A Child's Right to a Mommy and Daddy

David Blankenhorn of the LA Times, a self-proclaimed "liberal democrat", in favor of Prop 8. I couldn't have said it better myself...

(Full Article Here:)
Protecting Marriage to Protect Children

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

Go Eduardo!

USCCB on Faithful Citizenship

To print in .pdf:
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Voters Guide for Serious Catholics

To print your own copy, visit:

http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Voting As A Catholic...

From the most excellent resource I know of on the web to answer all your questions on how we should be voting as Catholics:

http://www.catholicvote.com/

Check it out, and pass it on to everyone you know! Help inform consciences!

Political Food For Thought

Some quotes from Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver to get us thinking:

www.firstthings.com

"So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."

-Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver

"As Catholics (and Christians) we have an obligation to form our consciences in the light of the truth the Church teaches."

-Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver

Informing Our Conscience

Last week I met with some of my mom friends to watch a Bible Study DVD by Patrick Madrid, and one of the mom's selected the topic "Is it a Sin to Vote for a Pro-Abortion Candidate?" Madrid did an excellent job in the video of pointing to the scripture to illustrate why it is wrong for us to support politicians who promote abortion; however, he did not succeed in convincing everyone in the room. Following the video we launched into an intense conversation on the topic of the upcoming election, who each of us were voting for, and why.

It is a rampant problem amongst Catholics to think of all life issues as being equal, and often this leads to dismissing the most important issues of all in favor of those less important. In response to this problem I have gone to the source--The Catechism of the Catholic Church--to see what the Church officially says on the issues of Abortion, Death Penalty and War. Sure enough, the Church is very explicit that these acts are not equal at all, and if one is honest and seeking the truth, one must determine that the issue of Abortion must be our top priority when making our decisions on election day.

Please see the links below on Barack Obama's Voting Record, as well as the links and excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

INFORM YOUR CONSCIENCE!

Obama's Record and Facts on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act: (WEBSITE)
http://bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx

Obama's Voting Record on the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act":





Obama on when a Baby gets Human Rights (from Saddleback Interview):





Nurse Jill Stanek Speaks about her Experience with Live Birth Abortion:





The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Abortion, Death Penalty, and War*:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#2271
(excerpts from the text here:)

*the Church is clear that the issues are not equal--while abortion is always a moral evil, war and the death penalty are not.

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.⁷²

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁵

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.⁷⁶

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"⁷⁷ "by the very commission of the offense,"⁷⁸ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁹ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."⁸⁰

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."⁸¹

Avoiding war

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."¹⁰⁶

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.¹⁰

Legitimate defense

2263 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 act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."⁶⁵

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.⁶⁶

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Death Penalty

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."⁶⁸

I am so Martha...

So just about the time I became a wife, and more recently a mother, is when I truly understood what poor Martha was feeling! Here she was with a special guest in her home, no dishwasher, microwave, or KitchenAid in sight, and like so many of us I'm sure she felt the need to put her best foot forward as host. And of course we all know that feeling of wanting to give a good impression, but realizing at the last-minute that perhaps we've bitten off more than we could chew.

This is the sticky-wicket I imagine Martha was in. Jesus probably stopped by un-announced. Martha was probably in the middle of some cooking or housework when He arrived. And what was she to do other than drop whatever she was doing in order to serve the Lord? I, for one, know how she must have felt-- joy at the priviledge of serving such an honored guest combined with stress of wanting everything to be perfect. And then, to top it all off, she must have assumed that her sister Mary would help her accomplish her goal of serving their honored guest--well, we all know what happens when you assume, and Mary did want to serve their guest...only she had something different in mind.

In reflecting on this story, several questions came to mind: Was Martha WRONG in her feelings of frustration? Was she WRONG to be working in the kitchen instead of worshiping at the Lord's feet? Was she WRONG to want her sister to help her instead of doing all the work herself? As I ask these questions, it occurs to me that the Lord wasn't reprimanding Martha for the work she was doing, but for the spirit that motivated her work. He wasn't asking her to "choose" between work and worshiping at His feet--He was asking her to do both.

The Lord was pointing out to Martha what I am so often guilty of myself: that her service wasn't pointing to others, or more importantly to Him, but to herself. Like Martha grumbling about all the work she had to do (and to her guest!), I too have caught myself "showing" my guests and my family all the work their presense has caused me by my attitude. And I realize I do this because my motivation was asquew in the first place. If Martha had been serving out of pure love for the Lord, she wouldn't have felt "burdened" or "anxious" by her work. In fact, a proper attitude would have made her work a form of worship and therefore would have brought her supreme satisfaction and joy--not to mention, would have made her guest, Jesus, feel that His presense in her home was welcomed rather than disruptive.

I struggle with this myself. I realize that I can be motivated in two different ways when I work, both of which have extremely different outcomes: 1: I can serve my family and friends to show them what a good wife/mother/host I am. (me, me, me), which of course leads to expecting praise, attention, and appreciation for all my hard work. When I don't get this, which of course is inevitable, I will come to resent my work and those I am serving. I will also feel burdened and anxious by my work and all I have to do, since my sense of "self" relies on perfect accomplishment. And, let me not fool myself into thinking that others don't notice that this is my true motivation--it always comes across in my attitude. OR, 2: I can serve Jesus in everything I do, which transforms my work into prayer and praise and leaves me completely satisfied, whether or not I am verbally appreciated. This also places the outcome of my work in God's hands instead of my own, leaving me feeling less burdened and anxious.

To me, Martha is not only a historical person who got to serve Jesus first-hand, but a symbol of the real struggle we wives and mothers face in getting to Heaven through our vocation. But it is exactly through our service to our husbands, children, family and friends that we must grow in holiness and perfection! What we have to do is not abandon our work to sit at the feet of Jesus, but to sit at His feet while we work. This was Martha's mistake--not that she wasn't more like Mary in her service, but that she wasn't more like Mary in her spirit.

And so I am a Modern-Day Martha...striving each day to do Martha work with a Mary attitude.