In a new survey, Californians from age 16 to 22 were asked "What do you consider the most pressing issue facing your generation in the world today?" The most common answer given -- over economic issues, drugs, Iraq, global warming, violence, racism -- was "family breakdown."
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The Kids Are Alright
With enemies like this, who needs friends?
Rudy Giuliani sure has a funny way of showing his "hatred" of abortion.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Friday afternoon (heretical) reflection
I like the saints. I really do. But sometimes, the accounts of the saints embolden the voice in the back of my head that tells me religion is a bunch of -- to use the technical term -- hooey. Consider John Allen's report on this month's canonization of Frei Galvao:
Benedict XVI will canonize the first Brazilian-born saint in church history during his five-day trip, on May 11: an 18th century Franciscan named Antonio de Sant’Anna Galvao, or “Frei Galvao,” whose claim to fame is that he developed a paper “pill” inscribed with a prayer to the Virgin Mary, which devotees ingest in hopes of a miracle. The pills are reputed to have cured everything from depression to hepatitis.
The pills are made by religious sisters at the Convent of Light in São Paolo, where Galvao died in 1832 at the age of 83. They contain the following prayer: “After the birth, the Virgin remained intact / Mother of God, intercede on our behalf.” Devotees swallow three pills over nine days while reciting the prayer.
In 2006, devotees consumed an average of 90,000 pills a month, according to Brazilian press reports. Since Galvao’s canonization was announced, that number jumped to 140,000.
The miracle which cleared the way for the canonization was reported by a Brazilian woman, who had a deformity in her uterus which doctors said would make it impossible for her to carry a baby to term. After ingesting Galvao’s pills, however, she said she was able to carry her child for seven and a half months until he was delivered by Caesarean section.
The pills are not the only sign of supernatural accomplishment attributed to Galvao. He is also said to have levitated while praying, and to have had the ability to read minds and to witness events even when he wasn’t physically present. Pregnant women sometimes borrow a frayed piece of rope believed to have been Galvao’s belt, and wear it around their mid-section in hopes of a smooth birth. Devotees even hammer off tiny chunks of the wall from Galvao’s monastery and brew them in a tea, which they drink as a sort of elixir thought to promote good health.
Auxiliary Bishop Edgar Moreira da Cunha of Newark, New Jersey, the only Brazilian-born bishop in the United States, said in an April 30 interview that until the canonization was announced, Galvao was not a well-known figure.
“Frankly, I didn’t know about this thing with the pill until recently,” he said. “It wasn’t known in Brazil. It’s a very localized thing in São Paolo.”
Devotion to Galvao has not always played to positive reviews. Some see it as superstitious and tinged with elements of folk magic. Cardinal Aloísio Leo Arlindo Lorscheider, now retired from the Aparecida diocese, said in 1998 that he considered the devotion “ridiculous,” and prohibited local nuns from making the pills. (They kept doing it anyway.)
Da Cunha said he doubted the canonization would stir much controversy. For most people, he said, the only thing that matters is that a Brazilian is being honored.
Let me get this straight. The Church accepts as proof of a miracle the fact that one woman was told that she could not carry a baby to term, and after taking this paper pill was able to carry the baby for 7 1/2 months? This is the best we can do when 90,000 pills are being taken every month?
On to my uncynical less cynical questions: Once the canonization occurs, are faithful Catholics supposed to believe that this man actually levitated, could read people's minds, and made miraculous pills out of paper? Or do saints fall under the "big tent" approach to the Church, so that it's enough to acknowledge that God manifests Himself in mysterious ways, not all of which we can vouch for with certainty? (But isn't the Church vouching with certainty by canonizing him?) In any event, just as some of today's Islamicists tempt me to embrace Voltaire, the story of Frei Galvao makes me acknowledge the appeal of David Hume.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
"This is Idi Amin Stuff"
Today's local paper carried the story of a boyfriend who hired someone to punch his six-months pregnant girlfriend in the stomach. The girlfriend is fine now (physically), but the punch caused a miscarriage, and both men have been charged with second-degree murder. The police chief commented that he had never heard of so young a homicide victim, and that the case was "heartbreaking." The county attorney said:
"I have never seen anything that sickens me quite like this . . . . What else is left in crime to disgust you? You assault a pregnant woman, the mother of your child, and you hire somebody to kill the child. This is Idi Amin stuff."
The boyfriend, who had already fathered a child with another woman, stated that he did not want another child. So if a father does not want to have a child and hires someone to end the pregnancy, he is guilty of the most disgusting crime imaginable. But if the mother does not want to have the child and hires someone to end the pregnancy, even over the father's objection, well, that's a different story. (We might even pay for it.)
Incest and Individual Autonomy
The Boston Globe reports on the post-Lawrence expansion of the battle to overturn prohibitions on adult incest. Many of the arguments portrayed seem to presume that the only rationale for the prohibition is the fear of genetic abnormality. A more promising ground, in my view, is the integrity of the family structure and the danger of family members assuming incompatibile roles. In this regard, incest prohibitions are protective of individual autonomy because they maintain the family's role as a platform for a member's future autonomy. And if there's one thing we hold sacred in our legal system, it's individual autonomy. That's why, despite Lawrence's unfortunately broad language, I don't see the case as a direct threat to our incest laws. (The Ohio Supreme Court recently agreed.)
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The Catholic Judge and Habeas Relief
I want to add a couple of words to the conversation between Rick and Eduardo about a Catholic judge's moral obligation to grant habeas relief in death penalty cases when they could do so with a technically correct legal ruling. If we're talking about a range of technically correct legal rulings, I guess it would depend whether any particular ruling is more correct than another one. If that's the case, I still don't see the basis for imposing a moral obligation on the judge to adopt the "less correct" ruling. If the grant of habeas relief follows from the "most correct" legal ruling, then every judge should be under a moral obligation to adopt that position, shouldn't they?
Catholic social thought has something to say on this subject. In a recent paper, I argue that, by upholding the law even when it conflicts with her rightly formed conscience, the Catholic judge furthers the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, reciprocity, and the common good.
Friday, April 27, 2007
War by Sonogram
In December, Nicholas Eberstadt delivered a speech at the UN on "the global war against baby girls." Joe Carter comments:
Early this year, the British medical journal Lancet estimated the male-female gap at 43 million with 100 million "missing girls" who should have been born but were not. Fifty million would have been Chinese and 43 million would have been Indian. The rest would have been born in Afghanistan, South Korea, Pakistan, and Nepal. . . .
What is fueling this crisis? Eberstadt credits the "freakish" ratios to the "fateful collision" between (a) overweening son preference, (b) the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex determination technology coupled with gender-based abortion, and (c) the low or dramatically declining fertility levels.
Even if we set aside the moral horror of a world that is killing its daughters, this oft-ignored trend of female feticide could pose a greater threat than many of the high-profile concerns that are touted by the media. For instance, the Chinese government says that by the year 2020--only thirteen years from now--the men in that country will outnumber women by 300 million. Imagine hordes of men, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who will never be able to have sexual contact with a woman, never be able to marry, and never leave a descendant to carry on their lineage.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Getting Serious About Poverty
Today the Center for American Progress released a report titled "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half." Noting that one in eight Americans lives in poverty today (defined as a family of four living on less than $19,971), the Center estimates that the rate can be halved through a combination of policy steps, including a higher minimum wage, expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, guaranteed child care, and housing vouchers to deconcentrate poverty. The combined cost of the recommendations is estimated at $90 billion per year. The cost (in 2008) of President Bush's tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 per year is estimated to be $100 billion. And the cost of our war of choice in Iraq? Don't get me started.
The Language of Abortion
Predictably, the blog Get Religion has excellent coverage of the battle over the language of abortion.
More on Regret and the Constitution
In response to Andy Koppelman's expression of skepticism, Richard Stith defended the constitutional significance of a woman's potential regret of her decision to have an abortion. He argued, in part, that:
[Justice Kennedy] essentially (1) appeals precisely to the above "legitimate purpose" already noted by O'Connor, (2) adds the empirical claims (a) that the consequences of such an a posteriori discovery are far worse than usual in the case of an "intact D&E" abortion and (b)that (therefore?) most abortion doctors doing an "intact D&E" will not adequately inform their clients, and so (3) concludes that the State may require abortion doctors to use a procedure that is less potentially psychologically destructive to women.
Prof. Koppelman now comments:
Professor Stith lays out Kennedy's argument sympathetically, and his exposition is valuable. There is, of course, not a bit of evidence supporting propositions 2(a), 2(b), or 3. But even if there were -- and I suppose absolutely any scenario you can imagine will *sometimes* happen -- the obvious solution would be, as in Casey, to require that the woman be given the information and then allow her to decide what she wants to do. The unpleasantness of the intact D&E procedure will be one factor in her decision; so will the dangers to her of alternative procedures -- dangers which will vary considerably from one woman to another. (It is only in unusual cases that intact D&E is even arguably medically indicated, which is why the procedure is rare.) The really bold leap of logic is to say that because some people will eventually regret making this decision (and, presumably, will do so even if they are fully informed at the time of decision), the state can bar the decision altogether. That's the proposition that has radical and unacceptable implications.
It's also worth noting that, from the pro-life perspective, the whole regret point is makeweight. If in fact abortion is murder, then it should be prohibited whether or not women regret it afterward. The law is not in the habit of accommodating unrepentant murderers.