Lisa Fullam is associate professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley. She is the author of The Virtue of Humility: A Thomistic Apologetic (Edwin Mellen Press).
By this author
In Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi's new book Pope Francis: This Economy Kills, Francis condemns "gender theory," likening it to nuclear war and genetic manipulation. Joshua McElwee reports:
[Francis] says that every historical period has "Herods" that "destroy, that plot designs of death, that disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation....Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings,....Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.
And in a January 19 press conference, he used "gender theory" as an example of ideological colonization, a tactic, he said, used by the Nazis.
Surely something comparable to BOTH nuclear war AND the Nazis deserves some attention. What is this "gender theory," anyway?
Francis seems to be echoing the concerns of Pope Benedict XVI in his 2012 Christmas address to the Curia:
People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed.
Benedict makes three main complaints:
1. He rejects the disconnection of gender from sex.
2. He complains that it is said to be socially constructed or individually chosen
3. He asserts that duality of male and female is essential to human nature.
According to McElwee, Pope Francis' target is "modern theories that consider people's gender identities to exist along a spectrum," which introduces another concept, that of gender identity.
Here, I'll start with a few definitions, basically to clarify the vocabulary of the debate, with a few comments along the way:
On Jan 14, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement reiterating their opposition to a WHO/UNICEF sponsored mass vaccination effort aimed at reducing maternal and neonatal tetanus. Their claim is that the vaccine is laced with Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and will result in permanent infertility in vaccinated women. They also state that the same was done in Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Philippines, also under WHO sponsorship. Their fears were triggered by reports of a group called the Kenyan Catholic Doctors association, who boldly stated:
This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO/UNICEF campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but is a well-coordinated, forceful, population control, mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine.
Well, let's unpack this.
Dr. Jennifer Davidson, a Graduate Theological Union colleague, has written a lovely blog post reflecting on her experience participating in the Berkeley/Oakland protests against the grand jury decisions not to indict police who've killed unarmed black men. Ferguson, yes, but also the Eric Garner case, and so many more. Other sites note cases of African American women also killed. (NB: A number of these cases DID go to trial, exactly the kind of public accountability that the Brown and Garner cases will never have.)
Protests in the Bay Area are...complicated. Since the start, a small number of vandals and looters, many of them self-labeled anarchists, have taken advantage of the protests to wreak havoc on local businesses. They are a small minority of the protesters, and peaceful protesters have been bloodied trying to stop them. (One man was struck on the head with a hammer as he tried to stand in the way of looters.) San Francisco Chronicle reporter Chip Johnson says they are "hijacking the latest demonstrations in Oakland, San Francisco and Berkeley." The cause doesn't matter--Occupy, Oscar Grant, Ferguson, or even the SF Giants World Series celebration.
As Dr. Davidson observes:
The news entertainment stories are pretty much entirely about that violence. And those of us, let me be clear, those 1000+ of us who were nonviolent are expressing frustration that the focus on violence has made it The Story, because it is only a distraction from The Message.
I agree--notice the difference in tone of the reporting--protest reporting emphasizes the actions of the violent few, giving less play to the seminary students and other peaceful protesters who, among other things, sang hymns and celebrated Communion while they peacefully awaited arrest. For the Giants parade? "Handful arrested." For the Ferguson protests, the reporting emphasizes the violence and the damage. Both aspects are reported--I'm pointing to a difference in prominence of themes and emphasis of headlines.
Yet...if you had to choose between citizens taking to the streets to express their outrage at a gross miscarriage of justice (and even if the grand juries did indeed make properly informed decisions in light of current law--a matter of dispute itself--then laws that give police this degree of impunity are themselves unjust, I would say,) versus a party after a big baseball win, in which case would it be more crucial to focus on the issue at hand and see the vandals as a sad but secondary story?
"It ain't no secret...You can get killed just for living in your American Skin."
In the next in a series of gruesome botched executions in the US, Arizona managed to take nearly 2 hours to kill convicted murderer Joesph Wood.
The Hobby Lobby decision exempted the corporation from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives it believed to be abortifacients. But is that belief true? And should it matter, especially as Catholic institutions decide whether to raise similar objections?
First, a clarification: two different definitions of what counts as an abortion are in play. In medical terminology, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo implants in the uterine wall, approximately a week after fertilization, (so on average about 7-10 days after ovulation.) Since one can’t have an abortion until one is pregnant, by medical standards contraceptives that block implantation by changing the uterine lining are not abortifacient. Roman Catholic magisterial teaching, on the other hand, holds that the developing embryo should be treated as a person from conception. Anything that blocks implantation would be considered abortifacient by those who believe that personhood starts with conception. In short, in medicine, “pregnancy” is a term that refers to the woman, while for many pro-life people and groups, it refers to the presence of an embryo.
The Hobby Lobby case focused on 4 means of contraception: Plan B and Ella, both forms of emergency contraception (EC) for use after unprotected sex, and two forms of the IUD, the copper-coated IUD and a hormone-releasing IUD called Mirena.The literature is complex and developing, and I hasten to state at the outset that I'm not a pharmacologist or an MD. But here goes:
(This article is now featured in our collection of stories about Catholicism & Same-Sex Marriage)
Under the heading "You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself," the Catechism of the Catholic Church considers homosexuality:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.(CCC 2357-8)
Clear enough, though one could quibble that "tradition" could not have "always" considered same-sex sex acts as "intrinsically disordered," since that language, as far as I know, originated with the scholastics, more than half-way into the Church's history. But I digress...
Over in Kansas City, Colleen Simon, pastoral associate at St. Francis Xavier parish, manages the food pantry that feeds 70 families a month. A few blocks away, Rev. Donna Simon, pastor of St. Mark Hope and Peace Lutheran Church, is also helping to revitalize the neighborhood
Here's a fun Mother's Day classic from Arlo Guthrie. The young man who jumps out on stage in leather and chains with a heavy metal guitar solo is Abe Guthrie, Arlo's son, who still tours with his dad.
Note that the kids who'd have sung this "lament" of teenage angst at their hippie parents would now be in their mid-late 40's, having raised rebellious kids of their own...
And here's to all mothers today, both those who raised us and those who taught us, mentored us, and showed us the way.
Last night marked another horrific chapter in our nation's practice of capital punishment. In Oklahoma, two executions were scheduled for last night, following a new three-drug protocol. The first drug administered was midazolam, already used as part of a botched execution in Florida. (see my previous post on this topic for pharmacologic details and links.)
About 10 minutes into the first execution, 38-year old Clayton Lockett was declared unconscious by a physician. According to CNN, Lockett sat up and tried to speak 16 minutes into his execution. He was seen to be writhing or convulsing on the gurney, and about 20 minutes into the process, his vein "exploded," executioners said, causing them to halt the process. At that point, guards closed the windows so the witnesses could no longer see what was happening. 43 minutes into the process, Lockett apparetly suffered a massive heart attack and died.
The legal battle centered around a prisoner's right to know the source of the drugs to be used to execute him or her. A stay on Lockett's execution was lifted last week when a judge ruled that there was no such right. After last night's experience, executions are again on hold in OK for at least 2 weeks.
The plan was to render Lockett unconscious with midazolam, then stop his breathing (and all muscular activity) with the paralytic drug vercuronium bromide, then stop his heart with potassium chloride.
What could have gone wrong? Of course, I wasn't there, and can't speak with certainty, but here are two possibilities.
Benzodiazepines like midazolam can rarely have paradoxical effects: a drug that usually renders one deeply sedated and relaxed, and has anti-convulsant properties, can cause agitation, anxiety, aggression, talkativeness, rage, violent behavior, and delirium, often states not recalled by the patient upon recovery. The midazolam dose used for sedation is much lower than that used for execution, but since Mr. Lockett's vein "exploded," it's unclear what dose he actually received, or, from the information given, what his actual state of consciousness was. The effects of midazolam can be reversed with Flumazenil, (a benzodiazepine-receptor antagonist) but did the executioner have a reversal agent on hand? Reversal of midazolam with Flumazenil can cause seizures. When the execution was stopped, efforts were made to resuscitate Lockett, but details aren't clear.
In a news release yesterday, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ announced its lawsuit protesting North Carolina's law prohibiting same-sex marriage, claiming that the state is violating ministers' religious liberty.
As I (a non-lawyer!) understand it, since it is a crime for ministers to officiate at a marriage without making sure the couple has a marriage license, barring same-sex couples from getting licenses restricts the ministers' freedom of religion. Here's the explanation from the press release:
In 2012, North Carolina voters approved Amendment One, which limited a domestic legal union to a covenant between a man and woman. Under state laws consistent with Amendment One, it is a Class 1 misdemeanor for a minister to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple that hasn’t obtained a license, and such a license may not be issued to same-gender couples. ...The UCC believes that this prohibition and penalties also apply to a minister performing a religious ceremony not intended to result in a legal marriage.
The UCC has embraced marriage equality since 2005, but of course the UCC doesn't stand alone on this. Plaintiffs in this case include "three UCC ministers, two Unitarian Universalist clergy, one Lutheran pastor, one Baptist minister, and one rabbi," along with the couples they married. A number of Christian denominations and other religious groups now allow same-sex marriage, so the question of religious liberty is an important one.
I would imagine that the crux of the legal issue here is the last sentence of the block quotation above: does the law apply to a religious ceremony that isn't intended as a legal marriage?
- Page 1