No Radical Theological Reversal in Pope's Words (B.C. Courier Times, 8/20/07)

The original….

Two recent statements from the Vatican have received a flurry of published commentary, including your own July 13th editorial. You state that, “Only days ago Benedict XVI revived the old Latin Mass. Now he has made an even bigger splash by reaffirming the primacy of the Catholic Church and declaring that Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.” As the Holy Father has bemoaned to his brother bishops, “News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion.”

I assume that the Courier Times is referring to Pope Benedict XVI’s July 7th apostolic letter and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s July 10th "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." As you were unable to correctly identify the authorship of the latter, I suspect that you have not actually read either statement.

Simply put, Pope Benedict XI’s apostolic letter, “Summorum Pontificum,” allows for a much wider use of the Latin Mass. However, the overwhelming number of Masses will continue to be celebrated in the vernacular languages. As we supposedly live in a more open and enlightened era, why would anyone possibly have a problem with this? Well, Benedict XVI identifies two, sometimes-unspoken, fears:

• “In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question….


• “In the second place, …that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities.”


• The Holy Father sees both of these fears as unfounded. Be that said, he invites his brother bishops “to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years [down the road]….If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought”
  

On July 10th, the Vatican ’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" which clarifies the “authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the Magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.” There is absolutely no radical theological reversal contained in this statement. Nothing deviates from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Compendium of the Catechism. As an English language translation is available online, truly interested readers need not rely upon ill-informed commentary.

Your editorial takes an ad hominem swipe at the Holy Father, accusing him of “blackballing a whole lot of human beings.” Shame on you. You also accuse him of trying to sabotage Vatican II: “In what is partly an effort to reconnect with the church's traditional, conservative roots, he seems to have taken the opportunity given to any leader of the world's…Roman Catholics to point the church in a particular direction. Backwards.” As this Holy Father is speculated to have been – as a young theologian - a ghostwriter for one of the council’s most important documents (i.e., Lumen Gentium - the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), your statement is particularly off base. I enthusiastically encourage you to actually read the 16 documents of Vatican II and to refrain from ignorant commentary.


References

• Catechism of the Catholic Church <www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM>
  Compendium of the Catechism <www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html>.


• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church <www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=80675>.


• Documents of Vatican II <www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm>


• Pope Benedict XVI’s letter to bishops, accompanying “Summorum Pontificum” <www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm>


• Pope Benedict XI’s “Summorum Pontificum” <www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16SummorumPontificum.htm>
  
  

Rape Victims Deserve All the Facts (B.C. Courier Times, 11/26/07)

The original submission....

On November 4th, the Courier Times carried an opinion piece by Jackson Young, who is the chairperson of NOVA's Public Affairs Committee. Mr. Young's position is that so-called "Emergency Contraception" should be made available in hospital emergency rooms, without conscience clause exceptions for facilities or medical professionals. I respectfully request that Mr. Young provide clarrification and/or corrections on several of his points.

1.) In 1996, researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina estimated the rate of pregnancy from rape to be as high as 5.0%. Factors such as the sexual dysfunction of rapists, however, lead to actual rates which are much, much lower. As reported by Eugene Diamond, MD (2004), for example, "retrospective studies done by law enforcement agencies in Erie County, New York, and Cuyhoga County, Ohio reported not a single pregnancy following rape in prosecutions covering thirty years in New York and ten years in Ohio."

Applying South Carolina's high rate to 2006's 92,455 forcible rapes of women would lead to an estimate of 4623 pregnancies resulting from forcible rape. Yet, according to Mr. Young, "Every year in the United States, at least 25,000 victims of rape and sexual assault are forced to relive their trauma after becoming pregnant with their rapist's child." Mr. Young's numbers would seem to suggest that 26% of forcible rapes result in pregnancy.

2.) According to Mr. Young, so-called emergency contraception "contains exactly the same drugs that work in exactly the same way as regular birth control pills. It is a safe and effective method of contraception....No destruction of an embryo occurs because it has not yet been formed." While Mr. Young may be making this statement in an attempt to provide relief to victims, it is far from complete and accurate. Withholding information is neither respectful of victims nor truly compassionate; it is paternalistic, at best.

On 10/14/07, the Courier Times' Liz Fisher's explained how so-called "emergency contraception" can indeed act as an abortifacient (see "Bill Would Standardize Treatment of Rape Victims"). When medication prevents the implantation of an embryo in the uterus, it is abortifacient - not contraceptive. (For those interested, a brief YouTube video explains how regular oral "contraceptive" pills can act in an abortifacient manner.).


3.) According to Mr. Young, "Access to EC for victims of rape is supported by the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops in Directive 36 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services." It is patently inaccurate and absolutely incorrect that Directive 36 gives unequivocal support to the use of so-called "emergency contraception." One needs simply to read that brief directive to see that it clearly and unequivocally specifies that treatment must not be abortifacient. While Directive 36 calls for absolutely compassionate care, it necessitates the use of protocols to ensure that emergency contraception is not used in an abortifacient manner. At this point in time, however, some physicians indicate that certainty is impossible.

References

• Abortifacient <www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE>.
  Diamond, E. Post Rape Medications. in (K. McMahon, ed) Moral Issues in Catholic Health Care, 1996
• Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, 2007 <www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html>.
• Growth, A and Burgess, A. Sexual Dysfunction During Rape. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977.
• Holmes MM, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, and Best CL. Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1996, 175(2):320-4.
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition, 2001 <www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml>.
  

Hello? Divorce Ain't Good for Kids!

This is an invaluable study, simultaneously profound and deeply disturbing. Researchers/authors Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee describe a quarter century societal shift of monumental proportions. By the year 2000, 25% of adults under the age of 44 were children of divorce. By and large, however, society had chosen to ignore the elephant in the room of the long term impact of divorce on children. Instead, we comforted ourselves with "myths":
* "The first holds that if parents are happier the children will be happier, too....many adults who are trapped in very unhappy marriages would be surprised to learn that their children are relatively content. They don't care if Mom and Dad sleep in different beds as long as the family is together....Children in postdivorce families do not, on the whole, look happier, healthier, or more well adjusted even if one or both parents are happier....children from divorced and remarried families are more aggressive toward their parents and teachers. They experience more depression....more learning difficulties...more problems with peers....two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help at school....More of them end up in mental health clinics and hospital settings. There is earlier sexual activity, more children born out of wedlock, less marriage, and more divorce. Numerous studies show that adult children of divorce have more psychological problems than those raised in intact marriages....the myth that children always benefit from divorce that makes parents happier...continues to exert subtle, unconscious influences" (p. xxiii)
* "A second myth is based on the premise that divorce is a temporary crisis that exerts its most harmful effects on parents and children at the time of the breakup. Adult children of divorce are telling us loud and clear that their parent' anger at the time of the breakup is not what matters most. Unless there was violence or abuse or unremitting high conflict, they have dim memories of what transpired during this supposedly critical period" (p. xxv).

Abstaining from Abstinence: On a Path to Self-Destruction (BC Courier Times, 1/8/08)

(Click images to enlarge....)

(The original, unedited submission(s)....)

As per a Courier Times’ December 21st editorial, "Damaging reports over the last few months have questioned the effectiveness of government-backed 'abstinence-only' programs."

Among the supposed "damaging reports", I assume that the Courier Times is referring to a November 2007 report from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. On November 7th, the Courier Times heralded its arrival in this manner - "Study: Abstinence Programs Don't Work." Now, there's a problem. Citing limited available data on abstinence education, the National Campaign actually warns that "one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results."

By "damaging reports", I assume that the Courier Times is also referring to the April 2007 report from Mathematica Policy Research, which looked at four abstinence education programs for middle schoolers. On April 14th, the Courier Times heralded that report’s arrival in this manner - “Study: Abstinence Programs Not Working.” There are problems here, also. While Mathematica did not find the four particular programs to have measurable impacts, it certainly did discuss their shortcomings, including failure to address older youth and failure to ensure peer support (i.e., “promoting support for abstinence among peer networks should be an important feature of future abstinence programs”). In addition, Mathematica indicated that concerns of abstinence education leading to more risky behaviors and more STDs lacked credibility.

Commenting on the CDC’s December 5th “Births: Preliminary Data for 2006,” the Courier Times is quick to infer that a slight rise in teenage pregnancy from 2005 to 2006 is yet another indication of the supposed failure of abstinence education. The Courier Times is certainly consistent, in that it refuses to allow the contents of reports to influence its editorial take on them.

In 1957, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported a total of 340,687 known cases of Sexually Transmitted Disease (STDs) in the United States. In subsequent years, America saw the arrival of readily available contraceptives and readily available abortion, as part of a so-called “Sexual Revolution.” While 34% of Planned Parenthood’s billion dollar annual revenues now come from government grants, another 38% comes from its “health center income.” That “health center income” includes profits from the provision of contraceptives, as well as a quarter million abortions, annually. At the dawn of the new millennium, the pharmaceutical industry, in general, looked forward to further expanding its market and its offerings in contraceptives and abortifacients. The status quo, firmly entrenched by astronomical revenues, can always be relied on to advocate throwing ever more dollars at so-called “safe sex” practices.

The status quo strategies of the past 50 years are certainly working, but not in the manner that any knowledgeable parent would want for their own child! In regard to STDs, the CDC currently "estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24." In other words, there are now 56 times more new cases of STD infection, than there were overall STD infections in 1957! With the Sexual Revolution and its ready availability of contraceptives and abortion bringing us to this point, how does it make any sense to continue down the same paths?

While the Courier Times has clearly staked out an editorial stance in opposition to abstinence education, the reasoning for such is anything but clear. To this reader, it appears likely that the editorial staff has not read the so-called "Damaging reports over the last few months.” In regard to reader submissions, Courier Times policy indicates that documentation of any information stated as fact should be available. May we simply request the same?

REFERENCES

· Centers for Disease Control, Cases of sexually transmitted diseases reported by state health departments and rates per 100,000 civilian population: United States, 1941-1993 <http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/STD/OSTD3202/Table_1.html>.
· Centers for Disease Control, Births: Preliminary Data for 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_07.pdf>.
· Centers for Disease Control, Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/trends2006.htm>
· Johnson, EDB, The return of the pharmaceutical industry to the market of contraception (in Steroids, October-November 2000, Pages 709-711)
· Mathematica Policy Research, Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs, <www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf>
· National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, <http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_sum.pdf>
· Planned Parenthood Federation of America Annual Report 2005-2006 <http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Annual_report.pdf>

(Click images to enlarge.)

Love and Marriage (4/17/07 version)

(The presentation of the Natural Law is largely based on the work of Germain Grisez:)