New Site, New Address, New Posts

I have decided to move my site over to Wordpress.com.  I have copied all the previous posts and comments over to the place.  I have retitled my site and will attempt to write more for the new site as time allows.  I will continue to focus on Moral Theology.  I have two new posts up as of today.

You can visit my new blog site at A Holy Endeavor or copy http://aholyendeavor.wordpress.com

On the "The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting"

Most news sources have picked up the story I first saw that the New York Times did on July 31, 2007 entitled "The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting" (free registration may be required to access the story). First of all, the New York Times article title is misleading. It refers to the "Whys of Mating" when the study done clearly refers to the "Whys of Sex." Mating typically refers to the act of reproduction. Whereas this study clearly did not seem to equate sexual intercourse with reproduction. But I digress.

The New York Times piece concerns a study done by psychologists at the University of Texas at Austin who surveyed nearly two thousand people and came up with a total of 237 reasons why people have sexual intercourse. As the NYTimes story points out, these reasons run the gamut "from 'I wanted to feel closer to God' to 'I was drunk.' They even found a few people who claimed to have been motivated by the desire to have a child." The Times piece says that "The researchers, Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss, believe their list, published in the August issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior, is the most thorough taxonomy of sexual motivation ever compiled. This seems entirely plausible." How this can seem plausible is a point of contention from my perspective. More on this later.

The researchers collected the data by first asking more than 400 people to list their reasons for having sex, and then asking more than 1,500 others to rate how important each reason was to them. Although it was a fairly homogenous sample of students at the University of Texas, nearly every one of the 237 reasons was rated by at least some people as their most important motive for having sex.

The best news is that both men and women ranked the same reason most often: “I was attracted to the person.”

The rest of the top 10 for each gender were also almost all the same, including “I wanted to express my love for the person,” “I was sexually aroused and wanted the release” and “It’s fun.”

Without getting much further into the study, I wanted to point out something very important about the volunteers in this study. As the study notes (you can find the study linked on the New York Times website in the form of a .pdf), the majority of those who took part in the survey and were tested with the Why Have Sex questionnaire, were undergraduate students (1,549: 503 men and 1046 women) and they ranged in age from 16 to 42 years of age and the mean age was 19. Of this group of 1,549 participants, 4% of the women were married and 2% of the men were married. These psychologists were clearly not motivated to tie together marriage and sexual intercourse. They were more interested in the sexual habits and reasonings from mostly sexually-active single people who live in a hook-up culture where sex is amusement and pleasure and with the body something to be used.

I might say more about the study as I read further into it. For now, this is all I want to say.

A Sign of Contradiction Remembered

Today is a date that I do not forget during the calendar year. It happens to be one of my patrons feast days, St. James the Greater. Also, something I do tend to forget, according to the older calendar of 1962, today also happens to be the memorial of St. Christopher. Finally, today is also the 39th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae vitae. Maybe not surprising, it was the last encyclical he ever wrote even though he continued as pontiff for another 10 years.

It is helpful to revisit some of Paul VI's words in this encyclical, to remind us in part of how truly visionary his words are, but also as a reminder of what is at stake. In paragraph 17, Paul VI elaborates on three consequences he sees as the evil results of the contraceptive mentality. First he envisions "marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." Sadly this first consequence is easily seen in the rates of divorce and infidelity among married couples as well as its overwhelming repercussions for the notion of marriage and morality in the public square. Second, Paul VI sees

man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Coupled with the outpouring of pornography, women and men have been reduced to instruments for use and eventual disregard. How often is love portrayed in our culture simply as dealing with physical pleasure and emotion? How often does one get the notion of love as self-sacrifice and care for another without such physical pleasure or emotion? As a result of the contraceptive mentality, one loses the meaning of love.

Finally, Paul VI has concerns about the contraceptive mentality invading public policy.

Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

You almost get a sense that Paul VI envisions a "Brave New World" on the horizon when the contraceptive mentality becomes so much a part of the very fabric of existence that the government begins to regulate fertility and impose such regulations on everyone. Fortunately this last consequence has not come to full fruition, at least in regards to the United States. But such a government solution always could lurk around the corner. You begin to see such encroachment upon the consciences of doctors and pharmacists who refuse to offer such things as the Morning-After Pill. Let us hope and pray that this last consequence does not come to a full realization.

In paragraph 18, Paul VI recognizes that the teaching of Humanae vitae will be difficult.

It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction."(Luke 2:34) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage "to share God's life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men."(Paul Vl, encyc. letter Populorum progressio: AAS 59 (1967), 268 [TPS XII, 151])

I find these passages to be very moving, especially the first paragraph. He calls attention to the Church and subsequently its members that they are to be signs of contradiction like Christ himself. And as a sign of contradiction, the Church presents the divine law in its entirety in order to protect the dignity of man. So much is at stake with the contraceptive mentality and how it can destroy the dignity that God has given to the human person.

Let us pray and hope that more people see the beauty in the Church's teaching on marriage and help the Church build a truly human civilization in which the dignity of each human person is not degraded but rather respected and uplifted befitting our call to be the sons and daughters of God.

It All Starts in the Church and the Home

I won't bother linking to the many stories and headlines I have seen in the past day concerning a "new study" which tells us that abstinence education does not stop sex. The headline might as well have read: new study tells us that telephones do not stop sex. When will educators, politicians, media outlets, etc. finally realize that just because you present and educate someone with "information" that does not mean the now "educated" person with new information actually will use that information.

The development of good life habits, regardless of whether it deals with sex or the care of teeth, will not simply happen due to the presentation of information. How many of your parents told you first off that you needed to brush your teeth because of all the health benefits? You probably were told it was something you had to do.

Notice the irony about sex education: you only need to glance at the trends in sexual education and the rates of those infected with sexually-transmitted diseases and realize that those moments of education and information at schools did not make a difference either.

Truly educating someone about good life habits requires constant teaching and effort. Think about the Twelve Steps from Alcoholics Anonymous and how much effort and constancy it requires of individuals following and at times enduring those steps. What does that First Step teach? It teaches us complete dependence on God for all things. This First Step should provide us with a hint about how most approaches to education in sexuality go wrong.

Without a young person realizing how his sexuality is to be meaningful with a God-centered life, it is hard to see how a plea for abstinence with an information-deluge or a sex-education-deluge will do anything other than presenting a false impression of actually doing something. If abstinence and a life of chastity doesn't start with the Church and the Home, then I don't see how a school will do any better.

Just Thought I Would Share

Over at a Dominican run website, you can find several great theological lectures given during the past year. The website is for Dominican vocations, and as a tool I presume, they post videos of lectures. Several of the video lectures involve the series at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC concerning Man and the Image of God. I have linked below several of the lectures. You can view the lectures online or you can download them for later. I use the Podcast link and download the videos through iTunes. Enjoy!


The Image of God in a Post-Genomic Age given by Rev. Nicanor Astriaco, O.P. Assistant Professor of Biology and Instructor of Theology at Providence College, Providence, Rhode Island. Consultant to the Committee on Science and Human Values of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Image of God & The Sacraments of the Church given by Rev. Romanus Cessario, O.P. Professor of Systematic Theology and Coordinator of Masster of Arts at St. John's Seminary School of Theology in Brighton, MA.

Charity's Knowledge: The Relationship Between Knowledge and Love in Aquinas' Account of Human Action given by Rev. Michael Sherwin, O.P. Associate Professor of Fundamental Moral Theology at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.

The Marian Role in the Restoration of the Image of God given by Rev. John Corbett, O.P. Assistant Professor of Moral Theology Dominican House of Studies, Washington, D.C.

Strangers at Our Bedside: Updated

It is a sad state of affairs when medical life and death decisions are decided by a committee. No doubt that in the last few decades, the medical community has provided ample ways of improving health and well-being for all people, from those unborn to those who are elderly. But at the same time, the medical community has succumb to the philosophies of the day in which cost analysis makes a difference in someone's care or the notion of "futility" becomes critical for deciding whether a person should live or die or better yet, medicine directs itself solely for the purpose of the elimination of suffering.

We also have moved away from a very local-oriented medical community (where you went to the same doctor time and time again and the doctor knew you and your family well and you knew the doctor well too) to a medical community of strangers in which you barely know much about your own doctor and he knows little more than what his diagnostic sheets tell him.

And when medical emergencies or complications arise, we go to a hospital, which is full of medical strangers who provide well or badly the medical care we need and in some cases we are left to the mercy of their decision-making powers, sometimes to the very issue of whether we will live or die. Take for example this case in Texas (free registration may be required to view the article). You have probably heard of similar stories. A family is fighting to keep their very sick toddler alive over and against the decision of the hospital seeking to end the child's life.

As 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales lies in a hospital, hooked up to tubes to help him breathe and eat, his mother holds him close and cherishes every movement.

Catarina Gonzales knows her baby is terminally ill and that one day she'll have to let go. But it's not yet time, she and her attorneys contend in their legal clash with hospital officials who want to stop Emilio's life-sustaining treatment.

An unusual Texas law signed by George W. Bush when he was governor lets the hospital make that life-or-death call. The latest legal dispute over the law -- Emilio's case -- goes to court again Tuesday, the day his life support is set to end.

"The family has made a unified decision" to keep Emilio living through artificial means, said Joshua Carden, an attorney for the Gonzales family. "The hospital is making quality of life value judgments. That's a huge source of concern."

Children's Hospital of Austin has been caring for Emilio since Dec. 28. He's believed to have Leigh's Disease, a progressive illness difficult to diagnose, according to both sides.

The boy cannot breathe on his own and must have nutrition and water pumped into him. He can't swallow or gag ... said Michael Regier, general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, which encompasses the children's hospital.

Emilio's higher order brain functions are destroyed, and secretions must be vigorously suctioned from his lungs, Regier said.

"The care is very aggressive and very invasive," Regier said. Though the treatment is expensive, the hospital contends that money is not part of its decision. Emilio has health coverage through Medicaid.

Doctors and a hospital ethics panel determined the treatment is causing the boy to suffer without providing any medical benefit, Regier said.

Money is not the issue here, if that can be believed. The hospital wants to remove treatment because the boy is suffering due to the treatment. This is ironic. Trying to reduce suffering, but at what cost? The life-sustaining equipment will be turned off and then what? As the attorney for the family notes:

... Emilio's death by asphyxiation would be painful. He said the law prevents hospital workers from even giving the boy the drugs death row inmates receive to help them as they are executed by lethal injection.

"It's not like he'll just drift quietly off," he said.

In the end, a poor helpless little boy will have to suffer his death all due to a committee thinking it has the right and responsibility to end his suffering. How very scary it is to find that strangers have control over our lives and our loved ones when we are most vulnerable and in need of love, care, and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those keeping up with the story, LifeSite is reporting that on April 11, the Texas judge issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the hospital from letting Emilio die. The case is to be argued furthe in the following week. You can view the story here.

The Depths of Love and the Heart of God

Have we not approached one of the great divine mysteries in trying to understand the Heart of God? The Son of God, Jesus Christ became human, destitute, impoverished so that we, humanity, might become divine, rich, and full of life. The Prologue to the Gospel of John provides a beautiful summation of the work of Jesus Christ, Son of God and revelation of the Heart of God to us, children of God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. A man named John was sent from God. He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God. And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. John testified to him and cried out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.'" From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace, because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him. (John 1:1-18, emphasis added)

To add further to this imagery of the Heart of God, we need only ponder the words of Pope Benedict's homily at last night's Paschal Vigil Mass concerning Christ's decent into hell:

Let us return once more to the night of Holy Saturday. In the Creed we say about Christ’s journey that he “descended into hell.” What happened then? Since we have no knowledge of the world of death, we can only imagine his triumph over death with the help of images which remain very inadequate. Yet, inadequate as they are, they can help us to understand something of the mystery. The liturgy applies to Jesus’ descent into the night of death the words of Psalm 23[24]: “Lift up your heads, O gates; be lifted up, O ancient doors!” The gates of death are closed, no one can return from there. There is no key for those iron doors. But Christ has the key. His Cross opens wide the gates of death, the stern doors. They are barred no longer. His Cross, his radical love, is the key that opens them. The love of the One who, though God, became man in order to die – this love has the power to open those doors. This love is stronger than death. The Easter icons of the Oriental Church show how Christ enters the world of the dead. He is clothed with light, for God is light. “The night is bright as the day, the darkness is as light” (cf. Ps 138[139]12). Entering the world of the dead, Jesus bears the stigmata, the signs of his passion: his wounds, his suffering, have become power: they are love that conquers death. He meets Adam and all the men and women waiting in the night of death. As we look at them, we can hear an echo of the prayer of Jonah: “Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice” (Jn 2:2). In the incarnation, the Son of God became one with human beings – with Adam. But only at this moment, when he accomplishes the supreme act of love by descending into the night of death, does he bring the journey of the incarnation to its completion. By his death he now clasps the hand of Adam, of every man and woman who awaits him, and brings them to the light.

But we may ask: what is the meaning of all this imagery? What was truly new in what happened on account of Christ? The human soul was created immortal – what exactly did Christ bring that was new? The soul is indeed immortal, because man in a unique way remains in God’s memory and love, even after his fall. But his own powers are insufficient to lift him up to God. We lack the wings needed to carry us to those heights. And yet, nothing else can satisfy man eternally, except being with God. An eternity without this union with God would be a punishment. Man cannot attain those heights on his own, yet he yearns for them. “Out of the depths I cry to you…” Only the Risen Christ can bring us to complete union with God, to the place where our own powers are unable to bring us. Truly Christ puts the lost sheep upon his shoulders and carries it home. Clinging to his Body we have life, and in communion with his Body we reach the very heart of God. Only thus is death conquered, we are set free and our life is hope.

This is the joy of the Easter Vigil: we are free. In the resurrection of Jesus, love has been shown to be stronger than death, stronger than evil. Love made Christ descend, and love is also the power by which he ascends. The power by which he brings us with him. In union with his love, borne aloft on the wings of love, as persons of love, let us descend with him into the world’s darkness, knowing that in this way we will also rise up with him. On this night, then, let us pray: Lord, show us that love is stronger than hatred, that love is stronger than death. Descend into the darkness and the abyss of our modern age, and take by the hand those who await you. Bring them to the light! In my own dark nights, be with me to bring me forth! Help me, help all of us, to descend with you into the darkness of all those people who are still waiting for you, who out of the depths cry unto you! Help us to bring them your light! Help us to say the “yes” of love, the love that makes us descend with you and, in so doing, also to rise with you. Amen!

Love has descended into the very depths of hell and darkness to bring mankind intimately back to the light and the Heart of God so that we can share eternal communion with God; our hearts are no longer stone, but hearts of flesh, beating and pulsing with the Spirit of Love.

The Heart of God

From Whispers in the Loggia, here are Pope Benedict's closing remarks following the Stations of the Cross in Roma last night:

Dear brothers and sisters,

Following Jesus along the way of his passion, we see not only the suffering of Jesus, but also all the suffering of the world; this is the deep intention of the prayer of the Way of the Cross: to open our hearts and to help us to see with our hearts.

The Fathers of the Church considered insensitivity, the hardness of heart, as the greatest sin of the pagan world and so loved the prophecy of Ezekiel: "I will take your heart of stone and will give you a heart of flesh" (Ez 36:26). To convert ourselves to Christ, to become Christian, is to receive a heart of flesh, a sensitive heart for the agony and suffering of others.

Our God is not a faraway God, untouchable in his blessedness: our God has a heart. Rather, he has a heart of flesh, made flesh itself to suffer with us and to be with us in our sufferings. He made himself man to give us a heart of flesh and to reawaken in us a love for the suffering, for the needy.

Let us pray to the Lord in this hour for all the afflicted of the world. Let us pray to the Lord that he may really give us a heart of flesh and make us messengers of His love not only with words, but with all our life. Amen.

New Look and Future Posts

I almost have finished what was a very busy semester. I have one paper to finish.

I did a quick redesign of the website. It is something I have wanted to do for a very long time. More changes will be made when time is available. Be assured that I have some good posts coming soon. One will be a detailed look at the document on pornography, "Bought with a Price" from Bishop Loverde of Arlington, VA. Another will be a look at the pastoral document from the USCCB, "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination."

May you have a blessed and holy Advent!

A New Argument Against Pre-Natal Testing

I came across this story entitled "Prenatal Screening not so Accurate as Once Thought – 'Normal' Children Killed as 'Defective'?" from Lifesite.net. It refers to a story in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, "Study turns human genetics on its head." According to the Globe and Mail article, a recent study, published in the journal Nature, has brought to our attention more genetic differences than previously thought possible among human beings.

An international research team has overturned the harmonious message that flowed from the Human Genome Project in 2000 and discovered more DNA differences exist among people than the experts expected.

Using new technology to study the genomes of 270 volunteers from four corners of the world, researchers have found that while people do indeed inherit one chromosome from each parent, they do not necessarily inherit one gene from mom and another from dad.

One parent can pass down to a child three or more copies of a single gene. In some cases, people can inherit as many as eight or 10 copies. In rare instances a person might be missing a gene.

Yet despite these anomalies, they still appear to be healthy -- countering the notion of what doctors have deemed "normal" in genetics.

The work highlights how DNA helps to make each human unique, hinting that a towering basketball player, for example, might boast extra copies of a growth gene or that a daughter really might be more like her dad.

The scientific study of the human genome in the Human Genome Project (1990-2003) argued that "the human genome sequence is almost (99%) exactly the same in all people" (see here for reference). This most recent study suggests that this picture of almost identical human genome sequences is false. This recent

...research finds that the size of at least 12 per cent of the genome -- including 2,900 genes and regions between them -- can differ dramatically between people, and in some cases, between certain ethnic groups.

The size differences are the result of DNA that is either duplicated or deleted or contains unexpected added bits of genetic code. Scientists call the phenomenon "copy number variation" or CNV for short. And it is already reshaping genetic research.

"When we're accounting for what the human genome means, there's not going to be a single human genome map that is going to be useful to one person," said Robert Hegele, a noted genetic scientist at the Robarts Research Institute in London, Ont., who read the study. "It's a huge surprise that there's so much variation of this type . . . that is so common in so many healthy people."

The study suggests that there is quite a bit of variance in the human genetic structure among healthy people in which it is useless to try and pin "normal" on one version of the human genome map and then use that as a basis to determine who fits and does not fit this normal standard. What does this mean for pre-natal testing?

For this reason, scientists agree that doctors looking at less-detailed genetic tests -- such as karyotyping -- might have mistaken unusually-sized bits of DNA as signs of a medical problem.

Patients, or prospective parents receiving results of a prenatal test, for instance, might have been informed that something looked abnormal when, the new work suggests, it isn't.

While the report does not delve into the issue directly, Dr. Scherer [co-author of the study) acknowledged this is a possibility. He offered as an example a genetic test that relies on a "diagnostic probe" to evaluate the length of DNA code near the ends of chromosomes.

Shorter chromosomes, he said, are implicated in developmental delay or mental retardation due to DNA code that might be missing.

"But we found that in a large number of cases (shorter chromosomes) exist in the general population," said Dr. Scherer, who is also director of the Centre for Applied Genomics. "The chromosomes don't necessarily line up evenly . . . so people really need to scrutinize these results more closely before assuming it's pathogenic.

"The bottom line is that there's so much natural variation you have to go back and look closer."

Dr. Hegele agreed that such things might have been misread. "It's always been assumed those big changes would result in some type of disease, that they were rare and would lead to sort of catastrophic conditions," he said, noting that Down syndrome is the result of an extra copy of chromosome 21.

This recent study calls into question the nature of some pre-natal testing and how it identifies abnormalities. If what this study suggests is true, then some pre-natal testing, such as mentioned above in the quote, is useless and nothing but speculation based on false information concerning the human genetic structure and its variance among human beings.

The Whoring of the Young, part III

I guess it should come as no surprised how sexualized Europe tends to be as opposed to the United States. I have been meaning to post about this story for a few weeks now, ever since I caught a small snippet about it in the Express paper from the Washington Post. The full story can be found here. A British company, Tesco, apparently put out interesting gifts to give to boys and girls this season (You can see the amended websites page here and here- the company changed the information about the gift to target it for adults, according to the article). The first toy is a "Peekaboo Pole Dancing Set." Yes, a stripper pole set for girls. As the Daily Mail story tells us,

The Tesco Direct site advertises the kit with the words, "Unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go! "Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars".

The other great item for sale for youngsters was the Peekaboo Poker set, which included the following description:

The card game is is described as a game that "risks the risque and brings a whole lot of naughtiness to the table. "Played with a unique pack of Peekaboo Boy and Girl playing cards, the aim of the game is to win as many Peekaboo chips as possible and turn them into outrageously naughty fun."

If the original story is true, such abhorrent behavior from companies should be condemned. Children have enough to deal with in today's world without being contaminated with this sort of sexualized garbage.

The Whoring of the Young, continued...

I found it necessary to add a part II to the previous story with it now encompassing a more global aspect. Lifesite.net reported with an article entitled "Child Porn Now Mainstream in Germany" that the German teen magazine, Bravo, regularly features nude photographs of teenagers, generally between the ages of 16 to 20. I knew how progressive European countries tend to be about sex, but I guess I would not have guessed it leading to sexualizing the youth through a teenage magazine. Coupled with these photographs is the regular sex-advice column of Dr. Sommer. Who knew teenagers needed a sex-advice column?

From the Lifesite.net article, I then found an article in Speigel Online, another publication in Germany, with an article in English concerning Bravo and its teen sex columnist (you can find that article here).

Lodged between the ads for tampons, zit concealers and mobile phone ring tones is a weekly sex advice column splashed with photos of teenagers, au naturel -- kind of like Penthouse Letters for kids. It's the kind of thing that would land the publishers in jail were it to hit newsstands on the other side of the Atlantic. If the Christian right or America's comb-over Congress got their hands on this, the courts would be busy for months.

But this is sex-positive Germany, not the Bible Belt. And here there are few taboos when it comes to telling kids where to insert the dipstick should they need to check the oil. The cultural epicenter of this sex-friendly youth society is "Dr. Sommer," the weekly Bravo column that has been providing teens with sex advice since its birth during the 1969 Summer of Love. And the Germans love it. The column's liberating message to teens has been greeted with open arms from across the religious and political spectrum. Indeed, it's not unusual for the column's staff to receive invitations to church groups to deliver youth sexuality sermons.

Aside from their view of American culture and its Bible-Belt "morality" (I guess we're not perverse enough....YET!), the advice column is pitched as being a message of liberation. What does this message of liberation entail?

That's not to say that Bravo is a cheap skin mag -- nor does the weekly seek to become the Teutonic version of the Kama Sutra. Rather, the nude photos are intended to provide reassuring images to adolescents suddenly confronted with serious physical and psychological pyrotechnics....

A combination of "Dr. Ruth," Teen People and "Savage Love," each week the staff of Dr. Sommer answer letters from teens seeking advice about health, sex, changing bodies, love and relationships. Hundreds of questions pour in each week in the form of written letters, telephone calls and postings to the popular Bravo Web site. The questions are those one would expect from uncertain youth trying to figure out what the heck is happening to their bodies, urges and emotions: How do I meet my first mate? How do I flirt? Why is my body changing? Will I ever recover from this heartbreak? Do I need contraception? Can I get AIDS from kissing? What is safe sex? Will boys still like me if I am flat-chested?

Does anybody wonder...where the hell are the parents???!?!??! And not to let you think that this is some small magazine, "more than 600,000 teens buy Bravo in Germany each week, and many more go to the magazine's Web site, where the Dr. Sommer section is one of the most popular, contributing significantly to the site's massive readership. In April (2006), Bravo.de chalked up nearly 39 million page views." So apparently, the magazine and website get a large readership in Germany. But has the work of Dr. Sommer made much of a difference in the past 36 years?

Bravo's recent study found that, despite more than three decades of publishing Dr. Sommer, German teens still know too little important information about sex. "We found that there are huge gaps when it comes to knowledge about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, protecting oneself from AIDS and sexuality and contraception in general," said von Arx.

With all the information available on the internet and in books and magazines, people still don't know about sex. My favorite has to be about preventing unwanted pregnancies; let me harbor a guess about that one....how about old fashion abstinence, its 100% effective in preventing any pregnancy! So how does this information not get passed onto the new generations of Germans? von Arx, the pseudonymous Dr. Sommer, says its because of the sexual revolution.

"Forty years ago," she says, "people thought kids knew nothing and that everything had to be explained to them. But today the opposite is true. Our kids are growing up in a society where there are almost no remaining taboos when it comes to sex, and people assume they already know far more about sex than they actually do. They do have access to a lot more information today, but it often lacks context or is contradictory."

The sexual revolution brought on too much information that lacks context or is contradictory. Unfortunately, von Arx, does not tell us what context is necessary. It seems that teenagers need explicit guides on how to improve their sexual lives and visual aids to help them. You only need to go through Dr. Sommer's section on the Bravo magazine website to gain just a glimmer of what material is made available to and for teenagers in Germany. One could argue that the Bravo magazine is doing a service to the youth of Germany by providing sexual health information. The magazine is just presenting the information and letting the youth determine what to do with it. But that is far from the truth. Handing out information about how to have sexual activity presumes that this is a type of activity that should be normal for the youth of Germany in which to participate. Not to mention with its presentation of explicit graphics, you have handed them several things to use: 1) for imaginative purposes and the introduction of ideas they may not have had otherwise; 2) a useful guide on "how-to" have sex; 3) normalized it in a context of other young people are doing it, so why not me.

It makes me wonder how far off we are from this sort of situation in the United States, especially with the way sexual education has advanced in the public and private schools.

Parenthood and Life So Easily Discarded

While I'm doing some work, I came across this article "Imagining Our Children into Non-Existence" written by Joseph Capizzi. From the introduction:

One of the consolations of the religious mindset is the release from the illusion that we can control our destinies. The release from this illusion, the believer knows, is also a relief from the pressures associated with our attempts to control our lives. Even the irreligious can come to learn this, and one of the best educations in the disillusionment of control is parenthood. Technology, however, increasingly saps parenthood of the capacity to teach this lesson.

The rest of the article discusses a New York Times piece which looks at a couple's use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in screening out potentially harmful cancers. The couple could not bring a child into this world knowing that they could have prevented future suffering from a cancer that is genetically linked to their family. With PGD, this can be stopped, that is, there is no need to bring a life into this world that has the potential for unnecessary suffering, when we have the technology to prevent it. The couple, having used, PGD, did find an embryo that did not have a genetic predisposition to a certain cancer. One could say, Chloe, the daughter of this couple, survived the process of PGD.

But as Capizzi reminds us:

It’s hard to for me to imagine how the rest of Chloe’s life can escape the illusion her father and mother adopted. One doesn’t have children, so much as unleash them into the world, with all its dangers foreseen and unforeseen. Once you’ve adopted the illusion you can control your child’s destiny, how do you let them go? Once you’ve made the decision that this child can enter the world, but these children cannot, how will you manage the first unforeseen failure, or fall, or illness? That is the course the Kingsburys have taken. They didn’t stop the disease, as the father put it; they stopped the carriers of the disease. Chloe lives because scientists don’t yet have tests for every human imperfection; because science has not yet convinced people like the Kingsburys that life isn’t worth the risks. The article states that they “passed over” four embryos that had the defective gene and two more that failed the $2000 potential Downs test. Those embryos – those lives – were discarded. At least six of Chloe’s siblings were sacrificed for her existence. How’s that for growing up with pressure? She’d better do well in school.

The Whoring of America's Youth

I want to apologize for the recent hiatus that has been experienced on my website. I have been working on my thesis, and with classes beginning next week, I may not post as frequently as I have in the past. But I will try and contribute interesting and thoughtful posts when I find something interesting, which brings me to today's post.

Society Gone Wild is an article I came across in my online reading today. Here is a taste of the article:

If you have ever found yourself up late at night staring at the television, you’ll likely be familiar with Joe Francis’s work. Joe Francis is the brains (?) behind “Girls Gone Wild,” that lovely, $40 million a year series of videotapes or DVDs that provide a historical record of the varieties of undergarments worn and removed by mostly drunken old girls and young women of the early twenty-first century.

A great recent article in the Los Angeles Times provides a wealth of information about Mr. Francis. We learn about his arrest on charges of racketeering, drug trafficking and promoting the sexual performance of a child; about his fondness for physically bullying women; about his philosophical insights into human nature (for instance, “only the guys with the greatest sexual appetites are the ones who are the most driven and most successful” – is that pre-Socratic? I forget); his business’s code ("Push That Porn!!!"); his pitiable life of being so gosh-darned famous ("It's fun for everybody else but me. I just get hounded by kids. It was more fun not being famous on spring break."); and even his gift for turning phrases ("I've been anally raped over and over by the media."). What a guy! But Mr. Francis isn’t the story. There’s nothing new in men profiting from sex, nor in what people used to call men profiting from the exploitation of women. What’s new, instead, is that it’s almost impossible anymore to call the eager dropping of one’s drawers in return for a T-shirt exploitative.(emphasis added)

That introduction should have caught your attention. Now check out this even more powerful statement from the article's author, Joseph Capizzi:

Let’s be clear about what we’re seeing. This is nothing less than the whoring of America’s youth. Joe Francis is not setting this trend, he’s capturing it on video. And these girls typically are not exposing themselves because they are drunk, though they are very drunk, but because that’s what they know.

Whoring of America's youth. It was only time before the over-sexualization of society started taking its toll on the youth of the world. This actually brings me to an interesting tie-in to what my wife had mentioned on her website concerning a recent visit we had to a Toys-R-Us. We were quite shocked to see such trashy dolls being marketed to young girls. Check out her post Valley of the Tramps.

I dare not think of what's next if this is how far things have gone.

Designer Embryos?

In an commentary piece entitled "Embryos made to order" that appeared in today's Washington Times, Debra Saunders, a syndicated columnists, reports on Jennalee Ryan and her group The Abrahman Center of Life which advertises "The World's First Human Embryo Bank" online.

There's no need for would-be parents to settle for already-born babies or leftover embryos from couples with fertility issues. Ms. Ryan sent out a letter that explains, "Recipient parents will receive pictures of the donors as infants, and sometimes as adults; full medical background and health reports, and a family history." Her group, The Abraham Center of Life, uses sperm donors only with college degrees -- although "most of them have doctorate degrees" -- while most egg donors have some college.

That is not the most disturbing element. Maybe this next part of the commentary is:

Prospective parents can pick the sperm and eggs to produce their designer babies. Ms. Ryan even says she can find a surrogate mother to carry the fetus to term.

Get that? You can pick your own sperm donor and egg donor from their list of possible donors and you can even find a surrogate to help bring about "your" baby. All you need is the money to do it. Saunders ask pointblank, "Aren't you selling designer babies?" to which Ms Ryan replied:

"Designer babies? Yeah. Why not?" she replies with a laugh.

It is nice to know that Ms. Ryan is taking things so seriously. What caused Ms. Ryan to start this venture?

"You know why I did it? Because I could." Ms Ryan explains. She started Abigail's Silver Spoons Adoptions, Inc. years ago, and while that enterprise continues, she saw a new market in embryos.

Get that too? A new market indeed exists for such things. I guess it was only time until some venturing capitalist decided to make some money off of people - both in getting people to donate eggs and sperm as well as people who are desperate to have the baby they want in the manner they want it. Who knew life could be such a commodity. What is next? I guess I shouldn't ask Ms. Ryan that question. Finally, for justification purposes, Ms. Ryan says:

"As of right now, there is no regulation. You know how it works? If there is no law against it, it's legal."

What a nice notion of law and how it works. If there is no law against such a thing, then it's legal and perfect fine to make a business out of it.

I hesitate to link to the website for Ms. Ryan. I'll let those most interested in finding such a horrific practice to do so on their own.

A Critical Look at Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity

It must have been a year or so ago, when I discovered the book Real Sex: the Naked Truth About Chastity in a Barnes and Noble bookstore. The subtitle caught my attention. As I opened to the first page, I found a pretty solid opening:

Chastity: it is one of those unabashedly churchy words. It is is one of the words the church uses to call Christians to do something hard, something unpopular. ... Chastity is one of the many Christian practices that are at odds with the dictates of our surrounding, secular culture. It challenges the movies we watch, the magazines we read, the songs we listen to. ... Chastity is also something that many of us Christians have to learn.

So I felt compelled to buy this book, if only to read a popularized attempt at trying to defend and teach about chastity in the Christian life. I say popularized attempt because the author, Lauren F. Winner, is not a theologian but rather a lay woman, writing much from her own personal experiences and in an effort to bring more people to understanding the true nature of chastity.

The book, itself, is divided in to two sections. The first is "Talking About Sex" which constitutes the proper role of sex in marriage (from a biblical-creation perspective), how the community helps form our attitudes and public discourse concerning sex (in which sex is not a "private" matter), and addresses falsehoods concerning sex from the culture and church perspective. The second is "Practicing Chastity" which involves how to form proper guidance on living the virtue of chastity, how chastity is a spiritual practice which helps discipline the appetites of the body, how being single helps form the Church, and finally some practical matters concerning chastity.

There are some very important points that I think Winner makes and they deserve mention here. Part of her emphasis is that the Christian church, a term she uses broadly to denote Christianity, fails properly to dispose young people to chaste living, which has repercussions for later in life when situations arise that challenge a weak or limited understanding of the virtue of chastity and how it should form our lives. Winner writes:

...chastity is God's very best for us. God created sex for marriage and that is where it belongs. Still, many Christians who know about chastity have a hard time being chaste. Chastity may be instantly rewarding, but it doesn't always feel instantly rewarding, and let's face it, we live in a therapeutic culture in which people often make decisions based on what seems to feel right at the time. Too often the church, rather than giving unmarried Christians useful tools and thick theologies to help us live chastely, instead tosses off a few bromides - "True love waits" is not that compelling when you're twenty-nine and have been waiting, and wonder what, really, you're waiting for.

So how do we go about imparting the virtue of chastity better in young people? First we have to realize that "chastity, like most aspects of the Christian life, does not come naturally." It takes effort, patience, and working at the discipleship that has been given to us through our baptismal calling. Winner offers three furthering keys to developing the virtue of chastity: 1) prayer; 2) reading the bible and other Christian classics, and 3) the church, witnessing as the body of Christ in sharing the message of chastity, being willing to admonish those who sin and need help by showing generosity, compassion, and mercy to those who struggle with chastity in order to guide them through the love of Christ.

A key area in which she shows the role of the church and community in forming chaste relationships among men and women is the personal story she relates from her own dating situation. A campus pastor at the University of Virginia said to her and her boyfriend (her spouse now): "Don't do anything sexual that wouldn't be comfortable doing on the steps of the Rotunda." Meaning, in a non-marital relationship, the couple should be cognizant that they should not go beyond any activity that what they would not do in public setting. As Winner notes:

This was not just practical instruction, but also wisdom: sex has a public dimesnion and a private dimension. Christians gain access to the private side at a wedding. The question for married couples is not How far can we go? but How do we maintain the integrity of our sexual relationship, which at this point is only public?

"The point" here, "is to discern, with your community, what behaviors can protect the body and God's created sexual intent. For her and her future spouse, "the Rotunda rule established in us a certain discpline - perhpas a little disciplined sexuality migh titself be a good preparation for married, for the week when your wife has a urinary tract infection, or the few months after your husband's father dies, and sex is not in the cards, but maybe some kissing is." Very practical advice and helpful in trying to understand how chastity should help govern non-marital relationships. This is but one example of her down-to-earth sort of attitude toward the development of chastity in our daily lives.

I guess, in hindsight, I should have seen it coming from an author formed in the Protestant Christian tradition, but I was quite surprised to see in her rebuttal to the lie that "sex can be wholly separated from procreation" that Winner has no problem with birth control. In part of justification for having birth control, she said something that bothered me. "...birth control allows married couples to relax a little and have sex without fear." When should conjugal sex ever have a component of fear? Why should a possible pregnancy instill fear? New life always should be welcomed. When fear enters the picture, the intent of those sexual acts needs to be called into question. While proscribing birth control options on the one hand, Winner hesitates with a "carefree" attitude towards contraceptive methods - afraid in part because constant usage of contraceptive methods "invites us to be people who have utterly separated sex from procreation." Before she addresses her final conclusion concerning birth control, she draws attention to couples who are sterile and how they have sexual relations without a finality of procreation. Thus, she can say,"...that the whole of a married couple's sex life needs to be open to procreation, but each and every sex act need not be." This is typical revisionist thinking concerning contraception. Each and every sex act does not need to be open to life. It is the "whole" of a couple's conjugal life that carries the moral weight.

This conclusion puzzles me for what she later says concerning each and every choice we make.

The choices we make every day - where we shop, what we do with our bodies, how we pass our time - form us. They shape the type of Christians we become. What we do matters - not because good behavior gets us into heaven, but because behavior, good and bad, creates certain expectations in us, teaches us certain lessons.

A good question to pose to Winner is this: What does contraceptive sexual activity teach us then? That we can use our spouses for our pleasure and benefit and not deal with the "fearful" consequences of a possible pregnancy which may ruin our future plans and endeavors? That our conjugal sex life need not be related to procreation? Since these choices affect us, each and every day, what does it say about us when we choose contraceptive sex? I still am puzzled. Winner argues for a revisionist way of thinking regarding contraception and yet seems eager to endore a very Thomistic understanding of the formation of character in that all the actions we take form us.

Another criticism I have of the book is Winner's approach to "lies" the church tells us about sex. Some of these cases seem to be her fighting against a strawman. In all my readings I never came across such lies as "premarital sex is guaranteed to make you feel lousy" or "women don't really want to have sex, anyway," or "bodies (and sex) are gross, dirty, or just plain unimportant."

So while I appreciate Winner's attempt to stimulate conversation and action regarding the habituation of chastity, especially in young people, I feel that the criticisms I have raised diminish the positive value of the whole work. I would not recommend such a work for those who need a primer on chastity because the book as a whole lacks the full Catholic approach to sexual morality.

Dr. Death

On Lifesite.com, the daily news line-up featured a column entitled "Doctors Kept Asking to 'Let' My Father Die: Wall Street Journalist." The article is a summary of a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, July 21, 2006 - "How Faith Saved the Athiest: Why did the doctors stop asking me to pull the plug?" The WSJ column, written by Pamela Winnick, describes her father's time in the hospital due to a blood clot. During this time in the hospital, she was repeatedly asked to "pull the plug" on her father or let him "die with dignity." She devised the ruse to tell the staff that her family and her father were Orthodox Jews. Once this was known, the hospital staff avoided further death with "dignity" talk.

Though my father was born to an Orthodox Jewish family, he is an avowed atheist who long ago had rejected his parents' ways. As I sat in the ICU, blips on the various screens the only proof that my father was alive, the irony struck me: My father, who had long ago rejected Orthodox Judaism, was now under its protection.

As though to confirm this, there came a series of miracles. Just a week after he was rushed to ICU, my father was pronounced well enough to be moved out of the unit into North Shore's long-term respiratory care unit. A day later he was off the respirator, able to breathe on his own. He still mostly slept, but then he began to awaken for minutes at a time, at first groggy, but soon he was as alert (and funny) as ever. A day later, we walked in to find him sitting upright in a chair, reading the New York Times.

Soon thereafter, her father was able to leave the hospital - alive and well.

On Father's Day, we packed my father's hospital room: his wife, daughters, grandchildren, each of us regaling him with our successes large and small. "Life's not so bad, after all," the atheist said. I wanted to go back to ICU, find Dr. Death, drag her to my father's room and say: "This is the life you wanted to end."

(Note: I thought it is worth mentioning that one sad thing about Minnick's column is her rant against "conservative" Christians, but regardless of that fact, the account of her father's treatment is still valid and compelling.)

The Lifesite.com news article does a nice job using Minnick's column to describe the situation we find ourselves in, that is, a medical profession that seems eager to end life as soon as possible. As Mr. Vanderheyden notes in the Lifesite article:

Ever increasing reports of incidents of this sort points towards a frightful widening acceptance and often even imposition of euthanasia for the sick and the elderly. The medical community appears the most insistent on this while conveying an attitude that it is far less trouble and less expensive for them to simply cease treatment for those they deem are close to death or even just incurable. It is becoming common in Western hospitals that the elderly are passively and sometimes actively euthanized without their or their family's consent. Last month LifeSiteNews.com reported on a prominant British medical ethicist who stated that it is time to "regulate" the already existing practice of "involuntary euthanasia," often referred to in legal systems as "murder."

A joint statement by a group of doctors and lawyers on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS) published on LifeSiteNews.com in October of last year warned that "If euthanasia became legalized, the decision whether to terminate or preserve a patient's life or to assist with PAS will rest with the medical profession. To legalize euthanasia and PAS would dramatically increase the power doctors have over their patients and severely decrease patient autonomy."

Who know's how scary things will be in the coming years when a medical emergency arises and you have to use hospital emergency facilities. Will Dr. Death be there waiting to "pull the plug" on you or your loved one? I don't mean to end on such a frightening note, but we have to understand the realities of the medical profession and how these "strangers" at our bedside may soon be calling all the shots when it comes to matters of life and death, whether in the name of let him "die with dignity" or "you are using up valuable resources or space" or "you cost too much" or you are an "inconveience."

Genetic Outlaws

Browsing around the internet on a break from my thesis research, I found an interesting article in Business Week entitled "Confessions of a 'Genetic Outlaw'" which concerns genetic screening. Here is the opening paragraph of the article to get your attention:

From time to time, we are all confronted with the disconnect between how we see ourselves and how others see us. I've always seen myself as a responsible, law-abiding citizen. I recycle, I vote, I don't drive a Hummer. But I've come to realize that many in the scientific and medical community view me as grossly irresponsible. Indeed, in the words of Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England's first test-tube baby, I am a "sinner." A recent book even branded me a "genetic outlaw." My transgression? I am one of the dwindling number of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and choose not to terminate our pregnancies.

It certainly is a good article to read. If I have some time later, I will write some comments.

UPDATE: The article's main thrust concerns the place of disabled individuals (with Down syndrome, etc) in a technologically-advanced culture, whose medicinal practices seek to "alleviate potential suffering and protect the quality of the lives they are bringing into the world." What kind of message are we sending in our attempts to eliminate "unfit" embryos from being born into the world through the usage of genetic screening? The author of the article, Elizabeth Schiltz, does not suggest we abandon the usage of genetic testing but rather wants our attention to focus on what we do with the knowledge we gain from such testing. In a beautiful summation to the story, Schiltz concludes:

I would not want scientists to stop delving into the mysteries and wonders of the human genome. I am glad that I knew my son had Down syndrome before he was born. If one of these scientists found a "cure" for my son's Down syndrome, I almost certainly would give it to him. But I will admit that I would pause beforehand. I would think hard about this real-life conversation between a teenager with Down syndrome and her mother. The daughter asked her mother whether she would still have Down syndrome when the two were together in heaven someday. The mother, taken by surprise, responded that she thought probably not. To which her daughter responded, "But how will you know who I am, then?" And I would also think hard about whether the world would really be a better place without my son's soft, gentle, deep, almond-shaped eyes.

The alleviation of "suffering" in regards to individuals with Down syndrom reminds me of a poignant passage from Stanley Hauerwas' essay, "Suffering the Retarded":

The challenge of learning to know, to be with, and care for the retarded is nothing less than learning to know, be with, and love God. God’s face is the face of the retarded; God’s body is the body of the retarded; God’s being is that of the retarded. For the God we Christians must learn to worship is not a god of self-sufficient power, a god who in self-possession needs no one.... God is not separated from himself or us by his suffering; rather, his suffering makes it possible for him to share our life and for us to share his.

Since I am in the middle of my thesis research, I hesitate to continue further with more comments, but maybe down the road I will take up this issue again.

Periodic Continence and NFP

I saw an article mentioned on the Insight Scoop which is a blog for Ignatius Press authors and staff. The article "NFP: A Defense and an Explanation" by Mr. Thoams Storck appeared in the Homiletics and Pastoral Review July 2006 issue. The article takes aim at the issue of whether serious reasons are needed to use Natural Family Planning (NFP) or similar methods in order to space children or delay pregnancies.

I do not take issue with Mr. Storck's presentation of NFP and whether the Magisterium offers some teaching regarding NFP. My criticism as I continued to think about it concerns much more with Mr. Storck's presumption that when the Church has talked about using methods to regulate the birth of children, it speaks of NFP. Indeed the praise that Mr. Storck lavishes on NFP from magisterial documents appears to be praise for the practice of periodic continence. Certainly, NFP contains periodic continence but I think its emphasis is a bit different than taking up periodic continence. Below, I have copied what I wrote as a comment on the Insight Scoop blog. I may add or change elements to make things more clear but I think the points I make in this long comment are valid and worth pondering.

I do want to make one comment regarding my first main point in this comment below. I think I may have over-stated the case in the manner that I do. I do not think Mr. Storck gives a particular impression of NFP. Rather I think I take a more general impression I get from those think that NFP means having conjugal intercourse during infertile times to avoid a possible pregnancy. I do apologize for this over-statement and I believe the point remains valid to some extent because of the impression that NFP generally has.

--------------(Start of Comment)--------------
Thanks for the link to that interesting article. Just from my two readings of it, I wish that Mr. Storck had made one important observation concerning NFP, a better reading of Familiaris Consortio and the Catechism as well as a better understanding regarding the ends of marriage.

The article, I think, leaves a wrong impression about the method of NFP in one respect and that is where an observation about NFP is necessary. NFP is not just about having conjugal intercourse during infertile periods, it is also about restricting sexual activity to such times. This really leads to where the Church praises about the use of infertile times. The couple learns to share in the virtue of continence in which they offer up and sacrifice conjugal relations for the good of the family, health of the spouses, or whatever is the just reason for the use of NFP. Periodic continence is thus a praiseworthy element of NFP (as we shall see in Familiaris Consortio and in the Catehcism, even Pius XII's Address to Midwives which Mr. Storck quotes, has a section entitled 'the Heroism of Continence'). It takes a mastery of the self on the part of both spouses to offer up this sacrifice.

And this observation leads me into my criticism of his reading of Familiaris Consortio in which he misses John Paul II's account of following the natural cycle of the woman's body. Mr. Storck seems to glide right past the part concerning "self-control" which he quotes in his article. It is not so much the ability to have conjugal intercourse within infertile times that builds up the marriage, but rather the ascetical practice of not having conjugal intercourse that provides a growing intimacy which deepens the bonds of marriage and love. You can practice periodic continence without resorting to NFP. Indeed, periodic continence is an important theme in this regard as you see in paragraph 33 of Familiaris Consortio:

But the necessary conditions also include knowledge of the bodily aspect and the body's rhythms of fertility. Accordingly, every effort must be made to render such knowledge accessible to all married people and also to young adults before marriage, through clear, timely and serious instruction and education given by married couples, doctors and experts. Knowledge must then lead to education in self control: hence the absolute necessity for the virtue of chastity and for permanent education in it. In the Christian view, chastily by no means signifies rejection of human sexuality or lack of esteem for it: rather it signifies spiritual energy capable of defending love from the perils of selfishness and aggressiveness, and able to advance it towards its full realization.

With deeply wise and loving intuition, Paul VI was only voicing the experience of many married couples when he wrote in his Encyclical: "To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort, yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring.

So it is not so much NFP that is praiseworthy itself but rather the emphasis is on the periodic continence that is a part of NFP. The Catechsim continues this point with paragraph 2370: "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom." So the use of infertile periods really speaks to the practice of continence which is a part of NFP but not all of NFP.

Next, Mr. Storck continually refers to the procreation and education of children as being the primary end of marriage; thus he relegates the mutual love between the spouses as a "secondary end." Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has abandoned the usage of primary and secondary ends. To reference them otherwise is a mistatement of the Church's official teaching. Gaudium et spes paragraph 50 does not make reference to the primary/secondary distinction. It makes the two ends on a more even level. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not make reference to this primary/secondary distinction.

Lastly, I want to end with a beautiful section from Pius XII Address to Midwives. It speaks of periodic continence and its possibility within marriage because I feel that is where the Church's praise really lies:

"God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able".

I hope I have been clear. I have re-written this several times and made dozens of corrections and deletions. I hope my comments are not out of place. I hope they clarify things instead.

Does the New York Times need a name change?

I came across this story on Townhall.com, which is an excellent site to find news as well as good conservative analysis of current political events and news topics. The article, I found, is entitled "The New Gay Times" written by Brent Bozell III, the founder and president of the Media Research Center. The article details the New York Times and its involvement with the promotion of homosexuality not only through its biased news articles but also through sponsorship of events such as the Gay Games and talks/lectures about "gay" issues. As Bozell notes:

Just a few weeks ago, a "Times Talks" panel on the 25th anniversary of the first article on AIDS in The New York Times included radical activist Larry Kramer, who distributed his wild remarks in advance, claiming, among other things, that "the gay population of the world has been, and continues to be, targeted for extinction." His written remarks also called for "Nuremberg trials," to hold not only the late Ronald Reagan, but also the owners and editors of -- how's this for gratitude? -- The New York Times accountable, like Nazi war criminals, for the AIDS holocaust.

That's just crazy. But by placing its famous name squarely on the side of the gay left, The New York Times is sending a message to America's solid majority against putting thousands of years of tradition through the shredder. It says: You're all intolerant bigots on the wrong side of history, and you will be defeated, even if we have to make utter asses of ourselves in the process.

You have to read the whole piece and see the journalism practiced by the NYTimes.