Archive for the 'media' Category

Apr 28 2008

I’ve been AWOL–But!

But I’m back! Sometimes I run into dry spells on this blog. I don’t just want to randomly write things–I want them to have some heft, you know? This isn’t the blog where I just mindlessly spill about my day (although I don’t really do that at the Bucket, either..)…

Anyway, here are some links/thoughts…

This is a great piece from Fr. Z on one of my favorite Saints, St. Gianna Molla. If I was getting confirmed today I would pick her. For those unfamiliar with her story, she was an Italian doctor who was diagnosed with a uterine tumor while pregnant, but she would not have a surgery that would remove it, since it would endanger her child’s life. Instead, St. Gianna gave birth to a healthy baby girl, even though St. Gianna died shortly after. The daughter became a doctor, like her mother.

Also from Fr. Z, the Pope’s address to Young People at Yonkers. This was the only speech of his I was able to hear live while he was in the US (since I do not have cable at my apartment, sigh…I could only watch snippets whilst I was at my parents). This was truly a remarkable speech.

Side note re: music. I can’t believe someone complained about the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” being sung when the Pope was welcomed at the White House.
1) The Pope asked for it!
2) It is said to be one of the Virgin Mary’s favorite hymns (as told by the visionaries at Medjuorgje–it’s on the tape “Sounds of Medjuorgje”, which my dad played over and over in the car when I was a kid).
3) (I think it was) The Army Choir sounds AWESOME when they sing this! When it was sung (twice!) at Reagan’s funeral, I just loved it. They do a fantastic job. Why shouldn’t we sing one of the best songs we have?
4) It’s a true, honest-to-God Americanhymn. Let’s give him the good stuff!

And I have to say, I loved watching GW with the pope. He has had so many Catholics on his advisory boards, working in his administration, etc.–and we can’t forget the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito! :)

No responses yet

Apr 15 2008

The great Papal link roundup

And assorted notes.

From the Corner:

Popes Must Speak Out for Peace [Michael Novak]

That is what popes are intended to do — they are to represent Christ, the Prince of Peace, in a world that is and has always been a maelstrom of passions, conflict, and wars. Popes have sometimes been warlike, but that ill becomes their office, and nearly always causes lasting repugnance.

That is why in 2003 many Americans who believed that the war in Iraq was justified, also believed that it was very good for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war. The pope should not be, and should not even be allowed to seem to be, a proponent of war, especially of a war with so many complex religious tendrils, and with so many centuries of conflicted history. It was right and just for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war.
The role and munus (office, burden, duty) of the presidents of nations are different. Presidents must make a probable judgment about the long-run implications both of inaction and action, and about what in the long run will have been the most creative path for them to have taken. These are excruciating judgments, for they usually involve long-run costs, discouragements, and difficulties. Many of us of a certain age remember the long sacrifices and costs of World War II.

This background is important to grasp, since Pope Benedict XVI will almost certainly judge that he is duty-bound to call for the violence in Iraq to cease. The edge of his words will be felt more sharply here, where he delivers them, than among Al Sadr and his Shia militias, who are now causing so much of the violence in three cities in Iraq. The Shiites militias very much want the Americans will stop fighting, and to depart.

The pope may also continue saying, as he has often in the last year, that the religious freedom and dignity of every person in Iraq must be protected, and minority populations (in this case, one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world) must be especially respected. He may repeat his deep conviction that violence is contrary to the nature of God.

Benedict XVI may also wish the future of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq to flower fully, and to be long-lasting. He may express the hope that these will bear good fruit for justice and human dignity throughout the Middle East, and all around the world.

The pope is not primarily a political player, and yet the cultural and moral power of his words and actions may this week well have long political consequences. On the record, we are entitled to have confidence in Benedict’s bravery, balance of mind, and concern to do his duty.

Fr. Neuhaus in yesterday’s WaPo:

edict is not a showman, as many – intending praise or blame – said his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was. Benedict is a priest and professor who finds himself in the unexpected position of being pastor of a universal church of 1.2 billion people. This visit to America is a pastoral visit, and he will do what good pastors do: teach, encourage, and gently correct where necessary. The best way to understand Benedict is to listen carefully to what he says.

Many who claim to be perplexed by Benedict wonder how the harsh doctrinal “enforcer” under John Paul II can reinvent himself as the benign father of the family of the faithful. (The word “pope” has its origins in “papa.”) No reinvention is necessary. Those of us who have known him for many years, recognize in Benedict the invariably gentle manner of the learned and intellectually curious Joseph Ratzinger. If there is a surprise in these first three years, it is that Ratzinger, who very much wanted to retire to his scholarly pursuits, seems to enjoy being pope.

Key to understanding the man is that he is much more of an Augustinian than a Thomist. Of all the great doctors (i.e. teachers) of the Catholic intellectual tradition, the fifth century St. Augustine and the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas are the great lights by which most schools of thought are defined. To be sure, there are Augustinian Thomists and Thomist Augustinians, and the distinctions often have more to do with sensibility than substance. Put all too roughly, Thomists are devoted to a systematic presentation of unchanging principles of reason, while Augustinians are given to a discursive account of the complexities of mind and heart in pursuit of the right ordering of love to the truth, and ultimately to absolute truth, who is God.

Perhaps the best known words of Augustine are these: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Benedict’s first encyclical (teaching letter) is titled Deus Caritas Est – God is Love – in which Thomas gets one footnote to dozens from Augustine. Benedict recently said at the funeral of a friend, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moral system. Christianity is an encounter, a love story, an event.”

In Benedict’s telling, it is in the first place the story of God’s unqualified love for and commitment to the human project. He speaks frequently of Jesus Christ as “the human face of God.” While the Church says “no” to this and “no” to that, every “no” is in the service of a much greater “yes.” Against a sometimes dry intellectualism or restrictive moralism, Benedict presents the way of Christ as a high adventure of mind and heart toward the transcendental realities of the good, the true, and the beautiful. In sum, Christianity is an invitation to say “yes” to God’s “yes” in Jesus Christ.

This Augustinian pope has a very high estimate of human reason, and in his United Nations address this week I expect he will address the rational grounds for commitment to human rights and the dignity of the human person. Reason was also the centerpiece of his “controversial” lecture at Regensburg University in September, 2006, where he challenged Muslims to recognize that the use of violence in advancing religion is “to act against reason and therefore to act against the nature of God.”

A constant theme of Benedict’s is that, when rightly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science, faith and reason, heart and mind. Theories to the contrary, he contends, are both unreasonable and de-humanizing because they fail to offer an adequate account of the limits, possibilities, and complexities of the human experience. His message is one of prophetic humanism.

This week Benedict will be addressing many issues, both those internal to the Church and those related to the culture and the world. To understand Benedict, listen to what he says, and listen most closely to what he says about what it means to be a human being fully alive. ++++++++++

Father Richard John Neuhaus is editor in chief of First Things, the monthly magazine of religion, culture, and public life.

And, from Newsweek, two opposing stories:
George Weigel
And this.

No responses yet

Feb 25 2008

Abortion, Bishops, and the Press

Ramesh Ponnuru on today’s NRO: (my notes in bold)

Conscientious Voting
Doing injustice.

By Ramesh Ponnuru

The Washington Post has published an angry attack by Joe Feuerherd on this country’s Catholic bishops. (He closes by damning them.) He takes the bishops to be edging up to the proposition that he has put his soul in danger of eternal damnation by voting for Barack Obama (or any pro-choice politician).

Feuerherd doesn’t take the tack that it is wrong in principle for the bishops to suggest that some types of political behavior can endanger people’s souls. It is hard to see how he could take that tack, given that he appears to believe, first, that there is such a thing as an eternal soul that can be damned or saved, and second, that moral choices can affect the outcome. Nor does Feuerherd argue, exactly, that the bishops are wrong to regard abortion as a grave injustice. He says that he is himself pro-life. Evidently, then, he believes that abortion is the unjust killing of innocent human beings, and the “right” to abortion therefore amounts to a license to commit an injustice of the gravest kind.

Feuerherd makes three arguments. First, he writes that other moral issues should matter too. Second, he writes that the bishops’ moral calculus has (pro-Republican) results that are too partisan. Third, he writes that pro-choice Democratic candidates, if elected, might do more to reduce the abortion rate than nominally pro-life Republican ones would.

As to the first argument: The bishops do not suggest that conscientious citizens should be single-issue voters. They do say that voters should will justice for the unborn, which precludes voting for a pro-choice candidate because he is pro-choice and also precludes voting for such a candidate without ascribing to the injustice of killing the innocent the profound weight it is due. The bishops do not deny what is obviously true, that many other political issues have moral dimensions. In almost all cases, however, the moral issues at stake are less grave than those involved in abortion (at least if you accept the premise, as Feuerherd appears to do, that abortion is what pro-lifers say that it is). In almost all cases, as well, Catholics who agree on the relevant moral convictions may legitimately disagree about the correct policy to instantiate that conviction. (People who agree that illegal immigrants are children of God may nonetheless disagree about the implications of that view in practice.) In the case of abortion and related issues, differing prudential judgments are much less a factor. Obama disagrees with pro-lifers on goals (protecting an entire class of innocent human beings against a legal license to kill them), not just methods. (More on that below.)

The second point is true but not persuasive. It angers Feuerherd that the Church says that conscientious citizens may support the Iraq war or “oppose immigration reform.” The argument that legitimate prudential disagreements exist in these cases gives Catholic Republicans “convenient cover,” he thinks. But the reason Catholic Republicans have “cover” on these issues is that their position does not contradict Church teaching. If the Church is wrong to teach what it teaches, then Feuerherd needs to explain why. If it is right, however, then it is not the Church’s fault if Republicans tend to line up better with those teachings than Democrats do.

Finally, Feuerherd asks, “[I]s it fair for a Catholic like me to suspect that the liberal economic policies of the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will result in less dire poverty and thus perhaps fewer abortions? And isn’t that supposed to be the goal?” Anyone who wants to cast a ballot on this assumption has a moral obligation to investigate whether it is, in fact, true that 1) Democratic policies would reduce poverty much more than Republican ones would and 2) that abortion and poverty rates correlate in as straightforward a manner as Feuerherd idly (and conveniently) supposes. I am not aware of research that corroborates point two, let alone both of them taken together.

And there is another problem with this argument, which is that a reduction in the number of abortions is not the only goal that pro-lifers should have. Also important is that the law stop treating unborn children as subhuman creatures who may legitimately be denied the protections of the law against unjust killing. Obama himself may be perfectly sincere in willing that fewer women exercise the (supposed) right to abortion even while he supports keeping that option legal and making it subsidized. I have no reason to doubt that he is. But he also wills that unborn children be denied the basic legal protection from homicide that you and I enjoy. The Catholic Church wants voters to take that injustice seriously; more seriously than Feuerherd seems inclined to take it. But of course it cannot (and has no ambition to) force any voter to do anything.

No responses yet

Feb 24 2008

Pope prep

From Amy Welborn: Papal Posts and Links.

He’ll be at the White House on his birthday. I wonder if he’ll find a piano at the WH and entertain W and Laura. :)

No responses yet

Jan 08 2008

Song of the Day

Published by catholicpostergirl under media, movies, music, quotes

“Through Heaven’s Eyes”–Stephen Schwartz, The Prince of Egypt

A single thread in a tapestry
Though its color brightly shines,
Can never see its purpose
In the pattern of the grand design.

And the stone that sits on the very top
Of the mountain’s mighty face
Doesn’t think it’s more important
Than the stones that form the base

So how can you see what your life is worth, or where your value lies?
You can never see through the eyes of man…
You must look at your life
Look at your life through Heaven’s eyes.

A lake of gold in a desert sand
Is less than a cool, fresh spring.
And to one lost sheep, a shepherd boy
Is greater than the richest king.

If a man lose everything he owns,
Has he truly lost his worth?
Or is it the beginning
Of a new and brighter birth?

So how can you measure the worth of a man
In wealth, or strength or size?
In how much he gained, or how much he gave?
The answer will come
The answer will come to him who tries
To look at his life through Heaven’s eyes…

And that’s why we share all we have with you,
Though there’s little to be found.
When all you’ve got is nothing, there’s a lot to go around.

No life can escape being blown about
By the winds of change or chance
And though you’ll never know all the steps
You must learn to join the dance.
You must learn to join the dance…

So how do you judge what a man is worth
By what he builds or buys?
You can never see with your eyes on earth
Look through Heaven’s eyes!
Look at your life
Look at your life
Look at your life through Heaven’s eyes!

No responses yet

Oct 16 2007

Upcoming

Published by catholicpostergirl under books, culture, media, movies

I seriously need to do a books/movies update, so here’s what you have to look forward to:

BOOKS

–Rediscovering Catholicsm

–Left to Tell

–The Choice

–The Gift

MOVIES

–Evening

–Knocked Up (Yes, it does belong on CPG–trust me!)

Excited yet?  :)

No responses yet

Sep 05 2007

TV and Catholicism

I really shouldn’t be surprised by these things, and yet I am…

I don’t really watch that much TV–House, Desperate Housewives, a little bit of Supernanny, and Grey’s Anatomy (although based on last season’s ridiculousness, that might be up in the air. But I digress). My complaint/question/query has to do with the latter.

In preparation for the new season (and the release of season 3 on DVD), I’ve been recapping season 2. (Hey, labor Day, long weekend…I needed some chill time here. :)) So last night I watched and episode where the OB/GYN has a patient with seven kids, who is being admitted for a C-section. After her husband and kids go to find some ice cream, Rose (the patient) tells Addison (the doctor) that she wants to have her tubes tied while she’s having the C-section, because she doesn’t want any more kids. Addison suggests birth control. Rose says (shock!) she’s Catholic and it won’t work, because her husband doesn’t think you can “pick and choose” what you believe. And, of course, the husband is then cast as eeevil, forcing all these children on his poor wife, who’s been hospitalized for dehydration, exhaustion, etc. Rose also says that if her husband foudn out about the pills or the tube tying, she’d lose her marriage (to which Karev, the blunt to the point of pain surgical resident, says, “why? He won’t divorce you.”).

So as usual, faithful Catholics are seen as crazy people and Catholics, in general, just see women as baby-making machines. She talks about how they didn’t have sex between their seventh child and the current one for three years. Um, sorry, but that’s not what the Church means by NFP. You abstain during periods of “fertility”, and last time I checked, a woman wasn’t fertile for 3 years STRAIGHT.Um, hello. Basic biology tells us that. It also seems like this woman is a little wimpy and not talking to her husband about her concerns. They should talk to a priest, a pastoral minister, whatever, and get the real deal on NFP. You are NOT just supposed to have kids wily-nily. That’s not what the Church teaches.

Of course the show doesn’t deal with any of this. Rose tries to blame their issues on their religion and her husband, but Karev says that she doesn’t get to “blame her husband and pin this on the Pope.” (He got a lot of good lines in this episode)

Addison does tie her tubes, over Karev’s objections, and the husband may sue the hospital because Karev told him that the “complication” (as Addison and Rose put it) wasn’t really a complication. I don’t think anything ever came of it, but I’m not totally sure.

Just another instance of how Catholics get misunderstood in the media all the time. And the thing is, it’s not even innocent anymore. I’m not expecting to find EWTN stuff on ABC on Thursday nights. I’m really not. But some accuracy, something other than working off blatant stereotypes without evening checking to see what the real position is, would be nice.

One response so far