayer service. When we pulled up to the Basilica and got off the bus, there was a rainbow in the sky high above the dome. We were all knew that the Pink Ladies had been praying for good weather for the weekend, but thought they really outdid themselves with this! Jeremy A. Boyer Potosi, Mo. Hello, my name is Marione Johnson. In 1999 I was a police officer in the city of Hazelwood, and I got the opportunity to be on the security detail inside the Kiel Center for the popes mass. That was one of the most awesome memories to date. We had to wear a special pope protection detail pin that was given to us by the Secret Service. No one was allowed in the area we were guarding without one of the pins. I still have my pin, and I later wrote Archbishop Rigali and thanked him for the opportunity that only occurs once in a lifetime, and how thrilled I was to be a part of St. Louis, and the Catholic community. I am now retired from the police department, but I had purchased a couple of t-shirts, and a scarf (bandana) which I wore all weekend. Thank you for the opportunity to let us express ourselves about our experience! Marione Johnson St.Louis I remember the visit as if it were yesterday. The anticipation of the visit and the media coverage were overwhelming. It seemed as if nobody could get enough, me included. The only event I witnessed in person was the mass at the dome. I remember getting up at 3:30 in the morning to go catch a bus at Florissant Valley Community College by 4:30. We arrived at the dome between 5:30 and 6 a.m. Then we waited for five hours for the Mass to begin. I was seated with my wife (fiancée at the time) and her family in a corridor of the dome. We bought our papal souvenirs while waiting for the arrival of the pontiff. When he arrived in his popemobile, we stood up on our chairs and were bobbing and weaving our heads just to see him. When I saw him, it gave me chills up and down my spine. I had the same chills when I had heard Saturday afternoon that the pope had passed away. I think the chills were the excitement of knowing that a great man was being called home. Phil Braun Jr. Roseville, Mich., formerly of St. Louis, my hometown My children, my mother and I were blessed to be able to attend the Mass celebrated by Pope John Paul at the dome in St. Louis. I got the feeling that he truly was close to Godhe was a very holy, very spiritual man, but also a genuinely good human being. You could tell that he was suffering then, his speech was very hard to understand. But to just be in the presence of this holy man was an experience that will stay with me for the rest of my life. We mourn his death, but we celebrate his life and find peace and comfort in knowing that he has been welcomed home and is no longer suffering. Cheryl Arnold I saw Pope John Paul II when he visited St. Louis in 1999. I was standing on Lindell Boulevard when his motorcade passed by. He turned to our side of the street as he passed and blessed us. I felt he was personally blessing me. May God bless the pope and welcome him into His kingdom. Chris Skoklo When the Pope came to St. Louis in 1999 I was in the eighth grade class at Sacred Heart School in Eureka. Every archdiocesan school had the two days off for the visit, and I spent every moment of it glued to the TV watching every bit of live coverage. Not only did I watch every venue, but I also recorded themthey filled two VHS tapes. I also had the privilege of attending the final departure at the airport the day that he left St. Louis. My name was pulled out of a hat along with two other classmates to be the representatives from our school. To this day, I still have the program, bandana, and pen-light that everyone at the venue received. It was an amazing experience that I will never forget. Mary Woll Hometown Eureka, currently living in Cape Girardeau I lived in St. Louis in January 1999 when the Holy Father visited us. My wife and I could not get tickets to any of the official events so we took the MetroLink down to the Savvis Center. We hiked it to the steps of what I think was one of the courthouses and waited for his motorcade. We were probably 100 feet from the street but it seemed like we could see him so clearly in his popemobile! He gave us all a drive-by blessing and then entered the Savvis Center. We took several pictures, in one there is a blur of everything else around him (due to lights) so it makes it appear that he is floating on thin air!! On that same day, my wife an I had applied for a mortgage loan to buy our first house (I was 29 at the time). About a week later, we got the acceptance letter! We know it was the blessing of Pope John Paul II that helped us buy our first home! Paul Norman Dallas My lasting memory was watching the transformation of the popes face turn to joy every time he came in contact with any of the children. This wonderful spiritual man loved much and was loved in return by all who met him. Jeanne Messmer My partner and I own the flower shop that has the honor of doing the flowers for the new cathedral for about 30 years now. When the pope was to arrive we waited for word that we would be able to do the flowers. Father Jim Telthorst was pastor and called with the exciting news that yes, we would be able to do the flowers for our beloved prince of the church. Yellow and white represent the papal colors. I dont think there was a yellow or white flower left in the midwest when Ken was through. It was absoluting awesome, certainly something worthy of the successor of St. Peter. I put the white lily arrangement in place at the Blessed Mothers altar. I have a picture of me putting this creation by Ken in place. I also have in my album a picture of John Paul praying at that same altar. The arrangement is clearly visible in both pictures. It remains one of my greatest treasures. I later learned that Ken had donated all those flowers and all our labor in honor of our beloved pope. John Sullivan St. Louis When my friends and I heard the Holy Father was coming to St. Louis, we were excited. But, we live in Alton, and our Springfield, Ill., diocese was only given the chance of a few tickets for lottery distribution. Just as disappointment set in, we heard that people were needed to do service work during the papal Mass. We jumped! And miraculously, we thought anyway, all of us who signed up were chosen! From our parish we went to St. Louis University to wait to get our work assignment, our yellow vests marking us as volunteer workers, and be bused to the TWA Dome. We arrived at the Dome at 2 a.m. We had to enter through metal detectors. We found this humorous, because being Catholics, we all had numerous rosaries and medals for the Holy Father to bless. I was a communion usher. My job was to get the people in my section up to the umbrellas and back to their seats in an orderly fashion. It was the most awesome experience. The air was electric and when John Paul II drove in and circled in his specially-made popemobile, the crowd went wild! I still sometimes listen to the CD I have of the Basilica choir who sang for the Mass. Their music was so beautiful it takes me back. The most memorable line for me from the Popes homily was: As the family goes, so goes society. What an awesome Papa John Paul II was to the Church and the whole world. Carolyn Simansky Alton I remember my mother and I rushing to pick up my daughter, then in second grade, from school and making a spur of the moment decision to head down to Forest Park to try to see the pope as his caravan made its way along Lindell to the new cathedral. Just in time, we pulled to the curb in Forest Park, ran to the orange emergency fence , and saw pope drive by in the popemobile. My daughter thought that was funny and she waved. He looked our way as he raised his hand to the crowd. Even though I am not Catholic, I felt excited about the popes visit to St. Louis, and was inspired by the way he seemed to unify people of all faiths. I believe he cared for all the the people of the world. This will be my lasting memory of him. Kay Houghtaling Fenton Our third child was born the day the pope arrived in St. Louis. I remember sitting in my wifes hospital room while she recuperated from the C-section, watching the television coverage of the visit. It goes without saying that I will always associate the two events together. My wife and I make certain that we periodically remind our child of the coincidence of the two events. Its something Ill never forget. Kenny and Lea Lynn Glen Carbon Hearing that the pope was coming to St. Louis was very exciting, and everyone was making plans for the event. I was working both a full-time and a part-time job, so I didn\t sign up at church for a chance to be able to go to the Mass at the dome. As the time grew closer, I felt like I wanted to do something, so I asked for a vacation day. I took the Metrolink to Grand and walked up to Lindell. It was exciting to see him go by. After he\d gone by, I walked on down Olive into the city. For all the people who were not able to get into the Dome, (and we were quite a few) they had a big vacant lot with giant TV screens so we could watch the pope saying Mass, and pray just as if we were inside. And everyone was praying, and it was very special; little children who\d come with their parents were lying around asleep, as well as some grownups who\d probably traveled a long way. Colleen Adams |
| #174 POETRY30.04.2006 - 00:22 |
| HeavenHaven A nun takes the veil I have desired to go Where springs not fail, To fields where flies no sharp and sided hail And a few lilies blow. And I have asked to be Where no storms come, Where the green swell is in the havens dumb, And out of the swing of the sea. I know I\ve posted this one before, but I\m going to again. Just because it\s my all time favorite! And not because the "young child" is named Margaret! Not just because, anyway ... Incidentally, "unleaving" means "losing leaves." Like in autumn. Yeah, the first couple times I read it, I took a while to figure that out, genius that I am  Spring and Fall to a young child MÁRGARÉT, áre you gríeving Over Goldengrove unleaving? Leáves, líke the things of man, you With your fresh thoughts care for, can you? Áh! ás the heart grows older It will come to such sights colder By and by, nor spare a sigh Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie; And yet you wíll weep and know why. Now no matter, child, the name: Sórrows spríngs áre the same. Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed What heart heard of, ghost guessed: It ís the blight man was born for, It is Margaret you mourn for. Another favorite from high school days ... one of my high school English teachers liked Hopkins, too. Lucky me! Pied Beauty Glory be to God for dappled things For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow; For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim; Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches wings; Landscape plotted and piecedfold, fallow, and plough; And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim. All things counter, original, spare, strange; Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?) With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim; He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise him. Summa The best ideal is the true And other truth is none. All glory be ascribèd to The holy Three in One. |
| #173 SUSTAINING LIFE22.04.2006 - 19:24 |
| What the Church teaches about artificially sustaining life Just so nobody writes any "angry letters" (he he, just kidding if, God forbid it, His Holiness has to be taken off a respirator or something ...... A person may, but is not bound to, use extraordinary means - those means which primarily are not considered ordinary medical care or common medical treatments. These means do not offer reasonable hope of benefit and may be excessively burdensome to either the patient or the family. Factors to consider in determining whether a treatment is extraordinary include the type of treatment, the degree of complexity, the amount of risk involved, its cost and accessibility, and the state of the sick person and his resources. One would weigh the proportion of pain and suffering against the amount of good to be done. Granted, in our world today, however, exactly what constitutes extraordinary medical care becomes harder and harder to define. For instance, accepting an artificial heart is clearly experimental and would be extraordinary, whereas the usage of a respirator or ventilator is oftentimes standard procedure to aid the patient\s recovery. While the Church makes the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means, it would not sanction any act of euthanasia. Euthanasia, literally translated as good death or easy death, is "an action or omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated" (Declaration on Euthanasia). In other words, euthanasia involves the purposeful termination of life by a direct action, such as lethal injection, or by an omission, such as starvation or dehydration. Note that euthanasia is commonly known as "mercy killing": this term is most appropriate because the act involves an intentional killing, no matter how good the intention may be to alleviate suffering ... However, euthanasia must be distinguished from the stopping of extraordinary means of health care or other aggressive medical treatment. The patient - or guardian in the case of an unconscious patient - has the right to reject outright or to discontinue those procedures which are extraordinary, no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, do not offer a proportionate good, do not offer reasonable hope of benefit, impose excessive burdens on the patient and his family, or are simply "heroic." Such a decision is most appropriate when death is clearly imminent and inevitable. Here a person may refuse forms of treatment which at best provide a precarious and burdensome prolonging of life. In these cases, the person would place himself in God\s hands and prepare to leave this life, while maintaining ordinary means of health care. ... Another friend of mine was dying of prostate cancer, which had metastasised throughout his body. When I saw him last in the hospital, he had gone into a coma and was being fed intravenously and was breathing with a respirator. His kidneys had failed. The doctors told the family that there was nothing more they could do and the situation was irreversible. At that point, the medical technology was not providing any hope of recovery or benefit, but rather was merely prolonging the death process. The family decided to turn-off the respirator, which had now become an extraordinary means, and minutes later my friend went to meet his Lord. This action was morally permissible and different from purposefully terminating life. Keep in mind that in both of these cases, if someone had decided to give a lethal injection to the person, or to deny the person ordinary means of health care, like food and water, then that would have been a purposeful act of killing. The entire article, by Fr. William Saunders at Catholic Exchange, is very informative and enlightening. I would recommend reading the rest. |
| #172 bbbbbbbbbb22.04.2006 - 19:17 |
I just got around to reading that little missive from Sara Grogg that caused sucha an uproar! and I have to admit that I don\t find much wrong with it!  In fact, in most ways I agree.Some points: 1. Society has been completely desensitized to believe that everything is ok and nothing is bad as long as someone likes it. Even if a majority of people are offended by it, they are forced to be tolerant because it makes someone else feel good. I think she is right about this. Ask most people about their conception of right and wrong, and it often comes down to not so much "Is this true? Is this right?" than "Am I comfortable with this?" She probably relates this to a loss of "Christian ethics," and I think that plays a role for many people, but it\s not the whole picture. There are plenty of intelligent atheists and agnostics and pagans (Plato, anybody?) who realize and manage to coherently avoid the ethical bankruptcy of relativism. But many other "moderns" don\t. This is either because people are paralyzed by the idea of making definite distinctions, or because they are simply unmotivated to develop a method with which to evaluate truth or falsity, right or wrong. A nastier person than me would say, "Intellectually lazy." But I think in some respects it\s not their fault. The culture itself is highly relativistic; ours is a society that loathes philosophy. You can\t expect lots of people to drag themselves out of the (very comfortable) morass of their own volition. You see this in the gay marriage debate a lot, on both sides. A lot of people are just freaked out by homosexuals (usually as a result of a lack of personal contact with them) and that\s the extent of the depth of their position - when in fact there\s a rich, very deep natural law argument against gay marriage that they never bother to investigate. Other than to say, "that ain\t natural!" which isn\t much of anything at all. And I have yet to read anything in support of gay marriage that does not devolve into a treatise on how people feel they should be allowed to get married and it hurts them that they can\t, and it feels terrible so let\s change the law! Singing: Feeeeelings, whoa whoa whoaaa feeeeeelings ... Hello? Does anybody care to think and use their brains to come up with an INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT?(I feel a rant about the nature of philosophy coming on ... eck ... not now .. stifles self) Point 2: 2. Society has completely taken away the concept of sex as something sacred. It used to be improper to talk about sex, and it was an experience only between you and your husband/wife. Marriage used to be a lifelong commitment. I think that it is really sad that very few people have anything that they\re proud of anymore. Sex used to be something that you could give as a "gift" to your husband or wife. Now that everyone\s doing it with whomever they want, whenever they want, sex has lost its meaning and significance. People have become selfish and very me-oriented. The mindset of today is that "anything and everything is acceptable as long as I get something out of it or it makes me feel good" This "point" is a bit messier. I don\t see why it should be considered "improper" to talk about sex. The crass, degrading, pornographic way of discussing sexuality is, of course, both disgusting and commonplace. But that doesn\t mean that mature people shouldn\t be allowed to discuss sex (I think that rules out most college students, lol). She is correct, however, that sex is for the most part no longer considered something sacred. Rather than being a unique part of marriage intimately connected to the mystery of new life, it has become something casual and pedestrian. Again, some people might consider this the "Christian fundamentalist" position, but ironically, in the years before Christianity came to Europe, sex was, to the pagan societies, a sacred event due to its connection with the creation of new life, and it was even included in the pagan marriage ritual (ooo, imagine being a bridesmaid at one of those shindigs, lol I love how she refers to sex as a "gift" exchanged between husband and wife. I wonder if she is a closet Catholic or thinking of converting, (lol, probably NOT because that way of looking at sexuality is an idea right out of Pope John Paul II\s Theology of the Body.I think she is also onto something with her suggestion that people have become very "me-oriented." My connection, not hers: I think this has a lot to do with the rise of birth control and contraception. No one says, "I have a boyfriend/girlfriend husband/wife, and I want to use them and their body to obtain physical pleasure, as though the one I love was a cheap device from a porn store. However, I might make a child, which would involve "commitment," which obviously I am not interested in, since it isn\t fun. So I\m going to wear a condom, swallow a pill, or do other nasty unnatural chemical things to my body to prevent it." What they do say is more along the lines of, "We\re in love, but we\re not married, we\re not ready to have children blah blah ..." Of course, the Church teaches that sex is both procreative and unitive; that is, it\s for producing children AND for the meaningful union between two people. But, as the Church also teaches, there\s not much "meaning" to a union where one or both of the partners wants to deliberately prevent the creation of new life. When you actually analyze it intellectually, the reasons for contraception are incredibly narcissistic. The pursuit of personal pleasure is put above the other considerations (we\re not ready to have children). I want it, my pleasure, it feels good to me, I-my-me-me-me. Think about it: (and let me be a bit crude) What\s the major sexual difference between humans and blow-up dolls? The major sexual difference between your significant other and a blow-up doll? Oh yeah. You and your significant other can create new life. Contraception, whether it comes in the form of rubber or medicine, reduces the other person to so much plastic. A sexual receptacle. Yeah, it was such a victory for women\s rights that now men can sleep with as many girls as they like without worrying. It\s a regular Sex-Objectopia. "Batter up, they\re all on the pill!" Point 3: 3. Obviously if you\re only 20 years old, and you\ve already resorted to finding pleasure in something that is man-made, there is something wrong. It\s sad to think that something that was created for the enjoyment and pleasure between two married people has been perverted into something that we can just joke about and have parties about. Hmmm. I find "pleasure" in a lot of things that are man-made. Art, music, literature ... Snickers. LOL, and I\m not even kidding about that last one! However, that\s not what she means. She is talking about using sex toys to "spice up" intercourse. Again, I think her idea is correct: There is no need to take what is naturally a beautiful, enjoyable thing and introduce something artificial into it. Unless of course you are not actually interested in the meaningful union of bodies but rather, only the pleasure that accompanies it.Well, that\s my rant. I thought the "piece" was actually pretty mature, in that she did not dismiss sexuality as something "dirty" but nevertheless pointed out that it is meaningful and not something that ought to be casual - what\s the really crude line from the movie - "Screwing is not like shaking hands." She probably went about communicating her ideas in the wrong way - she should have gotten permission, etc. Although she does have a right to free speech, and this is a public university. I hope I didn\t offend anybody, and if I did, I\m sorry, I\m not judging anyone or anyone\s conscience. These are just the thoughts trolling around my mad, mad brain |
| #171 bbbbbbbbb22.04.2006 - 16:21 |
| The Immaculate Conception is the Patron Saint of the United States of America . . . At my third request her face took on a serious expression, and at the same time an expression of deep humility . . joining her palms as if for prayer, she raised them to the height of her breast . . . She looked up to heaven . . . then slowly opening her hands and bending down towards me, she said to me in a voice in which one could sense a slight trembling, I am the Immaculate Conception The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC The Immaculate Conception Appears at Lourdes, France History of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception Prayer of the Immaculate Conception A Defense of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception |
| #170 ffffffff22.04.2006 - 16:13 |
| oberts So-Called Commitment To Privacy Double Talk Shows Longstanding Rights Endangered by Roberts Nomination After yesterdays bobbing and weaving from Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, you might think Roberts told senators that the Constitution protects rights Americans have come to expect reproductive choice for women, a right to privacy in our own bedrooms, and the right to make intensely personal medical decisions, such as refusing unwanted medical treatment, without government interference. Youd be wrong. While Roberts said he believed in a right to privacy under the Constitution, he immediately added that every member of the Supreme Court does, to some extent or another. By saying that he believes in a constitutional right to privacy the way every member of the Court does, Roberts is essentially saying that he would provide virtually no real protection for the right to privacy. Every member of the Court, of course, includes Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. According to their view, any right to privacy does not encompass a womans right to reproductive choice, and both have argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. According to their view, any right to privacy apparently does not include the right of consenting adults to be free from criminal prosecution for what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, as reflected in their dissents in Lawrence v. Texas. And according to Scalias view, the right of privacy does not give even a fully competent adult the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, as reflected in Scalia\s opinion in Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of Health. To what extent does Roberts believe in a right to privacy? Beyond the right of married couples to use contraception, recognized in the Griswold decision, Roberts refused to divulge whether he believed a constitutional right to privacy included reproductive choice or end-of-life decisions. Right-wing leaders are apparently comfortable concluding that Roberts provide[d a] basis for reversing Roe v. Wade, as one LifeNews headline put it. Pat Robertsons Christian Broadcasting Network reported that Roberts may vote [to] overturn Roe v. Wade, and that [p]ro-life groups were happy to hear his answers on when it is appropriate to overturn settled law. According to a posting on confirmthem.com, a prominent anti-Roe attorney applauded Roberts evasion, saying Roberts answer was carefully framed to provide a basis for revisiting and overturning Roe in the future. Judge Roberts answer is too clever by half, said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. With one breath, he gives false reassurance to Americans who are concerned that a Roberts Court would endanger privacy rights. With the next breath, he signals the far right wing that he could well join Scalia and Thomas in trying to take those rights away. Neas said Robertss comments are eerily similar to the words Clarence Thomas used 14 years ago to respond to the similar questions. A transcript of Roberts answers on Tuesday and Thomass answers from 1991 are below. BIDEN/ROBERTS SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): Now, you have already said to the chairman that you agree that there\s a right to privacy. And you said the Supreme Court found such a right in part in the Fourteenth amendment. My question is: Do you agree that -- not what said law is -- what do you think? Do you agree that there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? JUDGE ROBERTS: I do, Senator. I think that the court\s expressions, and I think if my reading of the precedent is correct, I think every justice on the court believes that, to some extent or another. Liberty is not limited to freedom from physical restraint. It does cover areas, as you said, such as privacy. And it\s not protected only in procedural terms but it is protected substantively as well. Again, I think every member of the court subscribes to that proposition. If they agree with Bowling against Sharpe, as I\m sure all of them do, they are subscribing to that proposition to some extent or another. KOHL/ROBERTS KOHL: Judge, as we all know, the Griswold v. Connecticut case guarantees that there is a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution as it applies to contraception. Do you agree with that decision and that there is a fundamental right to privacy as it relates to contraception? In your opinion, is that settled law? ROBERTS: I agree with the Griswold court\s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that. The court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right discussed in that case in the liberty interest protected under the due process clause. SIMON/THOMAS SEN. PAUL SIMON [former Democratic of Illinois, now deceased]: do you consider the right of privacy a fundamental right? JUDGE THOMAS. Senator, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court, no majority has used the ninth amendment to establish as the basis for a right. Of course, it was used by Justice Goldberg and by Justice Douglas in Griswold. With respect to the approach that I indicated that I thought was the better approach, it was Justice Harlan\s approach. But with that said, my bottom line was that I felt that there was a right to privacy in the Constitution, and that the marital right to privacy, of course, is at the core of that, and that the marital right to privacy in my view and certainly the view of the Court is that it is a fundamental right. ----------------- Whose right to privacy? Marsha Mercer By MARSHA MERCER Media General News Service WASHINGTON A motel clerk out West once asked Antonin Scalia if he pronounced his name like the Supreme Court justice. Barbara A. Perry writes in The Priestly Tribe, her 1999 book about the Supreme Courts image, that Scalia could barely refrain from blurting at the clerk, How many Antonin Scalias are there? Thats a question many were asking last week during the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito. Is he another Scalia? The poor motel clerk had stumbled onto a more basic question. Should Supreme Court justices be the most powerful people nobody recognizes? Close your eyes and picture Anthony Kennedy. David Souter. John Paul Stevens. I rest my case. As President Bushs first nominee to the highest court, John Roberts lived in limelight for weeks. Then, in late September, he took the oath as chief justice and vanished. Most people probably would be unable to place Roberts friendly face if he sat beside them on an airplane. Take a good look at Alito. If hes confirmed to the court, hell drop out of sight faster than someone in the witness protection program. Justices arguably exert more control over our lives than any elected official, and yet theyre nearly anonymous. We never see them work. The Supreme Court is the last TV-free zone in Washington. The courts concession to modernity is the occasional release of audiotapes of important oral arguments two since Roberts took over. But TV cameras? Never. Thats too bad, because TV would bring millions of citizens into the court that decides crucial issues of our lives. Today, only those who travel here, stand in line and crowd into the few public seats get a glimpse. Why is the court reluctant to open the door to TV? Barbara Perry writes that David Souter said in 1993 that when he served on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which is televised, he deliberately avoided asking questions he thought viewers wouldnt understand. The fear that justice could be inhibited is a real one. But many justices make speeches and travel widely. They serve for life and never face voters. Surely, they could rise above camera shyness. Cameras today are small and unobtrusive, and the lighting might remain muted, although C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb has said the justices would look better in stronger light. The late chief justice William H. Rehnquist argued that cameras would diminish the mystique and authority of the court. Others say cameras encourage lawyers to showboat. But playing to the cameras at the Supreme Court seems less likely than one might think watching Congress. The court hears oral arguments in about 100 cases annually. Each case is distilled into an hour of public argument, divided equally between the two sides. Thats what broadcasters want to show not the private deliberations behind closed doors with only the justices present. Roberts has been noncommittal about TV coverage. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, who favors cameras in the Supreme Court, quizzed Alito. Specter cited Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, a 1980 case in which the Supreme Court said the right to a public trial belongs not just to the accused but to the public and the press. How about it? Specter asked the nominee. Why shouldnt the Supreme Court be open to the public with television? It was one of the few topics on which Alito admitted he had an opinion. Hed argued for TV coverage of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, where hes a judge, he said. I thought it would be a useful Specter interrupted: Really? You have taken a position on this issue? Yes, Alito was for permitting cameras, but hed been in the minority. The majority was fearful that our Nielsen numbers would be in the negative, he joked. Alito wouldnt speculate about whether hed favor cameras in the Supreme Court, noting that at least one justice has said cameras would come only over his dead body. That was Souter who told a House committee a decade ago, The day you see a camera in our courtroom, its gonna roll over my dead body! Marsha Mercer is Washington bureau chief of Media General News Service. Email mmercer@mediageneral.com |
| #169 VOCAB22.04.2006 - 16:04 |
| conundrum - Rätsel, Scherzfrage quandary - Zwickmühle. Verlagenheit, Dilemma |
| #168 THANKSGIVING22.04.2006 - 16:01 |
| Thanksgiving Day, 2004 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation All across America, we gather this week with the people we love to give thanks to God for the blessings in our lives. We are grateful for our freedom, grateful for our families and friends, and grateful for the many gifts of America. On Thanksgiving Day, we acknowledge that all of these things, and life itself, come from the Almighty God. Almost four centuries ago, the Pilgrims celebrated a harvest feast to thank God after suffering through a brutal winter. President George Washington proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving in 1789, and President Lincoln revived the tradition during the Civil War, asking Americans to give thanks with "one heart and one voice." Since then, in times of war and in times of peace, Americans have gathered with family and friends and given thanks to God for our blessings. Thanksgiving is also a time to share our blessings with those who are less fortunate. Americans this week will gather food and clothing for neighbors in need. Many young people will give part of their holiday to volunteer at homeless shelters and food pantries. On Thanksgiving, we remember that the true strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of the American people. By seeking out those who are hurting and by lending a hand, Americans touch the lives of their fellow citizens and help make our Nation and the world a better place. This Thanksgiving, we express our gratitude to our dedicated firefighters and police officers who help keep our homeland safe. We are grateful to the homeland security and intelligence personnel who spend long hours on faithful watch. And we give thanks for the Americans in our Armed Forces who are serving around the world to secure our country and advance the cause of freedom. These brave men and women make our entire Nation proud, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifice. On this Thanksgiving Day, we thank God for His blessings and ask Him to continue to guide and watch over our Nation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 2004, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all Americans to gather together in their homes and places of worship to reinforce the ties of family and community and to express gratitude for the many blessings we enjoy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth. |
| #167 nnnnn21.04.2006 - 23:27 |
| Note to self: Use whenever opponent claims that "the government shouldn\t impose morality" In fact, of course, the very nature of law is to impose the conscience of the community on the individual. The only question is On What Basis, and With What Limits? The community\s conscience imposes itself everyday, by direct state interference using the power of the police and jail systems, on those who have no personal problem with pedophilia, theft, murder for a Higher Cause, tax evasion, and heroin distribution and who just want to be free of the Encroachments of Caesar on these worthwhile activities that bring them so much personal fulfillment and happiness. If we, being normal, support such state interference with human autonomy and freedom, we call it "good government". If we oppose it, we call it "legislating morality" or "social engineering". That\s why "You can\t legislate morality" is such an empty phrase to me. What on earth *is* law but legislated morality? We think it immoral and wrong to oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow and so we pass laws protecting immigrant workers, street kids, and 9/11 widows, for instance. We believe the purely mystical doctrine "all human beings are created equal" (a doctrine which, to Aristotle, would have been completely contradicted by the empirical evidence of the senses) and pass laws against slavery and giving women the vote. Voila! Legislated morality. Good government or social engineering? The only basis from which to judge is the basis, ultimately, of natural law and revelation. Otherwise it\s whatever the majority thinks it is, according the whim of the zeitgeist. It does not follow from this that *all* morality should be legislated. I don\t want a law making sure everybody honors the Sabbath. I don\t think homosexual activity should be criminalized. I don\t think we need laws commanding people to pray without ceasing or to believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved. Civil law is *floor* of human behavior, not the upper atmospher. It is supposed to guard against the *lowest* aspects of human behavior so that a civil society can function. What we *really* mean when we say you can\t legislate morality is that the Law cannot put the things of the Spirit in the heart. It cannot instill love of neighbor, for instance. But it can and does punish those who can\t even bring themselves to keep from harming their neighbor. It says, if you can\t love your neighbor, at least don\t beat him to death with a baseball bat or cheat him out of money. That\s a really moral function. It\s just not the *highest* moral function. |
| #166 bbbbbbb21.04.2006 - 23:23 |
| Joliet diocese hit with class-action suit March 1, 2006 BY CATHLEEN FALSANI Religion Reporter Advertisement More than 35 years after he says a Roman Catholic priest molested him at a Downers Grove parish, a 52-year-old Minneapolis man has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Diocese of Joliet, saying its bishops "revictimized him" for decades. Lawyers for George Knotek filed the class-action lawsuit in DuPage County Court in part to try to force Bishop Joseph Imesch, head of the Joliet diocese, to disclose the names of all priests accused of sexually abusing minors. The lawsuit, which does not seek monetary damages, also asks that the diocese turn over all documents regarding clergy molestation of children for court supervision so the documents cannot be destroyed, hidden or "misplaced." In late January, the same attorneys filed a similar class-action lawsuit against the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. Knotek, whose brother, Michael, is a Catholic priest and pastor of St. John de la Salle parish in Chicago, says when he was 16 years old the Rev. Donald Pock sexually abused him in the rectory of Divine Savior parish, where his mother was the parish secretary, an emotional Knotek told reporters Tuesday. Pock died in May 2004. Meeting was \classic intimidation\ Knotek lent his name to the lawsuit in an effort to end "the revictimization that occurs when the church time and time again does not stand up and make people whole," he said, choking back tears. In the mid-1970s, after the bishop in Joliet rebuffed overtures from Knotek and his brother, Michael -- to whom he had revealed the abuse and who at the time was in seminary -- to report the allegations against Pock, the brothers turned to the papal representative in Washington, D.C. A meeting was then brokered with Bishop Raymond Vonesh, an auxiliary bishop in Joliet, and Pock. "They took us in the room one at a time," Knotek recalled. "They brought me in, sat me down in a chair, with bright lights on me -- it couldn\t have been more classic intimidation -- had me go through the explicit details . . . in front of my accuser. "Father Pock said, \I\m sorry but I don\t remember anything about it. I have a drinking problem. So if it happened, I\m sorry,\ " Knotek said. Pock was removed from the Downers Grove parish, sent for counseling, and then eventually reassigned to another parish in the Joliet diocese, he said. Wanted 2nd appearance In 2002, Imesch removed Pock from ministry because of allegations from another man, not Knotek. Since then, Knotek said, he has learned of at least two other men who said they were abused by Pock, including one who is a priest in Minnesota. But in a May 2003 letter to Knotek, apologizing for the abuse he had suffered at the hands of Pock, Imesch said he felt "quite confident" that no other victims had come forward since Knotek. "It\s not a misunderstanding; it\s a lie," said Knotek\s attorney Marc Pearlman of Chicago. In order to investigate his allegations, Imesch told him, Knotek would have to appear before the diocese\s review board that vets such allegations. Knotek declined. "Why should I have to go through that again?" he said. In a written statement, a spokesman for the Diocese of Joliet assured the public that there are no priests currently in ministry in the Joliet diocese "with credible allegations against them." "In 2002, the diocese turned over to the state\s attorneys of Will and DuPage counties files for all priests accused of sexual abuse of a minor. When an investigation deems an allegation against a priest to be credible, the name of that priest is disclosed to the parish and other places where he has served. The diocese has never destroyed or hidden any documents relating to sexual abuse by priests," spokesman Thomas Kerber said in the statement. cfalsani@suntimes.com Joliet diocese hit with class-action suit March 1, 2006 BY CATHLEEN FALSANI Religion Reporter Advertisement More than 35 years after he says a Roman Catholic priest molested him at a Downers Grove parish, a 52-year-old Minneapolis man has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Diocese of Joliet, saying its bishops "revictimized him" for decades. Lawyers for George Knotek filed the class-action lawsuit in DuPage County Court in part to try to force Bishop Joseph Imesch, head of the Joliet diocese, to disclose the names of all priests accused of sexually abusing minors. The lawsuit, which does not seek monetary damages, also asks that the diocese turn over all documents regarding clergy molestation of children for court supervision so the documents cannot be destroyed, hidden or "misplaced." In late January, the same attorneys filed a similar class-action lawsuit against the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. Knotek, whose brother, Michael, is a Catholic priest and pastor of St. John de la Salle parish in Chicago, says when he was 16 years old the Rev. Donald Pock sexually abused him in the rectory of Divine Savior parish, where his mother was the parish secretary, an emotional Knotek told reporters Tuesday. Pock died in May 2004. Meeting was \classic intimidation\ Knotek lent his name to the lawsuit in an effort to end "the revictimization that occurs when the church time and time again does not stand up and make people whole," he said, choking back tears. In the mid-1970s, after the bishop in Joliet rebuffed overtures from Knotek and his brother, Michael -- to whom he had revealed the abuse and who at the time was in seminary -- to report the allegations against Pock, the brothers turned to the papal representative in Washington, D.C. A meeting was then brokered with Bishop Raymond Vonesh, an auxiliary bishop in Joliet, and Pock. "They took us in the room one at a time," Knotek recalled. "They brought me in, sat me down in a chair, with bright lights on me -- it couldn\t have been more classic intimidation -- had me go through the explicit details . . . in front of my accuser. "Father Pock said, \I\m sorry but I don\t remember anything about it. I have a drinking problem. So if it happened, I\m sorry,\ " Knotek said. Pock was removed from the Downers Grove parish, sent for counseling, and then eventually reassigned to another parish in the Joliet diocese, he said. Wanted 2nd appearance In 2002, Imesch removed Pock from ministry because of allegations from another man, not Knotek. Since then, Knotek said, he has learned of at least two other men who said they were abused by Pock, including one who is a priest in Minnesota. But in a May 2003 letter to Knotek, apologizing for the abuse he had suffered at the hands of Pock, Imesch said he felt "quite confident" that no other victims had come forward since Knotek. "It\s not a misunderstanding; it\s a lie," said Knotek\s attorney Marc Pearlman of Chicago. In order to investigate his allegations, Imesch told him, Knotek would have to appear before the diocese\s review board that vets such allegations. Knotek declined. "Why should I have to go through that again?" he said. In a written statement, a spokesman for the Diocese of Joliet assured the public that there are no priests currently in ministry in the Joliet diocese "with credible allegations against them." "In 2002, the diocese turned over to the state\s attorneys of Will and DuPage counties files for all priests accused of sexual abuse of a minor. When an investigation deems an allegation against a priest to be credible, the name of that priest is disclosed to the parish and other places where he has served. The diocese has never destroyed or hidden any documents relating to sexual abuse by priests," spokesman Thomas Kerber said in the statement. cfalsani@suntimes.com |
| #165 ggggggggg21.04.2006 - 23:01 |
| Ten Differences These two ways of understanding God the ecstatic and the orthodox underlie the theological division in mainline Protestant churches. These differences are not always clearly articulated, and many persons have vaguely adapted portions of each. When the matter is thought through, however, these two views differ in virtually every dimension of the Christian faith. 4. Ecstatic: The task of theology is to reinterpret the faith as relevant to new cultural contexts. The content of faith evolves since culture evolves. Orthodox: The task of theology is first and foremost to clarify and preserve the faith once delivered to the saints and to transfer it intact to each succeeding generation. Certain aspects of revelation never evolve. 5. Ecstatic: Since personhood requires objectivity that is, a person over against us who can speak to us God is not personal so much as he is an energy to be experienced. Orthodox: God is personal, revealing himself as God the Son who became objectively incarnate in the man Jesus, with whom one can have a relationship. 7. Ecstatic: Sacraments or ordinances express the identity and unity of the ongoing life of the church. Orthodox: In liturgical traditions, sacraments are concrete means of supernatural grace by which God transforms his people. In the free churches, ordinances are the God-ordained means by which believers show their faith in God\s saving acts. Both focus on God\s action. 8. Ecstatic: All religions are ultimately one since the faith of each is an expression of the Holy or Ineffable in the concrete forms of a particular culture. Orthodox: The particulars of a religion matter, and therefore, the religions are divided by their specific content. Click to read the rest. (Via A Catholic Blog For Lovers). The Catholic Church has sometimes been criticized for sentimentality in its devotions or for paying too much attention to emotionally pleasing aesthetics, but I see much greater danger for this in the Protestant churches, in the Evangelical or Pentecostal ones - the "conversion" or "born again" experience that focuses on personal emotion, the altar calls, the emotive preaching (of course, these groups also tend to be firmly focused on the Bible and so introducing doctrinal looniness would be difficult). Transcendent, transcendent, transcendent. The mainline churches, which this article focuses on, have a much greater problem in that their idea of authority has much less stability than, say, a Catholic church has with the Magisterium and an Evangelical church has with the Bible, which can lead to the sort of difficulties that are currently ripping apart the Anglican communion and causing trouble for the ECLA, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists. |
| #164 ffffffffff20.04.2006 - 11:25 |
| September 14, 2004, 6:49 a.m. Goodbye to All That Dan Rather goes the way of the dinosaurs. I love the CBS News forged-document story. To paraphrase the abominable snowman from the Bugs Bunny cartoons, I want to hug it and squeeze it and name it George. Okay, I don\t want to name it George, but you get my drift. If this story were hot fudge, I would smear it all over my body and then roll around in nougat. Before I go on, please take a minute to finish your dry heaves of disgust as you purge that image from your minds. Anyway, to yank you viciously from one metaphorical frame of mind to another, the PowerLine blog may be the Gavrilo Princip of the New Media Age. Or maybe it was that poster at Free Republic. A quick refresher in world history. Prior to World War I, the world was a huge ball of molten slag and gaseous muck. But that\s not important right now. Immediately prior to World War I, the world was divvied up into huge power blocs, basically known as empires. The rulers, bureaucrats, aristocrats, intellectuals, and guys in funny wigs running these empires refused to accept that their way of life was unsustainable, that the curtain was closing on their chapter under the sun ("Jonah Goldberg doesn\t merely mix metaphors, he snaps their spines!" self-blurb). A relatively unknown loser (no offense to the PowerLine guys, Freep, et al.) shot Arch Duke Ferdinand and the whole house of cards came down. Some empires were obliged to help their allies. Others were just greedy, seeing opportunities in others\ weakness. The point which doesn\t warrant extremely close inspection is that the giants seemed extremely powerful right until they fell over. Moreover, what caused them to fall over was their desire to prove that they were as strong as they used to be, that they were still the Engines of History, Masters of their Fates, and the Inspiration of Needlessly Ornate Furniture. Something similar is going on with the Media Empires of today. Powerline or the blogosphere generally which would be the "Black Hand" in this analogy spotted the now-obvious fraudulent nature of these documents immediately. The charge is the journalistic equivalent of an assassin\s bullet for Dan Rather. Had he refused to go to war in defense of these documents, he might have survived. Instead he\s determined to go the way of the Hapsburgs and his career is over. Oh sure, he\ll probably ride out this election and retire in the next couple years with crates full of gold watches, plaques, awards, and attaboys from the establishment media. But the inevitable fact is that he will be drawn into a war he cannot win. The very best he can do is defend the slender possibility that these documents could be real. At this point it seems impossible that he can prove they are real. Indeed, Rather has already largely conceded all this. His defenses are all about how you can\t prove the documents are false, as if the burden of proof for a journalistic icon is for other people to prove what he says is wrong rather than for him to prove it is right. And, for Rather, this kind of draw is a loss. This could drag on for days or weeks or months. But even if it\s days, the bleeding will be fatal. Already, the man looks like a sad buffoon, in denial that the quicksand is already up to his chest. His flailing about "partisan operatives" being behind the backlash makes him sound like the Norma Desmond of Big Journalism. Someone tell me when ABC News and the Washington Post become arms of the RNC, because I would love to see that memo. But before I believed it, I\d study the size of the "th"s a bit more closely than Dan did. Remember when Joe Gillis told Norma Desmond: "You\re Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big." She responded, I am big. It\s the pictures that got small. Dan Rather has flipped this around. The news is still big, but Rather has gotten very, very small. The folks at Powerline compare the willingness of Dan Rather to chase a partisan hit job into the land of fiction to the revolution of suicide bombing. The sudden willingness, indeed eagerness, of terrorists to die with their victims changed the whole paradigm of national security. Similarly, Rather was willing to destroy himself in pursuit of a partisan attack. It\s an okay analogy, but it misses a crucial point. Dan Rather didn\t think he was going to blow himself up. He believed he was invulnerable. He was the equivalent of some powdered-wigged fool who believed that Austria would come out on the other side of a short battle with its reputation enhanced. Instead, it revealed that CBS News is really the Sick Man of Big Media. I have no desire to go trolling around inside Dan Rather\s brain. We all know from Star Trek that a mind-meld with such an alien psyche could leave me permanently damaged. But it\s clear that Dan Rather doesn\t understand what\s going on any more than those poor last dinosaurs understood why the tasty green fronds became so hard to find when it got cloudy. As an icon of the old world of big media, his self-inflicted extinction will surely be recognized as the end of not merely Dan Rather, but the age of Dan Rathers. I don\t have any better idea about what\s coming next than the folks in 1914 did. I don\t think blogs have the ability to replace CBS News any more than Gavrilo Princip and the Black Hand could replace the Hapsburgs. Blogs are great but they can\t do the heavy lifting of investigative journalism. But it seems obvious to me that we are officially at the Goodbye To All That moment of old media. Anyway, let me make one directly partisan point while I\m at it. Dan Rather considers it outrageous and offensive that anyone would question the judgment that led to this situation. He defends what appear to be very shoddy methods (reading letters over the phone to sources, asking sources not to talk to the press, etc.), as if only a "partisan" or a fool would question them. Well, if you agree with Rather, maybe you should give just a smidgen more slack to George W. Bush about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush\s sources were more solid by several orders of magnitude than Rather\s, and yet it is "obvious" to so many that Bush lied while Rather deserves the benefit of the doubt. George W. Bush had the head of the CIA, the intelligence agencies of all our allies, the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and most of the establishment media generally backing his understanding of the threat from Iraq. Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan Ben Barnes a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true. You might say the same to me, since I\m one of those people who\ve seen Dan Rather as a joke for a very long time. Fair enough. The difference is that I have better evidence on my side. |
| #163 VOTERS GUIDE20.04.2006 - 09:56 |
| HOW THIS VOTER\S GUIDE HELPS YOU This voter\s guide helps you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching. It helps you avoid choosing candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held by all Christians. On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. Most matters do not have a "Catholic position." But some issues concern non-negotiable moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. Ones position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church\s moral norms. This voter\s guide identifies five issues involving non-negotiable moral values in current politics, and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices. You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law. In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the non-negotiable issues. In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates. In this guide we will look first at the principles that should be applied in clear-cut races, where there is an unambiguously good moral choice. These same principles help lay the groundwork for what to do in situations that are more difficult. Knowing the principles that are applied in ideal situations is useful when facing problematic ones, so as you review the principles you should keep in mind that they often must be applied in situations where the choice is more difficult. At the end of the guide we will offer practical advice about how to decide to cast your vote in those cases. YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box. But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4). A citizens vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesnt let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly. Some things always are wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done. THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those which fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues. 1. Abortion The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child\s, who should not suffer death for others\ sins. 2. Euthanasia Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73). 3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b). Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans. 4. Human Cloning "Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through \twin fission,\ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6). Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being. 5. Homosexual "Marriage" True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement. "When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10). WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT? Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels. True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps never will take up the issue of human cloning but may take up issues connected with abortion clinics. It is important that you evaluate candidates in light of each non-negotiable moral issue that will come before them in the offices they are seeking. Few people achieve high office without first holding a lower office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder. Tomorrow\s candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today\s candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply comparable standards to local candidates. One should seek to elect to lower offices candidates who support Christian morality so that they will have a greater ability to be elected to higher offices where their moral stances may come directly into play. HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE\S POSITION 1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate\s position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time. 2. It often is more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions. 3. If you cannot determine a candidate\s views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to the candidate, asking for his position on the issues covered above. HOW NOT TO VOTE 1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family\s voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party. 2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates\ appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles. 3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching. 4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What\s in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose. 5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but who will vote wrongly on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except, say, for euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter, unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms. HOW TO VOTE 1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the issues that will come before him and involve non-negotiable principles. 2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles. 3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles. 4. Where ever candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues. 5. Remember that your vote today may affect the offices a candidate later achieves. WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one. A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.(EV, 73; also CPL, n.4) Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today, while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future. THE ROLE OF YOUR CONSCIENCE Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something that you know is wrong. It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. For your conscience to work properly, it must be properly informed-that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide. Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on election day. A well-formed conscience never will contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.) WHEN YOU ARE DONE WITH THIS VOTER\S GUIDE Please do not keep this voter\s guide to yourself. Read it, learn from it, and prepare your selection of candidates based on it. Then give this voter\s guide to a friend, and ask your friend to read it and pass it on to others. The more people who vote in accord with basic moral principles, the better off our country will be. ABBREVIATIONS CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church CPL Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family EV John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons Voter\s Guide Q&A Some of the most common questions regarding the Voter\s Guide are answered here. |