Culture and Morality

The weekend paper carried a story by Karin Brulliard of the Washington Post titled: Zulus torn over virginity tests. It seems to me that this article illustrates a sort of cultural shift that threatens traditional morals and values in such areas as sexuality. Basically, according to the article, the tradition involves young girls undergoing an inspection by a woman elder of the tribe to determine if the girl is a virgin or not. Now of course there are lots of potential problems with this tradition - the most obvious one being that the responsibility for chastity is placed only on the females of the community. According to the article the opponents of this tradition argued that the procedure was degrading; it was emotionally scarring for girls who did not pass; it subjected girls who did pass to the possibility that they would be raped in a culture where some men believe that intercourse with a virgin can cure aids. Finally, the opponents argue that the tradition, as important as it may have been in the past no longer serves the needs of the society.

What seems to be said here is that "traditional" morality is offensive to individual rights and "old fashioned." Of course there are good reasons for "old fashioned" morality. South Africa, where the Zulus live, is a nation facing a catastrophic aids crisis. One very simple way of partly dealing with the spread of this disease is to encourage the citizens to practice traditional sexual morality. By the way, the article makes clear that this tradition has nothing to do with the practice of female genital mutilation found in some African cultures. The controversy over this traditional practice is seen in the article as a conflict between "modern" ideas of individual rights and tradition and tribal culture.

I seem to recall evidence of a similar attitude a while back when the host of an awards show on television publicly criticized some teens present (I think it was the Jonas brothers) who were wearing "purity rings" as a sign of their commitment to chastity until marriage. So, in this culture, as in South Africa, the traditional value placed on chastity has been replaced and the traditional value is seen as weird or strange or old fashioned. I think that you see something similar in action when a while back an American paper editorialized that Sarah Palin (Republican nominee for Vice President) did society a disservice when she chose to give birth to a child with Down's Syndrome. Her choice, the paper said, might encourage other mothers (who might not have the same emotional and physical resources as Palin) to choose to give birth to Down's Syndrome babies rather than aborting them (which apparently is now the "normal" thing to do)

So it seems to me that globally we are living in an age of individualism that has a profound impact on traditional morality. In this respect we no longer live in a Christian culture. We are back to an earlier time when we as Christians were called to be counter-cultural. Only by proclaiming and holding firm to important values can we have a chance at preserving what is important from our past.

Public Scandal ?

Quite recently there has been a major scandal in the media over pictures of a young Disney star (Miley Cyrus). The star, who is 15 years old appeared in some sort of fashion magazine where one of the pictures is of her showing a bare back and holding a sheet to cover her front. She is clearly not nude in any of the pictures. Critics were outraged. The pictures, they said sexualized the star and so were nearly pornographic. They claimed that the stars fans, younger females, would draw improper conclusions about their own behavior from the pictures. More thoughtful critics pointed out that the mass media already portrays young females as sexual beings and this picture was simply part of that. Defenders of the star and the photographer (a famous celebrity photographer) pointed out that the format of the picture in question was classic - going back even to classical paintings, and the intention was not "sexual." Still, faced with the apparent public outrage, the Disney studio and the girls parents apologized or blamed the photographer and are now hoping that the scandal will simply pass by.

It seems to me that most of the public reaction to these pictures was either incredibly naive or very hypocritical. Even a "sheltered" young teen aged female must know that she is a sexual being after all of the changes she goes through during puberty. She might not yet think of herself as sexy though. The responsibility for that lands on the society. Still, in my many years of teaching high school it seems to me that girls come easily to the understanding that they are sexual beings. The tricky part for public morals is how to handle the reality of these girls who are, because of biology, sexual beings while they exist in a society that is at once obsessed with sex as primarily sexual activity and while society is unwilling to suggest that anyone might value virginity or chastity for any reason. One session with sixteen year-olds in a religion class produced the pointed observation that lots of adults obviously do not practice what they preach (sexual activity within a loving marriage) sexually. And that observation is quite true and does a lot to explain the ambivalent attitudes seen regarding these controversial photos.

Political Karma?

There has been much talk in the media recently over the "fate" of New York governor Eliot Spitzer. Mr Spitzer who made a political name for himself as a zealous prosecutor, including prosecution of crimes relation to prostitution, has been identified as a customer of an expensive call - girl. Faced with this evidence Spitzer resigned his position and presumably lost any chance he might have had for higher public office in the future.

While I don't favor prostitution I would like to point out that the "rules" have been very unevenly applied in the past. For example, the historians I have read suggest that one of Spitzer's predecessors as Governor, Franklin Roosevelt, later to be president of the USA, had a mistress at least occasionally during his life. Plausible suggestions have been made that even Dwight Eisenhower had a mistress during the war (his female driver). John F. Kennedy seems to have been well known as a "ladies man" yet nothing was made of this during his lifetime. Senator Gary Hart, at one time a prime candidate to be president virtually disappeared from public view when it was revealed that he had spent time on a yacht with an attractive model who was not his wife. Henry Kissinger (its hard to imagine him as a ladies man) once famously said that "power was the ultimate aphrodisiac". Of course we have the story of Bill Clinton and Monica. In Clinton's case it seems that the politicians sitting on his impeachment decided that his sexual adventures were not serious enough to justify depriving him of office.

Moving outside of the USA just over ten years ago Princess Diana complained about the relationship between Prince Charles and his mistress (now wife). Looking back in British history you could almost say that with minor exceptions (Like George VI perhaps) it was accepted that the monarch would have a mistress. Far back in history, the tale of Henry VI wives was basically a story of the politics of the king's mistresses and wives. A limerick still exists which celebrates one of the mistresses of Charles II.

So, I think that the question is, does good leadership demand a particular ethical standard? More particularly, is sexual immorality incompatible with leadership? In scripture we find the story of King David's "sin" with Bathsheba. David remains chosen by God, but possibly only because of his repentance. We know that some leaders, John A. Macdonald in Canada and Winston Churchill in Britain to name two would likely be hounded out of office today because of their drinking problems. So, it seems to me that human imperfection is not an impediment to leadership and extravagant sin is not a sign of greatness. What is different is that in the past leaders could have a more or less private life. Today, with the tabloid press, this is not possible. Leaders who expect people to follow them have to set an example.

And Justice for All ?

I have just finished reading John Grisham's book The Innocent Man. This true story raises troubling questions about the justice system in the United States. A similar story in Canada raises the same kind of questions about whether the current system actually serves to search for the truth in certain criminal cases.

In his book Grisham tells the story of the murder and rape of a young woman in a small town. He describes the police investigation and how that investigation came to focus on one man, Ron Williamson. Grisham also describes how Williamson's life had devolved from a promising and popular young athlete to someone who everyone in town knew as a "troublemaker." Williamson's decline seems to have been connected to his mental health issues. The police focused on Williamson as a suspect in the murder mainly because he was known as a troublemaker. They disregarded information that might point to another person as a more likely suspect and they used jailhouse informants to build a circumstantial case against Williamson. Not surprisingly Williamson soon found himself on death row where his mental health deteriorated even further. Grisham next describes the long process of appeals and hearings finally leading to Williamson's exoneration. The book does not do a lot of "preaching" about the lessons to be drawn from the story but the story is disturbing in many ways. Quite recently the media have reported on another case in the USA where a young man who the investigators found "weird" in some way was exonerated nine years after being found guilty of the murder of a woman near his home.

Such disturbing stories do not just happen in the USA. On October 3, 1984 (about two years after the murder of Debbie Carter in the previous paragraph) a young girl was kidnapped and murdered in Queensville, Ontario. Almost immediately the attention of the police focused on Guy Paul Morin, a neighbor. Again, police disregarded evidence that pointed to Morin's innocence and built a circumstantial case relying heavily on the evidence of jailhouse informants and the opinion of detectives that Morin's responses during an initial interview were indicative of an awareness of guilt. Finally, DNA testing not available at the time of the initial investigation, proved that Morin was not the monster that police and prosecutors had proclaimed him to be. Exoneration followed and Morin received a cash settlement and an apology for all his troubles. Interestingly Morin also had mental health issues. A police detective chillingly observed at one point that Morin fit "the profile" of the killer better than any other possible suspect.

What the two stories have in common is that the suspect in each case was "different" in some way (in both cases mental health issues were involved). Detectives in each case made a judgement early on that this was the guilty party and built their cases to fit that preconceived idea by disregarding facts that did not point to the guilt of the accused and emphasizing unreliable facts (the jailhouse testimony) that serve their purpose. What this seems to point to is that the prosecution at some point stopped looking for the truth (which is where justice comes from, I think) and instead substituted a search for convictions and victory. I know that the theory is probably that truth comes from the conflict in the courtroom between prosecution and defense; but it seems to me that a police detective or a prosecutor has to have some concern for truth. The measure of their success should not be simply in their rate of convictions.

Another point that is troubling here is the near infallibility accorded to forensic "experts" in these trials. We have television shows like CSI that describe in near mythological terms the ability of forensic experts to solve a complex case. Similarly the show Criminal Minds describes the fantastic ability of behavioral scientists to create criminal profiles to solve other complex cases. However, in both the Williamson case and the Morin case the "expert" evidence supplied was weak and was made to look more important than it actually was. The expert evidence, which should have aided the search for truth instead helped to obtain false convictions.

Pregnant Teens

One of the interesting things in the past few weeks has been the media reaction to the announced pregnancy of 16 year old teen star Jamie Lyn Spears (sister of Britney). Major media outlets breathlessly reported the story and experts gave sombre advise about how to talk to your own teens about the news. First, its important to note that teen pregnancy, although rates have been decreasing for some time, is not a rare event. One stat that I found suggests that in the year 2002 more than 250,000 teens between 15 and 17 years of age became pregnant in the USA.

People drew all kinds of lessons from this news story. Some suggested that the poor girl somehow was the victim of a lack of access to birth control (not a likely possibility given the status of the family). Some stories suggested that the pregnant girl could also have been a victim of a mother who was exploiting the girl's earning potential without regard to the wishes of the girl in question. This is a plausible explanation. It seems that some child stars become the primary wage earners of their family with a parent earning money from the child by acting in the role of manager. This probably puts a lot of pressure on the child and could result in the situation where the child could seem to be exploited to maintain the economic status of the family. So, as with any particular case its impossible to know what lessons to draw from this story. I don't think that Jamie Lyn is some kind of a victim (of lack of access or of other circumstances). It seems possible that she could have chosen pregnancy as a way to deal with pressures inside of her family. Her mother deserves some of the responsibility although its obviously not possible for a parent to completely control the actions of a teen child. The father of the unborn child obviously deserves some of the responsibility as well.

I support the teaching of the Church that sex belongs in the context of a loving relationship normally found only in the context of marriage. This means that abstinence should be the main theme in classes taught to teenagers in Catholic schools. At the same time if there were teens in my own family I would also add a talk about the need to be responsible regarding choices about sexual activity. I know that this sounds like a contradiction of Catholic morality but it seems to me that considering the implications of unplanned pregnancy a more pragmatic approach would be appropriate.

Population Problems

Writing in First Things Susan Yoshihara begins with the chilling statement that: "Right now, in any corner of the World, a baby girl is being killed just because she is a girl." The author goes on to explain:

Throughout human history, demographers tell us, nature has provided about 105 male births for every 100 females. This “sex ratio at birth”—stable across generations and ethnic boundaries—may range from 103 to as high as 106 boys for every 100 girls. In only one generation, that ratio has come unglued.
A Chinese census reports ratios as high as 120–136 boys born for every 100 girls; in Taiwan, ratios of 119 boys to 100 girls; in Singapore 118 boys per 100 girls; South Korea 112 boys per 100 girls; and in India, where the practice was outlawed in 1994, the ratio continues to exceed 120 boys for every 100 girls in some areas. Countries such as Greece, Luxembourg, El Salvador, the Philippines, Cape Verde, and Egypt, even among some ethnic groups in the United States (Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino), are showing the same deadly discrimination against daughters.

Basically what seems to be happening is that modern "reproductive technology" (especially pre-natal gender determination and, of course, selective abortion) has enabled people having fewer and fewer children to be very selective about the children they do choose to have. The statistics point to a sharp preference for boy babies in such circumstances. Now of course, "reproductive freedom" implies that couples ought to be able to make such choices for themselves. However, the cumulative effect on the future (like the cumulative effect of couples choosing to not have children) can have unfortunate consequences for society.

What will some of these societies be like twenty short years from now when these short sighted practices result in a dramatic shortage of females able to be married? These choices (whether to have children and the gender of those children), even though they seem to be personal relate to the future of the society. Increasingly we seem to be inclined to make these choices simply on these personal motives and preferences. Our ancestors, when they migrated from Europe for example, did so largely because they looked forward to a better future for their descendants. I know they did not have the same "reproductive technology" and so they did not have the temptation that we have yet the reality is that they were focused on the future. Do we look forward to the future in everything we do? Will the future be better because of our decisions?

Hiroshima

The first part of August brings us to the anniversary of the events leading to the end of the war against Japan in 1945. By the summer of 1945 it seemed clear that Japan's power to wage aggressive war had been crushed. What remained was to force Japanese leaders to accept their defeat and surrender to allied (mostly American) forces. This was accomplished when an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and three days later on Nagasaki. These events always raise the question of the morality of these acts in the light of Catholic moral teaching.

Reading the word's of Jesus in Matthew's gospel you might get the impression that Christians are called to be pacifists.
"38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does however, describe self preservation (self defense?) as a legitimate cause for war. The Catechism seems to also require that the actions of self defense be proportional to the threat from the aggressor. (CCC. 2259-2267)

Now, in the case of Japan it seems clear that when the USA went to war in 1941 it was reacting to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact it seems clear that Japan was engaged in an aggressive war of conquest in the Pacific at that time. So I suspect that most people would say that initial American participation in the war was justified. However, was the use of atomic bombs justified in 1945. By 1945 Japan no longer had the means to wage aggressive war (although the Japanese army in China had been largely untouched by the war). The use of atomic weapons and the massive destruction of life which followed could hardly be described as a proportional response to the Pearl Harbor attack. So the justification that Hiroshima was simple retaliation for Pearl Harbor does not work from a moral point of view. There is however, the reality that even though Japan was clearly defeated by the summer of 1945 the country was still in the control of a fanatical band of militarists who would not accept defeat and who were prepared to sacrifice countless lives defending the Japanese homeland against invasion by using "kamikaze" tactics. So, the loss of lives at Hiroshima might be proportional to the loss of lives, both Japanese and American, that would be the consequence of an invasion of the Japanese home islands. So, if you accept that the defense of human lives (remember the continuing war in China) required the surrender of Japan and if you accept that the only way to achieve this was going to be by invasion then the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima might be justified. The attack on Nagasaki seems to be a different question to me.

Realpolitik is foreign policy based not on principles of morality but on calculations of power and of the national interest. Here is where the decision to attack Nagasaki (and to a certain extent Hiroshima) comes from. After Yalta at least some people saw the USSR as the future threat to the USA and to world peace. The USA had spent at lot of resources to acquire atomic weapons and they had no reason to believe that the Soviets were close to their own atomic bomb. Therefore it was in the US national interest to demonstrate (to everyone, not just the Japanese) the power of this weapon and the importance of it in determining the future of world politics.

The role of the USA in world affairs can sometimes seem quite ambiguous. There is no doubt that sometimes the Americans have been the defenders of freedom and truth (like in World War Two). There have also been times when their decisions have been based primarily on the notions of power and self-interest. I think that one of the things that explains the difference between the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan is this distinction. In Afghanistan the outside military involvement has been primarily to depose and rogue government that was supporting terrorism and to restore stability to a failed state. The motives in Iraq however, seem much more confused and this is what contributes to the controversy over that war.

Murder Hitler?

July 21 is the anniversary of the death of Count von Stauffenberg. On July 20, 1944 he had placed a bomb under the table in a meeting room used by Hitler. The hope was that after killing Hitler the conspirators would seize control of the German government and negotiate an end to the war. Obviously, Hitler survived the bomb blast and Stauffenberg was executed by an SS firing squad following his return to Berlin early the next day. Tom Cruise is currently filming a movie based on the life of Stauffenberg. Another blogger wrote about this yesterday and ended with a provocative question. He asked if it was right to try and kill Hitler. Answering his own question he implied that such an attempt was justified by Hitler's poor moral character.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) gives a slightly confusing answer to the question of killing someone like Hitler. First the Catechism states that: "There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it (1756)." Respect for life is the basic value at the root of this prohibition. So, no matter how evil Hitler may have been this could not justify killing him. No individual regardless of their age, or state of health, or criminal history deserves to die. I am comfortable with this teaching and I feel that the Church has been consistent in applying it. So, again, the point in answering our question is not the moral character of Hitler.

The Catechism also point out that: The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing." The Catechism adds this explanation: "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of ones own life; and the killing of the aggressor .... The one is intended, the other is not (2263)." I take this to mean that if the motivation for the assassination of Hitler is to end the killing then such an action can be morally justified. The objective is to end the taking of human lives; the death of Hitler is simply a consequence of this. Now, this sounds like splitting hairs but it is an important distinction. It explains, for example, why spokesmen for the Church opposed the execution of Saddam Hussein a while back. There was no question that Saddam was evil and that he had been responsible for the deaths of many. The point was whether his death was necessary for the defense of society. The Catechism explains that: "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor (2267)." In other words; since Saddam was in custody it was not necessary to execute him in order to prevent more loss of human life. In Hitler's case it was not possible to stop him by any other means and so an attempt to take his life was consistent with the defense of human life and was therefore morally justifiable. Now whether the Tom Cruise movie will be a crime is another question.

Nuptial Cohabitors?

Two researchers and writers from a Catholic university recently published an article in US Catholic that provoked a lot of comments. The authors were attempting to find a pastoral way to deal with the reality that fewer Catholics are going through with sacramental marriage and also that a significant number of those couples who do approach the Church for marriage preparation are already "cohabiting." The authors make a distinction regarding cohabitation between those who are already mutually committed in some way and so are "nuptial cohabitors" and those who have no intention of marriage (non-nuptial cohabitors). Their proposal involves a way to remove the stigma of "living in sin" from those who live together prior to their marriage. Their proposal involves a restoration of the period of betrothal to marriage:
Our pastoral proposal is straightforward: a return to the marital sequence of betrothal (with appropriate ritual to ensure community involvement), sexual intercourse, possible fertility, then ritual wedding to acknowledge and mark the consummation of both valid marriage and sacrament.
Since these couples will have already initiated their marriage through betrothal, their intercourse would not be premarital but marital, as it was in the pre-Tridentine Catholic Church. We envision a marital process initiated by mutual commitment and consent lived in love, justice, equality, intimacy, and fulfillment in a nuptial cohabitation pointed to a wedding that consummates the process of becoming married in a public manner. Such a process would meet the legitimate Catholic and social requirement that the sexual act must take place only within a stable relationship.
The process would be: Betrothal: The couple’s betrothal, which would involve a public ritual highlighting free consent to wed in the future, would be witnessed and blessed on behalf of the church community. The betrothal ritual would differ from the present wedding ceremony in that the consent would be to marry in the future. Such betrothal, as it did in earlier Catholic tradition, would confer on the couple the status of committed spouses with all the rights that the church grants to spouses, including the right to sexual intercourse.
Nuptial cohabitation: During this period the couple would live together as spouses, enjoying the approval and support of the community, and continuing the lifelong process of establishing their marital relationship as one of love, justice, equality, intimacy, and mutual flourishing. During this time the church would assist the couple with ongoing marriage education aimed precisely at clarifying and deepening their relationship.
Finally, sacramental marriage would be a celebration of the committed relationship that exists and a commitment to further growth.

The authors were severely criticized for their proposal. The bishop of the diocese where they teach wrote a public condemnation of the proposal in question. The fear behind the criticisms apparently being that the proposal is simply finding a way to condone behavior that has long been considered immoral by the Church.

In the RCIA blogs which I read from time to time I regularly find discussions of the problems of dealing with these "nuptial cohabitors". I suspect that this matter is dealt with in a wide variety of ways from not dealing with it at all to insisting that the couple spend a period of time apart before the wedding. Would reintroducing the idea of betrothal (commitment to marry in the future) be a way of regularizing this increasingly common form of living arrangement? Would any of the couples who are "nuptial cohabitors" care? In the long run would accepting the author's proposal have any impact on the long standing Church teaching regarding the role of sexual intimacy in a relationship? These would be interesting questions to explore but I suspect the volume of criticism that this proposal generated means that such a proposal in not about to be considered any time in the future.

High Prices

Two related items caught my attention in the news lately. First of all is the issue of gasoline prices. On CNN much was being made of the fact that US prices had passed $3.19 per gallon (for the record, the equivalent current price where I live is about $4.65 per US gallon. The second item that caught my attention was the editorial headline "Cheap rent is not a public right." In the editorial the author was attempting to make a case for preserving the free market in rental accommodation in the face of increasing pressures for rent controls to deal with dramatic inflation in rental costs recently.

Both of these items are related in some way to the free market system. In both cases we are told that the shortage (or apparent shortage) of gasoline and rental accommodation has caused the price increase. We are told that the only thing to do is to maintain the free price system and that the market will eventually correct itself. So, for example, in an ideal system an entrepreneur might find high gasoline prices attractive enough that he would invest in increased refining capacity. This increase in capacity would relieve the shortage and result in a decrease in prices. The same is theoretically true for rental accommodation. So why is this unlikely to happen?

The problem I would suggest is that the capitalist system as it exists now is not the "perfect" system of the theoretical model. Take for example the issue of gasoline prices. I've already said that in the pure system high prices would motivate someone to invest in increased production which would drive down prices. The problem is that this would only happen where there was perfect competition - which we don't have. First of all, the government (for good reasons) imposes lots of regulations on the building of refineries. This decreases the motivation for anyone to want to build these things. This results in a situation where a relatively small number of companies dominate the refining capacity of Canada and the USA. A competitor is unlikely to build a new refinery and the existing few refiners are certainly not going to do so. What this means is that the price issue can only be solved by decreasing demand. As prices escalate some people (the poorest) will eventually withdraw from the market thereby lessening demand. The problem with is is that the sting of high prices falls disproportionately on the poor. The second point about this is that the huge profits that go to the oil companies are truly "windfall" profits. They are unlikely to invest these profits in anything that might alleviate short-term prices. The only thing the average person can do about it is to hope that he has oil company stocks in his retirement portfolio. This is one "flaw" in our current capitalist system.

The second "flaw" has to do with the issue of the pursuit of self-interest that is central to capitalism. This idea comes from Adam Smith who prior early in his career was a lecturer in Moral Philosophy at Glasgow. As such I suspect that Smith would have seen a distinction between the pursuit of self-interest and greed or avarice. This is a central problem that capitalism faces today. At what point does the unrestricted pursuit of self-interest deteriorate into something that harms instead of helps the people and therefore becomes criminal in nature? We know from Enron and the Savings and Loan scandals (among others) that this descent into criminal behavior can happen. Now, I'm not saying that a landlord doubling the rent for a senior citizen living on a pension is engaged in criminal behavior but such an action would certainly seem to be immoral from my point of view. The landlord is entitled to an increase but at some point increasing the rent just because you can is simply greed and the harm that it might to in individual cases is what could make it immoral.

Media Censorship?

Much has been written in the past few days about the massacre of students on the campus of Virginia Tech in the USA. An interesting issue here surrounds the fact that the killer took time out from his killing to mail a package of material to NBC justifying his actions. Should NBC (and immediately after everyone else) have aired the material produced by the killer?

NBC tells us that they only did so after agonizing deliberation and only because they felt that it was necessary to view this material in order to satisfy the need of the public to know why the killer acted as he did. Others supporting the release of the material point out that censorship in a democracy is a bad thing and leads to dictatorship. Well, it seems to me that the actions of the killer are explained by the fact that he was insane - no need to view his self-serving propaganda to discover that. Secondly, it seems to me that sometimes in a civilized society self-censorship is appropriate.

Airing the material produced by this killer over and over again plays into the hands of the killer himself as well as into the hands of other insane young men who might want to copy his actions. My own preference would be that the name of the individual who commits such horrible crimes would never be spoken again (and his face never seen again). This would be good first of all because it might discourage this kind of insane acting out. I suspect that one of the reasons for this kind of acting out is the hope for a moment of fame, even if in death. If this is true, every time we publicize the actions of these killers, we are setting the scene for a repeat of the horror. Secondly, publicizing the material produced by the killer takes attention away from the victims of his crimes. It must have been agonizing for victims and their families to see the killer attempting to blame them for his terrible actions.

The issue of censorship is a difficult one but it seems to me that a civilized society needs a certain amount of innocence. In Psalm 101 the psalmist writes, "I will walk with blameless heart within my house; I will not set before my eyes whatever is base." Evil exists in the world and Christians should never be surprised when they encounter it but we do not need to be immersed in evil in order to understand it. I think that the current obsession of the media with the spectacular misdeeds of celebrities for example, demonstrates a malaise in our society. The eagerness of the media to publicize the rantings of the Virginia Tech killer demonstrate such a malaise.

Infanticide

The Times of London carried a story online this past week describing how authorities in Germany are trying to deal with an increasing number of mothers who kill and abandon their babies.

Desperate mothers are being urged to drop their unwanted babies through hatches at hospitals in an effort to halt a spate of infanticides that has shocked Germany. At least 23 babies have been killed so far this year, many of them beaten to death or strangled by their mothers before being dumped on wasteland and in dustbins. Police investigating the murders are at a loss to explain the sudden surge in such cases, which have involved mothers of all ages all over the country.

Infanticide continues to fascinate and horrify our modern society. Just recently the media in my area dwelt at great length on the case of a dead baby found in an alley in a small town. The mother, when found, was a woman in her late teens and there was much speculation regarding the circumstances that led the mother to kill and abandon her child. Case such as this are widely reported in the media (and rightly so).

On another level though, it is hardly surprising that such tragic events could happen given the willingness of our society to consider the widespread abortion of babies at all stages of development. One writer correctly pointed out the absurdity of the present state of affairs by pointing out that if a woman procures the death of her child while it is still inside her womb she is merely exercising her right to reproductive choice. If however, she procures the death of a child at the same stage of development after it has emerged from the womb, then she is guilty of a crime.

It is difficult to speculate what motivates a mother to murder her newly born child. One obvious possibility is that the present state of social thinking elevates the subjective state of mind of the mother over the objective reality of the taking of another human life. In other words, the mother might feel too embarrassed, or ashamed or shy about her condition to even think about procuring an abortion and so given the ambiguities of our culture she finds the taking of the child's life after birth to be equivalent to the taking of life before birth.

It is interesting to note that in the Times story some people were opposed to the plan encouraging mothers to drop off unwanted babies at convenient spots on the grounds that this plan would encourage mothers to abandon their babies. (Would killing the babies be preferable?) Also interesting was the controversy generated when a legislator in Texas proposed paying pregnant mothers a sum of money to give birth instead of procuring an abortion.

It seems to me that our society has to rediscover the meaning of parenthood. Society today is very much oriented to the enjoyment of the present and to subjectivism. In such a climate parenthood is almost counter-intuitive. Giving birth and parenting a child involves sacrifice and a commitment to the future. Both of these are values that would make for us a better society.

Politicians and Morality

Recently, Nancy Pelosi, a member of the Democratic party from San Francisco, was elected speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. This position makes her a very influential politician. During the course of her taking office she made much of her "Catholic" roots and described herself as a "devout" Catholic. As part of her celebration of taking office she attended mass at a Catholic university. What made some conservative Catholic observers angry was the fact that Nancy Pelosi has a public voting record regarding the issue of abortion that is almost perfectly opposed to that of the Catholic church. These Catholic observers seem to feel that it is the duty of the local bishop (in this case the archbishop of Washington) to publicly admonish Pelosi and perhaps to ban her from public participation in the Eucharist.
What's going on here? Some people argue that if the archbishop does not take action he only encourages everyday Catholics to also ignore Catholic moral teaching regarding abortion and other matters. Conservatives disparage what they call "cafeteria catholics." These are (in their view) Catholics who "pick and choose" what they will believe. The result, say the critics, is a group of Catholics whose faith does not mean much to them and consequently is easily ignored. These conservative Catholics would like to see the "cafeteria" catholics out of the church (whatever that means). They would like to seek a Catholic church that might be smaller in numbers but would also be a church that has clear beliefs and a moral code that is practiced by all. Such a church, the conservatives feel, would be a church that present an effective message of evangelization to the rest of the world.
What do I think? It seems to me that the issue is more complicated than the conservatives believe. The issue of abortion is very polarizing. The notion that a bishop could dictate to a catholic politician regarding any issue could be a problem. John F. Kennedy handled the allegation of Rome's control over him by essentially introducing the idea that his private religious life and beliefs were separate from his political duties. This has been expressed recently as, "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't feel I have the right to impose my personal views on others." I myself think that this notion that a politician can have a private moral stance at odds with their public voting record is just a way of avoiding the issue. Still, since we are dealing with the conscience of an individual we have to be careful about public condemnations of their positions. Perhaps the Archbishop has chosen to deal with Pelosi by speaking with her privately. We don't know. Perhaps the Archbishop feels that Pelosi (with her flaws regarding abortion) is still capable of doing good things regarding other issues on the minds of Catholics. We don't know.
Conservatives, on the issue of abortion, as on other issues, have an important prophetic role to play in the Church today. We always need to be reminded of the importance of faithfulness to the traditions of our Church. Conservatives also need to be careful. Sometimes the more extreme conservatives sound a bit like the pharisees in the gospel. Their condemnations of others who they consider less "pure" than themselves seem to lack the charity we associate with Jesus. When a prophet becomes a pharisee their importance to the faith of the Church diminishes considerably.