Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

Looks like the Church is coming close to getting rid of the policy of “limbo”, which is where the souls of non-baptized babies went (go?)–or at least where we believed they went, since they were seen as neither good nor bad, meriting neither Heaven nor Hell. Dante mentions it in his Inferno and the movie The Others plays with it a lot. But I think it’s a good thing that we finally retired this idea; it was one of the things that made Catholicism even more alien to the general public. Not that I’m opposed to us looking “alien” if we’re right, but this is one thing that even I found hard to explain, or stomach. Apparently JP the Great set up a commission to study this, which was led by B XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger). Should be interesting to see how this turns out…I’ll keep you posted.

From the “why is this news?” file:

The London Times had a story today about comments from Cardinal Ruini at the Vatican saying that Catholics shouldn’t marry Muslims, in part due to the “deep cultural differences” between the two groups. Italian liberals (of course) are up in arms, saying that it’s discriminatory and what not. I say it’s just plain common sense.

The Catechism makes it pretty clear that marrying a non-Catholic can cause problems, and has to be approved by the bishop. I know because I almost married a non-Catholic and I read this passage many times. The Church worries about the propogation of the faith to children, but also the ability of the Catholic to faithfully practice his/her beliefs in a “mixed” marriage. And let me tell you, as someone who was going to enter one, things were going to be hard, especially Catholic sexual teachings, which differ from much of Christianity these days. It was going to be a struggle. If the Church thinks that marrying a Protestant is going to be hard, how much harder will it be for Catholics who marry Jews or Muslims? Especially since Muslims raise their children in their faith, which violates the contract the Catholic (if they are to be married in the Church) must sign saying the children will be raised Catholic. There’s also the cultural differences Cardinal Ruini mentions.

This doesn’t mean that non-Catholics are evil or doomed or lesser beings. It just means that perhaps they shouldn’t mix through the indissolvable bond of marriage. It’s just plain common sense.

Headline from today: “Indiana House prayers can’t mention Christ”. Apparently a judge in Indiana has bought the ICLU’s argument that having prayers before House sessions by Christians that mention “Jesus” or “our God” is an establishment of religion on the part of the state that violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. “Geezy pete!” as a character in an old sitcom would say.

If anyone would actually take the time anymore to read the First Amendment, and interpret it in the light in which it was written, they would see that this is nonsense. I didn’t go to law school, but I did take two Con Law classes in college taught by a law professor, so I think I have a fair grounding on this issue. The Establishment Clause was written so that the Founding Fathers could not establish a state religion like there was in England, which their ancestors had left behind. They wanted us all to be able to worship freely, and the state was not to prohibit the free exercise of religion by its citizens. The “free exercise” clause, as it’s coincidentally called, is often overlooked in Church/State cases.

The House had lay person, a rabbi, an Iman, and others also offer prayer before session. We do the same thing here in the Ohio Senate–someone different always offers the prayer that opens session. Sure, a lot of them are Christian (a lot of Ohioans–heck, a lot of Americans are Christian, so that just makes sense. But we’ve had a rabbi, too, and other faiths. We try to be”diverse”, and it seems Indiana was trying to do the same thing. But the judge wrote that the House had “overstepped constitutional restirctions” and the prayer was an “official endorsement of the Christian religion”. Was it like a campaign commercial, where at the end the Speaker said, “This prayer endorsed by the State of Indiana”?

In my view, an “establishment” of religion would be if the Governor of Indiana, or Ohio, or Kentucky, or Minnesota, got up and declared, “Today I’m issuing an executive order making (fill in the blank) the official religion of this state. If you do not practice this religion, you will have certain rights limited or revoked, etc., etc.” A simple prayer to open a session doesn’t qualify. It’s one person’s expression of belief that may be shared by others in the chamber. And why is it that if a non-Christian gives the prayer, that’s not an establishment of religion? I don’t see anyone up in arms if an iman gives a speech because that’s “establishing religion”. Sigh. Just more lunacy from the Loony Left. No wonder people are scared to say “Merry Christmas!”

If it’s December 1, it must be world AIDS day, which is always “celebrated” by the never-ending calls for more money for more research. Inevitably, someone mentions the Vatican and Catholicism and how the Church’s view on condoms is antiquated or “not enlightened” (again!). And it happened this year, in various places–just read some reports of AIDS day, and see how, once again, we’re being told that condoms are the answer!

But the problem is we don’t think it’s the answer. The answer is getting societies to realize the virtues of mongamy and attempting to instill it in their culture. The answer is making sure that people aren’t doing drugs, not just giving them clean needles so they can blithely continue their habit “safely” (what an oxymoron!). The Church is right to say that using birth control is a grave sin. It’s not something that we can just change to try to prevent the spread of AIDS. If you’re a good Catholic who follows Church teaching, AIDS is a non-issue. I know I’m not going to get it because I don’t engage in casual sex. In most states a blood test is required before you get married, so you’d know before you had sex with an infected partner, but I plan on only marrying a virgin, anyway. The chance of getting AIDS from a blood transfusion is practically non-existent in the U.S. and in many other developed countries.

What about Africa? What about the children who contract the virus from their mothers? That’s a tragedy, but a condom wouldn’t have prevented their getting AIDS–it would have prevented them from being born. Not the same thing. One is a tragedy, but the other is a sin. We can try to help these children with new medications and treatments, but at least they’re here to be helped.

On World AIDS day it seems that the best Catholics can do is pray for those with AIDS and work to find a solution to the disease that doesn’t involve sacrificing our religious principles. Because once you sacrifice principle, you begin the walk down that long slope that leads to moral relativism, and I, for one, am not in favor of that.

The big brouhaha in the SCOTUS world, other than the NH case (which looks like it’ll be easy to settle among the justices), is the news that Samuel Alito Jr., the President’s nominee for Sandra Day O’Connor’s SCOTUS seat, worked in 1985 as part of the Reagan administration to figure out a way to abolish Roe V. Wade legally. Of course the Left is up in arms about this, but I don’t really see the big deal. As a member of a Republican, pro-life administration, that would sort of be part of his objectives. And that was in 1985! Can we please look at what the man has done and written as opposed to what he tried to do?

More on this as it comes up….we’re in for a fight in January (for more on this, see November archieves–”The Papists are Coming!”

In today’s Toledo Blade pro-life protesters outside SCOTUS were called “abortion-rights foes”. Can’t they come up something better…say, “Pro-life activists”, like they call “pro-choice activists” or “pro-choice supporters?” Noooo, we have to be the perpetual enemy. Not that any of this is new. Sigh….