A tale of two Kennedys

By Mary DeTurris Poust

Ross Douthat, in today's New York Times, takes a look at the recent deaths -- and legacies -- of Eunice Kennedy Shriver and her brother Sen. Ted Kennedy, keenly observing the way the former managed to walk the liberal line in a consistent and compassionate way, working for protections of the both the unborn and those with special needs, while her brother reversed course on his earlier pro-life leanings to tout the party line of abortion-on-demand.

Sen. Kennedy was remembered during his funeral and in the media for his concern for the poor and vulnerable. Unfortunately, his concern for the most vulnerable -- the unborn -- shifted from the initial stand he took in a letter to a voter in 1971 where he declared, "wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."

His sister never reneged on her belief in compassion and care for all people, born and unborn, and so was the truly Catholic liberal in the family, or, as Mr. Douthat writes, the one who, like the church, "saw a continuity, rather than a contradiction, between championing the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed and protecting unborn human life."

Douthat sums of the sibling differences best when he writes:

"At times, Ted Kennedy’s fervor on abortion felt like an extended apology to his party’s feminists for the way the men of his dynasty behaved in private. Eunice, by contrast, had nothing to apologize for. She knew what patriarchy meant: she was born into a household out of 'Mad Men,' where the father paraded his mistress around his family, the sons were groomed for high office, and the daughters were expected to marry well, rear children and suffer silently. And she transcended that stifling milieu, doing more than most men to change the world, and earning the right to disagree with her fellow liberals about what true feminism required."

May they both rest in peace, and may Eunice's desire to see a Democratic party that "does not pit mother against child" some day come to pass. Read Douthat's full column HERE.

Breaking news: Scranton bishop and auxiliary resign

By Mary DeTurris Poust

The Vatican has accepted the unexpected resignation of Scranton Bishop Joseph F. Martino and Auxiliary Bishop John M. Dougherty this morning. Sources are saying that Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, who is also metropolitan for the province, has been named apostolic administrator of the 11-country diocese. No specifics are available yet as to what has led to the resignation of 63-year-old Bishop Martino and his 77-year-old auxiliary, although a press conference is scheduled for 10 a.m. this morning.

UPDATE: At the press conference, Bishop Martino cited "insomnia and crippling physical fatigue" as the reason for his resignation.

"As the song says, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them," Bishop Martino said. "And I think it's time to move on."

Click HERE to read the updated Times-Tribune story on the resignation.

EWTN series on Opus Dei starts Aug. 30

EWTN will air a 13-part series on Opus Dei and its founder Saint Josemaria Escriva starting Sunday, Aug. 30, at 5 p.m. The series also will air each week on Tuesdays at 3:30 a.m. and Fridays at 10:30 p.m.

In each half-hour segment, hosts Damon Owen and John Cloverdale will "explore the life, mission, and apostolate (Opus Dei) of this great modern saint.”

For more information, click HERE.

OSV health care analysis in New York Times

By Mary DeTurris Poust

Our Sunday Visitor's analysis of President Obama's assertions on health care reform made its way into a front page story in today's New York Times on the bishops' reluctance to embrace congressional plans due to the issue over funding for abortion.

From the story:

"Now, a prominent Catholic newspaper, Our Sunday Visitor, is declaring that the president was wrong, citing Cardinal Rigali’s letter about the House bill.

“'U.S. Bishops, fact-checkers contradict Obama’s health claims on abortion,' declares the headline in the issue of the paper that will be distributed in many churches this weekend." (To read the full OSV story by Valerie Schmalz, click HERE.)

The New York Times goes on to quote a letter to the president and Congress from Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, expressing the bishops' eagerness to support reform but noting that "we strongly oppose inclusion of abortion as part of a national health care benefit."

"Health care is not just another issue for the Church or for a healthy society," he wrote. "It is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity." (For the full text of that letter, click HERE.)

The Times inaccurately reports that Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association have "endorsed the president's plan without reservation." In a letter dated July 31, 2009, Catholic Charities USA President Father Larry Snyder, wrote:

"I am writing to clarify that Catholic Charities USA does not support any plan to reform health care and/or any proposed legislative provision that allows or promotes the funding of abortions or compels any health care provider or institution to provide such a service. In fact, Catholic Charities USA will continue to work with the Catholic Health Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to ensure that any health care reform legislation will not include such provisions.

"Catholic Charities USA will continue to work to reform health care in a way that is consistent with the teachings of our faith."

In a statement on its website, Catholic Health Association also states:

"CHA has not endorsed any of the health care reform bills, but our message to lawmakers is clear: health care reform should not result in an expansion of abortion, and it must sustain conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to participate in abortions or other morally objectionable procedures." (To read more from CHA, visit its website at www.chausa.org.)

For the full New York Times story, click HERE.

Archbishop Dolan calls bomber's release 'sad mistake'

By Mary DeTurris Poust

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York said Scotland's release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was a "sad and perplexing mistake" that will bring pain to the families of the 270 victims who died in the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am flight. He also said the move could encourage more terrorist action.

From a story on NBC New York:

"While as a follower of Jesus Christ I believe in mercy, I also believe that mercy must always be tempered with justice ," the Archbishop said in a statement. " Mercy can be demonstrated in ways other than by releasing a man responsible for so much pain, suffering, and death. Those who lost loved ones also deserve mercy and justice . Finally we must consider that the release of this man could encourage others to engage in similar acts of terrorism in the future which would be a tragic result."

Other religious leaders from New York also criticized the release. Bishop Mark Sisk of the Episcopal Diocese condemned the release and called it "horrific." Joseph Potasnik, head of the New York Board of Rabbis, said it is "almost as if you are killing the people again because now these families having gone through so much horror are reliving the tragedy ."

For the full story, click HERE.

Ted Kennedy: A man of missed opportunities for greatness

By Russell Shaw

The death of Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy marks the passing of one of the most prominent and controversial figures active in American politics and American Catholicism during the last half-century. Kennedy died Aug. 25 at home in Hyannis Port, Mass., of the effects of a malignant brain tumor. He was 77.

Often called a liberal icon, the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts was indeed a liberals’ liberal who took a typically activist — and, in the view of many, generally praiseworthy — approach to issues like immigration reform, health care, and social welfare.

But moral conservatives, including fellow Catholics, parted company with him on things like abortion and same-sex marriage. He supported both.

In some ways Kennedy’s career was the story of a man who might have been: might have been president of the United States if his shortcomings hadn’t prevented that; might have been a powerful leader of the pro-life movement if he hadn’t turned pro-choice; might have been a model of the Catholic statesman in public life if he hadn’t become a symbol of American Catholicism at odds with the Church.

Edward Moore Kennedy was born Feb. 22, 1932, youngest of nine children of Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. and Rose Fitzgerald. The elder Kennedy was an Irish Catholic multimillionaire and a power in the Democratic party with high political ambitions for his sons.

Young Ted entered Harvard in 1950, but he was soon suspended in a cheating scandal. After two years with the army in Paris, he returned to Harvard and eventually graduated.

The oldest Kennedy brother, Joseph Jr., was originally the chief object of the family’s political ambitions, but he died in World War II. The ambitions then were transferred to brother John, a war hero who served in the House of Representatives and Senate before his election as president in 1960. President Kennedy chose his brother Robert as attorney general. In 1962, as soon as he reached the minimum Senate age requirement of 30, Ted was elected to John’s former seat.

Assassination ended the lives of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, in 1963 and 1968 respectively. With the death of Robert, who was campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination at the time, Ted faced the challenge of filling his brothers’ political shoes. But his chances of becoming president ended in 1969 at a place off Cape Cod called Chappaquiddick Island.

After leaving a party with a young woman named Mary Jo Kopechne in his car, Kennedy drove off a bridge and into a pond. The car sank. Kopechne died, but Kennedy swam to safety, then left the scene and didn’t call the authorities until after the woman’s body was found the next day. Following an inquest a judge concluded that negligent driving was a factor in Kopechne’s death, but Kennedy was not charged.

In 1980, nevertheless, Kennedy made a run at the White House, challenging incumbent Jimmy Carter. Carter won 24 Democratic primaries to Kennedy’s 10, and Kennedy dropped out of the race.

Kennedy had married Virginia Joan Bennett, a Catholic like himself, in 1958. The couple had three children. But the marriage unraveled as Joan Kennedy struggled with alcoholism and the senator acquired a playboy reputation. The two separated in 1978 and were divorced in 1982. Subsequently Kennedy married Victoria Reggie, a lawyer, and, according to friends, pulled his life together, in the process becoming a far more effective member of the Senate.

Be that as it may, many people saw Ted Kennedy’s political evolution as nothing short of scandalous.

In August, 1971 — two and a half years before the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion — the senator sent a constituent who asked his position on abortion a letter that could have been a text for a consistent ethic of life. The letter read in part:

“When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”

Once abortion was approved by the high court, however, Kennedy became one of its most outspoken and aggressive supporters on the national scene. Twice, for example, he voted to sustain President Bill Clinton’s vetoes of federal legislation to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. Eventually the ban was adopted with the support of President George W. Bush. The Supreme Court upheld the legislation in 2007.

Kennedy also backed same-sex marriage and opposed a constitutional amendment supporting traditional marriage.

Light may have been shed on Kennedy’s views on matters like these by the disclosure, years later, of a meeting that took place in the summer of 1964 at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. It involved Kennedy family representatives and prominent liberal priests, including Jesuit Father Robert Drinan, then law school dean at Boston College, and moral theologians Father Charles Curran and Jesuit Father Richard McCormick.

The priests’ task was to find a rationale permitting a Catholic in public office to support abortion. According to meeting participants they did — to their own satisfaction.

In his 2008 book about Boston Catholicism “The Faithful Departed” (Encounter Books, $25.95), Philip F. Lawler speaks of the dismay of prolife Catholics at the failure of the Church hierarchy to discipline Catholic politicians who support abortion. For years, Ted Kennedy was foremost among these. In this way as in others, his influence seems likely to last long after his death.

Russell Shaw is an OSV contributing editor. This article appears in the Sept. 13 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, the most-circulated national Catholic newspaper.

A reminder of the power of confession

By Mary DeTurris Poust

I stopped by Conversion Diary this morning because when I'm feeling emotionally stressed or spiritually "dry," I can always count on this blog to feature a post that hits the mark. Today was no different, but Jennifer's post, "Undefeatable Joy," is just too good not to share with all of you. Her beautiful prose and inspiring faith are so powerful in this essay about an encounter with God at confession that you will want to run out right now and find a priest to hear your own.

From Jennifer's post:

"After I recounted my sins he began to give me advice, and all my pent-up stress started to rush out of me as if I'd taken some sort of medication. The Holy Spirit couldn't have been more palpable if he'd pulled up a chair and sat down next to us. I could barely resist jumping to my feet and shouting my thanks to God for this amazing experience. It was partially because the priest's words had a surgeon's accuracy in terms of their healing effect on my soul, but, mostly, it was simply his joy. He just had some something, some essence that is impossible to put into words, a kind of mighty, unshakable joy that permeated all his actions down to his smallest mannerisms. The slow, confident way he reacted to things; the timeless wisdom of his advice; the ease of his smile; the love in his words, especially when he talked about God -- it all spoke of the sort of rock-solid peace that would have given me pause if I'd encountered it when I was an atheist."

Read the entire post by clicking HERE. And you need to read the entire post.

Obama playing fast and loose with the facts

By Russell Shaw

Barack Obama is the latest version of a presidential Great Communicator, and he's really pretty good. But his communication skills lately have served as a reminder that substance still counts for more than style. The debate over health care reform — which Obama now calls health insurance reform, signaling a scaling-back of aspiration — illustrates that. The appearance of presidential glibness in dismissing what he calls misrepresentations may have done as much to hurt his cause as the machinations of any K Street lobbyist.

This problem surfaced early on the key issue of cost. Obama insisted that his approach would save money, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office testified it would enormously increase the deficit. Where adding and subtracting are concerned, whom do you believe — a politician anxious to make his mark or professional number crunchers? The number crunchers win hands-down.

But if a president is not serious about the numbers — and Obama isn't the first president of whom that might be said — it gets harder to take seriously other claims he makes.

Consider the health plan's provision for end of life counseling for elderly people (an idea now apparently dropped from the bill in the Senate). The president was right to reject the claim that this meant "death panels." But, as even liberal commentators pointed out, the proposal unquestionably did have coercive overtones wildly inappropriate in this context.

Something similar can be said of the scheme to send nurses into the homes of low-income pregnant women to counsel them about, among other things, "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." There are several ways to increase those intervals, including abortion. Is that what those nurse-authority figures will talk about?

Or take abortion. The president lately has accused people who say his plan provides for abortion coverage with "bearing false witness." But analysts of the plan repeatedly have shown that it does indeed open the door to abortion, with government helping to pay the cost. That isn't a matter of opinion or interpretation but objective fact, and it's Obama who's doing the fictionalizing here, a circumstance profoundly disturbing in itself.

The abortion lobby has provided negative confirmation of all this by redoubling its efforts to trash pro-lifers for trying to keep abortion out of health care. Leaving a White House strategy session, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said proudly that "PP [Planned Parenthood] supporters are speaking up for reform in the states." Naturally they are: Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider after all, and it knows a potential bonanza when it sees one.

There is, however, another, still more basic problem with the quality and candor of presidential communication on the abortion issue. Obama has often given assurances that he wants to reduce the number of abortions. That worthy intention was a major element of his commencement address at Notre Dame last spring, and his Catholic apologists have repeated it time and time again.

Unfortunately, everything the president has done with regard to abortion up to now has the effect of increasing the number of abortions, not reducing it. That includes his steps to restore funding to groups involved in abortion overseas and to resume tax-paid abortions in the District of Columbia — and now his health plan.

Would Obama care to say something about that? With good reason, Americans have gotten tired of having presidents play fast and loose with facts. As things now stand, the Great Communicator in the White House would inspire more confidence — on health care and much else—if his words consistently reflected reality.

Photo: whitehouse.gov

Shrine of the North American Martyrs

By Mary DeTurris Poust

Earlier this week, I posted about the possibility that Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, Lily of the Mohawks, is one step closer to canonization. Well, today I happened to be at the National Shrine of the North American Martyrs in Auriesville, N.Y., birthplace of Blessed Kateri. I thought I would share some photos with you in hopes that it will inspire you to visit the shrine, which is open until mid-October and then closes (New York winters, you know) until the first week of May.

The view of the surrounding countryside and Mohawk River from the Visitors' Center and Gift Shop:


The three crosses marking the entrance to the main grounds. The crosses bear the names of three martyrs tortured and killed on the grounds where the shrine now stands: St. Isaac Jogues, Jesuit priest; St. Rene Goupil, Jesuit Brother; and St. John Lalande, lay missioner:


Coliseum church, which was built in 1930 and can seat 6,000:


Replica of the Our Lady of Fatima statue that stands in the Vatican Gardens:

Rose bush beneath Our Lady of Fatima, hung with the Rosary beads of pilgrims:


Kateri Chapel, a simple screened-in building, where daily Mass is celebrated:


Many (most) of the trees on the main grounds are marked with crosses and the name of Jesus in honor of St. Isaac Jogues, who taught the faith by carving the basics into trees:


Across the street from the main shrine grounds is the ravine, where you can read in St. Isaac Jogues' own words an account of the death of St. Rene Goupil. It is a peaceful and powerful place:

In the ravine is the Shrine to Our Lady of the Way. It's explained in the photo under this one (click to enlarge and read):

A bridge leading back to the main path of the ravine:


And, once you're finished at the shrine, stop off here for some ice cream and fresh veggies on your way back to the highway:

Learning by doing, being

By Mary DeTurris Poust

Back when I was a young reporter working for the Diocese of Metuchen, N.J., I was assigned to cover a Catholic Charities workshop where participants had to try to understand the physical limitations of the people they served by experiencing -- as best they could -- those disabilities in a practical way.

In order to better explain the program, I decided that I, too, would see what it felt like to experience in the most minimal way a specific physical challenge. I opted to spend part of my day in a wheelchair and part of my day with a hearing impairment. The results of the experiment were profound. Twenty-five years later, I remember quite clearly my struggles trying to get into a bathroom in a wheelchair when the door was swinging the wrong way, or reaching for a faucet that was just beyond my grasp. I remember trying to decipher what someone was saying on the specially designed recording that mimicked the way things would sound to someone with severely limited hearing. It was a great program because it took was would otherwise just be a book lesson and turned it into a life lesson.

In today's New York Times, there's an interesting story about a new program that places medical students in nursing homes full time. They receive a "diagnosis" and then live within that parameters of the illness or disability -- even if it means eating pureed food or having assistance when using a bathroom or staying in a wheelchair all day every day.

Kristen Murphy, 38, took part in the program and lived for ten days at a nursing home. Here's part of her story from the New York Times:

"Like many medical students, Ms. Murphy was scared of nursing homes. The feeling began when, as a young adult, she visited her grandmother, who had Alzheimer’s disease.

“'I think nursing homes are scary,' she said, 'but I don’t think you can be a good doctor if you’re scared of the place where a lot of your patients live.'

"The first few days, which included filling out paperwork, undergoing a full-body mole and sore check, eating pureed foods and being raised out of bed with a lift, did nothing to validate her decision. When she wedged her wheelchair into a corner and could not get out, she cried in frustration.

“'All I wanted to do was shut my door and stay in here,' said Ms. Murphy, whose 'diagnosis' was a mild stroke that affected her right side, difficulty swallowing and chronic lung disease. 'But I understood I had to go out.'”

"Not everyone does. Some patients want to talk for hours, while others act out, like a woman who pinched Ms. Murphy as hard as she could. Many sit in the hallway by the nurse’s station each day because it is a hub of activity. Emotions run high.

"Ms. Murphy said she soon learned that many patients cried because they knew that they would most likely never live anywhere else, or because they missed family and their old life.

"'At times I felt really lonely and got depressed,' she said. 'Sometimes it was an emotional roller coaster, up and down, up and do.'"

But, by the end of her stay, the program did what it was intended to do. It showed Murphy that she was, indeed, well suited to the career she chose:

“'When I came in, I was worried about working with older folks because I was afraid I wouldn’t be good at it,' Ms. Murphy said. 'Now, if anything, I’m worried I’ll love them too much and it will really hurt to work with folks at the end of their lives.'”

These are the kinds of programs that can make a real difference, especially in understanding the needs the elderly -- and appreciating the wisdom of the elderly, something that is too often forgotten in our youth-obsessed culture. Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend.

To read the full story, click HERE.

Two celebrities talk about parenthood

By Mary DeTurris Poust

Two vastly different -- but ultimately uplifting -- views of parenthood, or impending parenthood, are in recent celebrity news. Both are worth a read. First we have Jim Caviezel (The Passion of the Christ), waxing eloquent about his role as father to his two adopted children. It's moving, it's inspiring, and, quite honestly, it made me realize how often I fall short in the parenting department.

From the Catholic Digest interview with Caviezel:

"And how has that affected you and your wife’s faith life?

"'Well, you’re mirrors, aren’t you? Every day when we go to school we pray the Rosary. We don’t talk, we pray. I always feel we communicate better in the prayer. If I don’t stay consistent, they won’t be consistent.'

"How else has being a father changed you?

"'I guess you love more. I see my wife take care of the children, and (to see) how they respond and how my children are makes me love them more. To add to that, I’m more in control of my duties as opposed to being caught up in the world. I’m not ruled by my feelings, I’m ruled by love, which is a decision. And that is being implemented into my children — that it’s not how I feel, it’s what I’m going to do. That’s what my faith has taught me and now it’s teaching them, but it won’t mean a hill of beans unless they see that coming from both of us.'"

And at a different end of the celebrity spectrum, we have People magazine reporting on a decision by reality TV star Kourtney Kardashian to have her baby rather than choose abortion.

From the People magazine interview:

"Although Kardashian sought out the advice of others, she says it was her decision – and hers alone – that was the most important.

"'I really wanted to think it through for myself, and not hear what my sisters were saying, or what Scott was saying. Even though I took it all in, I wanted it to be my decision," she says. "My doctor told me there is nothing you will ever regret about having the baby, but he was like, 'You may regret not having the baby.' And I was like: That is so true. And it just hit me.'"

To read the full interview with Jim Caviezel, click HERE. To read the People story on Kardashian, click HERE. And a thank you to Ed Mechmann at Varia for the lead on both.

Will Kateri finally be canonized?

By Mary DeTurris Poust

I was so happy to read this post by Jesuit Father James Martin, reporting that Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, the Lily of the Mohawks, may be inching closer to canonization. Apparently the required miracle has been under investigation for quite some time and is now in the hands of the Vatican. It feels like this one has been a long time coming.

According to Father Martin's post and a story on the Canada.com website, the miracle in question is a "closely guarded secret."

From the Canada.com story:

"Evidence of the miracle -- which took two years to compile -- was sent to Rome last month in a diplomatic pouch through the Vatican embassy in Washington, D.C., said Monsignor Paul Lenz, the church official who was charged with finding a miracle that could qualify Kateri for sainthood. The matter now rests with the Vatican's Secretariat for Beatification and Canonization, which will issue a recommendation to the Pope, who will make a final decision on Kateri's beatification, said Lenz. 'Only God knows' how long the process could take, Lenz said this week in an interview with Canwest News Service."

I live less than an hour from the National Shrine of the North American Martyrs in Auriesville, which is Kateri's birthplace and the place where Jesuit missionaries St. Isaac Jogues and St. Rene Goupil and lay missioner St. John Lalande were martyred. Last fall I spent two nights camping at the shrine with my son's Boy Scout troop. It is a truly sacred place, where the courage of Kateri's life and the faith of the martyred missionaries is so powerful that even a bunch of 12-year-old Boy Scouts were obviously awed by what they experienced walking through the ravine marked with St. Isaac Jogues' own words and on the paths that recall the holy lives that left their imprint there. (You can read my blog post about that camping retreat by clicking HERE.)

Visit the shrine if you can, and celebrate the life of this Native American holy woman who clearly was a spiritual force to be reckoned with. Her actions, her willingness to go against the signs of her times and the traditions of her culture in order to embrace Christianity have made her a saint in the eyes of many Catholics, with or without the official title.

Judge reverses Oklahoma abortion law

By Mary DeTurris Poust

A judge reversed an Oklahoma state law yesterday that required women seeking abortions to receive ultrasounds and a physical description of their "fetus" from their doctors. But that's not all. In overturning the law, Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson also reversed conscience protections that allowed doctors, nurses and other health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion on moral or religious grounds.

Although the original law was passed in 2008, legal battles have prevented it from being put into practice. Judge Robertson struck down the law citing "constitutional requirements that a legislative measure deal only with one subject." According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, she did not offer a ruling on "the validity of the ultrasound provisions."

Here's an interview from that story with a representative of one of the usual pro-abortion camps:

"Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Oklahoma was the only state to mandate that a physician both conduct an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient.

"'The ultrasound provision takes away a patient's choice about whether or not to view an ultrasound, and it requires physicians to provide information to their patients that the physicians do not believe is medically necessary,' Toti said. 'It's an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power, and it's also an intrusion to the physician-patient relationship.'"

Try to imagine for a moment the outrage we would hear -- and rightly so -- if, for instance, someone suggested that people undergoing treatment for colon cancer not be burdened with a look at their colonoscopy results, or that it is intrusive for a doctor to suggest a woman look at the films of a questionable mammogram. Or imagine the reaction if pregnant women planning to carry their babies to term were told they didn't need to see their growing children on ultrasound, no less capture 4-D images suitable for framing. Isn't it interesting how what is standard medical procedure in one instance becomes "an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power" when the procedure in question might remind them -- and the rest of us -- of the baby growing in the womb?

Read the full story HERE.

More from the bishops on health care reform

By Mary DeTurris Poust



Check out the U.S. bishops' new web site on health care reform. You can watch videos, link to documents, and get tips on how to make your voice heard in this ever-evolving debate. Click HERE to vist the USCCB site.

How soon is too soon for marriage?

By Mary DeTurris Poust

In a new twist on the pre-marital sex front, some evangelical churches are encouraging young couples to marry sooner rather than struggle to abstain from sex well into their 20s. Not surprisingly, the idea is garnering criticism from those who worry that society has changed too much for young adults to go back to the ways of their parents and grandparents and others who worry that the suggestion makes marriage nothing more than pathway to sex without guilt.

In an age when "childhood" seems to stretch on endlessly and efforts are under way to allow parents to provide health insurance for "kids" up to 30 years of age, the idea of promoting early marriage certainly goes against the grain. Young adults today are marrying later, waiting to finish college and start jobs, so it remains to be seen if this new approach will get any traction at all.

From the AP story today:

"At Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., associate pastor Michael Lawrence emphasizes that marriage is a covenant, not a convenient arrangement, and offers advice to young couples on overcoming arguments over money, sex and family.

"'We probably haven't served our young people well by on the one hand emphasizing abstinence, but on the other hand telling them to wait to get married," Lawrence said. "It seems to be setting them up to fail.'

"Like most proponents of young marriage, Lawrence does not set an arbitrary 'right' age for marriage. Waiting until after college might be advisable if the alternative is crushing debt or dropping out, he said.

"Supporters of abstinence programs promote them as both marriage-preparation tools and longer-term support systems for those who don't marry.

"Jimmy Hester, co-founder of True Love Waits, part of the Southern Baptist Convention's LifeWay Christian Resources, disagreed with the argument that abstinence past a certain age is too much to ask.

"'There are too many examples of people who have done it,' he said. 'And not out of their own strength, even, but out of a relationship with God who gives them strength.'

"Johns Hopkins University sociologist Andrew Cherlin, who studies families and public policy, said young marriage is a tough sell. A half-century ago, when people married earlier, fewer people attended college, high school graduates could get good-paying factory jobs, women became mothers right after school and families were larger, he said.

"'Most evangelicals, as well as most Americans, realize how expensive it is to raise children these days,' Cherlin said. 'The most important rationale for early marriage — having a larger family — has disappeared.'"

For the full story, click HERE. H/T to Ed Mechmann at Varia.

Online before breakfast? New family rituals

By Mary DeTurris Poust

As soon as I saw "Coffee Can Wait. Day's First Stop Is Online" in today's New York Times, I felt a mix of relief and disappointment. Relief because apparently my family is not unusual in our new and semi-constant quest to be connected to everyone we know via Facbeook, Twitter, email, Instant Messager and Skype, even before we pour that first cup of coffee or pop a piece of bread in the toaster. Disappointment because this new way of life is not necessarily a good way of life. I recognize that even as I pause to check Twitter one more time before bed or to post a status update to Facebook at 5:15 a.m. as I head out the door to yoga class, something that would have seemed insane just a year or so ago.

At our house, you will often find my husband, Dennis, on his iPhone, my son on the laptop, and me on the computer in the family room, all simultaneously. On the weekends, when we don't get the old-fashioned version of the Times, Dennis has the laptop on the kitchen table as he sips coffee. At dinner, if I don't remember to turn down the volume, we can often hear the distracting beeps and dings of various communications being received. Like our telephone rule -- no calls taken during meals no matter what -- we don't check on the latest urgent post from some far-flung Facebook friend, but it still has the ability to cause a minor disruption in kitchen-table conversation.

From today's New York Times:

"In other households, the impulse to go online before getting out the door adds an extra layer of chaos to the already discombobulating morning scramble.

"Weekday mornings have long been frenetic, disjointed affairs. Now families that used to fight over the shower or the newspaper tussle over access to the lone household computer — or about whether they should be using gadgets at all, instead of communicating with one another.

“'They used to have blankies; now they have phones, which even have their own umbilical cord right to the charger,' said Liz Perle, a mother in San Francisco who laments the early-morning technology immersion of her two teenage children. 'If their beds were far from the power outlets, they would probably sleep on the floor.'

"The surge of early risers is reflected in online and wireless traffic patterns. Internet companies that used to watch traffic levels rise only when people booted up at work now see the uptick much earlier.

"Arbor Networks, a Boston company that analyzes Internet use, says that Web traffic in the United States gradually declines from midnight to around 6 a.m. on the East Coast and then gets a huge morning caffeine jolt. “It’s a rocket ship that takes off at 7 a.m,” said Craig Labovitz, Arbor’s chief scientist."

One family in the story opted to go offline on weekends, which is a great idea, although I don't think I could get anyone in my house, except maybe our 4-year-old, to go entire weekends without going online. After all, this has become our primary mode of communication with friends and family. It's part of our jobs. It's part of everyday life now, like it or not.

I think the technology takeover is one reason this non-camping mom has suddenly become interested in heading for the mountains and pitching a tent. To be unplugged and communing with nature and each other without any distractions seems like a dream. Of course, as I write this my husband is posting Facebook status updates from a Boy Scout camp in the woods. It may be a losing battle.

So how do we use technology wisely without letting it become an obsession? Probably the same way we used to rein in TV time when the kids were little, only now the parents need to be reined in too. How are you dealing with the influx of technology into your homes? Share in the comment section so we can all benefit.

To read the full New York Times story, click HERE.

'Devil is in the details' of health care reform

By Mary DeTurris Poust

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York praised President Obama's efforts to revamp the health care system in this country but warned that the Catholic Church will not be part of a system that leads to the "destruction" of human life through abortion, end-of-life care or the discarding of human embryos.

Although the Church supports the principle of affordable health care for all, "the devil is in the details," he said.

In the exclusive Catholic News Agency interview, the archbishop reminded that "nearly one out of every five patients in the United States who is in a hospital is under the embrace of the Church in a Catholic health care network," giving the Church ample reason to be involved in the public debate on the subject.

“So please listen to us because we’ve been in this business a heck of a long time,” he said recalling that members of the Catholic Church were the ones who “opened up the first clinics, hospitals and health care networks.”

“Don’t exclude us now because you might be uncomfortable with the very values that gave rise to this magnificent network,” he urged.

Read the full story HERE.

Remembering the baby I never held

By Mary DeTurris Poust

On my personal blog, Not Strictly Spiritual, I reflected on my miscarriage eleven years ago today. I wanted to share that post with all of you as well:


When I came downstairs for coffee this morning, I announced: "I'm on edge today. I don't know why." And I didn't, but I knew something was off. There was a sadness hovering around the edges of my still sleepy mind, despite sunshine, despite a relatively easy work day, despite all the reasons I had to be happy. Or at least not to be moody.

Then it hit me. It was August 6. Eleven years ago today, I found out the baby I was carrying had died eleven weeks into my pregnancy. With a mother's intuition, I had known something was wrong from a couple of weeks before...continue reading HERE.

The cost of war, from a soldier who knew too well

By Mary DeTurris Poust

The last British survivor of World War I still living in England died recently at age 111, but it was not only his military service that was celebrated at his funeral this week. It was the message of peace and reconciliation that he preached in his later years. Harry Patch, who was drafted into the British army in 1916, wanted people around the world to understand very clearly that we should never underestimate the cost of war.

From today's New York Times:

"Too many died,” he said, late in life, of the estimated 900,000 Britons killed in the conflict. “War isn’t worth one life.” He called war “the calculated and condoned slaughter of human beings,” Britain’s Press Association news agency said.

“Irrespective of the uniforms we wore,” he said, according to the BBC, “we were all victims.” His funeral came as British troops took record casualties alongside American, NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan."

Thousands of people, including soldiers from Britain, Belgium, France and Germany, came out to honor the solider who had been a machine-gunner and fought in one of the bloodiest battles of World War I in Belgium in 1917.

The Times reported:

"Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, said at the service, “We have lost our last living link to the fighting in the trenches of the West Front and a member of a generation that stood firm in the face of extraordinary adversity and unimaginable suffering,” according to an advance text of his remarks provided by the Defense Ministry. “But today above all else, we give thanks for the life of a brave and inspirational man whose message of reconciliation and peace has reached and touched so many.”

Harry Patch experienced war, stared death in the face, watched as his friends and fellow soldiers fell around him. We should heed his words so that his message of peace does not die with him.

Read the full story HERE.

Speaking clearly about abortion and health care

By Mary DeTurris Poust

We've heard abortion referred to by President Obama as a "distraction" that will just get in the way of nailing down the details of health care reform. We've heard that it won't be part of the new plan, that it will be part of the new plan, that it is an issue that can be dealt with later.

But HERE Richard Doerflinger, associate director of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, managed to sum up what's at stake without resorting to euphemisms or half-truths:

"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point. We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."

Bingo. I've heard the president and lots of other politicians asked yes or no questions about this issue, and it's amazing how they dance around the subject. Yes or no, people. Will abortion on demand be federally funded under the proposed plan?

Click HERE to read the full AP story, which states it plainly in its headline: "Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion." If only the politicans would speak so clearly.

Is your 'extra' child ruining the environment?

By Mary DeTurris Poust

If you thought you were doing your part for the environment by recycling your pickle jars and orange juice containers, think again. A new study says that if you're really serious about keeping your carbon footprint in check, you need to have fewer children.

That's right. A study by Oregon State University says that if you really care about creation, you'll do a little less creating of your own. It's not easy being green. Apparently, the greenhouse gas impact of having an "extra" child is 20 times as environmentally significant as the energy you'd save from driving a fuel-efficient car, recycling or using energy efficient light bulbs and appliances. And don't we all think of our children as we do our light bulbs or old newspapers?

Paul Murtagh, an OSU professor, said in the Los Angeles Times:

"Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth. Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."

So, our "extra" kids are like light bulbs and compound interest? Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

Murtagh goes on to say that each child "ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of an average parent--about 5.7 times a person's lifetime emission." First of all, what is that even supposed to mean? If we start thinking about our future children in terms of how many metric tons of carbon dioxide they will produce, we may need to consider the possibility that perhaps we are not called to the vocation of motherhood and fatherhood in the first place.

So what will this study mean for those of us who have our children out of love? Will we have to pay a fee for every "extra" child? Right now they're saying that none of this is about government "controls or interventions." But how much do you want to bet that this ridiculous study gets some some serious traction among the super green crowd and, of course, with the "reproductive rights" crowd, also known as Planned Parenthood? This is not about caring for the earth, this is about population control, something that was on the far-left agenda long before any of us even knew we had carbon footprints.

Hauling reusable shopping bags to the grocery store every week doesn't seem like such a sacrifice now when the alternative is not having a child. And, for the record, I don't think you can ever have an "extra" child. An extra scientist or researcher, maybe, but no child is ever an "extra" child.