Wednesday, November 7, 2012

America the Beautiful

I went to bed last night with a very heavy heart. It was apparent that Barack Obama would retain the presidency and that Mitt Romney would be relegated to election history. I woke up this morning to the news confirming what I already knew, and to a flurry of sad, despairing, and indignant posts on Facebook as friends took to the web in an attempt to verbalize their feelings over what seems like one big mistake by the American populace.

But, this post is not so much about my fears for the future as it is for my hopeful, glass-is-half-full side. If you haven't already read my previous posts regarding my fear surrounding Obama's multitude of bad policies, feel free to browse through my past posts. If you want a pretty accurate summary of my fears for the future, read my friend Mary's post at Let Love be Sincere. In the meantime, I just want to share a few thoughts on how I HOPE the next four years will go.

As a starting point, I want to point out that the past four years have seen an increasing political rift between individuals from different parties. I know that I have been a perpetrator of political polarization often enough on my own, mostly in reaction to policies mandated by the current administration. Regardless of all the lofty talk in the 2008 election, Mr. Obama has failed in his promise to bring a post-partisan, post-racial era to our country. I think that this should be a wake-up call to people on both sides of the political spectrum that the change starts with US. Why should anyone wait to change their attitude until the president they dislike is booted from office, or the man they want elected is voted into office, or until the incumbent is guaranteed four more years?

I love my country. I always have. What I love about it transcends my disagreements with my fellow citizens. And in turn, I hope that my fellow Americans feel the same way. I truly believe that what unites us is stronger than what divides us, and I'll explain:

I believe that both liberals and conservatives can agree that religious freedom should be respected. Whether you are Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Muslim, athiest, or none of the above, we should be allowed to practice religion as our faith dictates; it is not up to the state to dictate how we live our faith.

I believe that both conservatives and liberals are concerned with the financial future of our country. We often differ in our attitudes towards spending, taxing, wealth, etc...but we do not often differ in the fact that a) our children do not deserve the financial pit that awaits them with our current financial deficit, and b) we want to help the less fortunate of our country. The real question is: how do we agree to work together and solve the problems that we face? How do we eliminate the wasteful spending, allow individuals to make decisions about their own money, and reign in the debt so that our kids and grandkids won't have to go hungry so they can pay their taxes?

I believe that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative or somewhere else on the spectrum, agree that our healthcare system is very flawed in regulation, legislation, and insurance. We agree that we have the best healthcare delivery system in the world, but a combination of special interests, government-regulated pricing (Medicare price fixing IS a big problem), bad legislation that is counter-productive, etc is preventing us from truly offering good, affordable healthcare for all Americans. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a human issue. We all loved Mother Teresa because she gave care and comfort to the poorest of the poor. If we could get past the political shouting, couldn't we come to a (lawyer-, accountant-, bureaucrat-free) solution to our healthcare problems and make sure that people get the healthcare that they need?

Finally, I believe that Americans from both sides of the aisle agree that we are a country built on freedom. It's time we remember that. We're too caught up on shouting why "I'm right and you're wrong", and we forget that sometimes the solution is not to push our political agenda but to allow freedom and personal responsibility to reign. Conservatives want to prove that liberals all want free contraception, free cell phones, free EVERYTHING. Democrats want to prove that Republicans are trying to outlaw contraceptives, take away Grandma's healthcare, take away EVERYTHING. If we thought for a moment, couldn't we come to the agreement that some women want contraceptives, and that's a choice they have to make and support on their own. Can't we agree that if I don't want to pay for your elective medications I shouldn't have to? There's no need to outlaw it, and there's no need to provide it for free. How about the fact that healthcare is crucial for all Americans and with REAL reform we really can help the elderly and those in need? No need to make it free and no need to punish people who can't afford to buy it, or maybe don't want to? Heck, I can only imagine that if we all just quieted our hearts for a moment over the Obamaphone craziness, we could find some common ground in that cellphones are a great way to provide a safety net for the less fortunate. Can't we agree that programs to give used cell phones to the poor, homeless, and underprivileged to use for emergencies is a good thing? We don't have to give them a data plan and a smart phone, but we don't have to ignore the value of communication either.

I guess what I'm getting at is that as much as I'm disappointed in Obama's reelection, it's not the end. It really should be the beginning for many of us to rise above our disappointment and create change for the better without waiting for our political savior. We need to stop the shrill partisan shouting, from both sides of the aisle. I have little hope that our political system will move much in the next four years, as we currently have no change in the executive or legislative balance of power. But our elected officials work for us. WE are the meaning of this country, not them. We will never agree on everything, but that's OK. We are American. America is a beautiful land of freedom, liberty, justice...and hopefully love somewhere in our hearts. Let's not forget that.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

The Battle of the Bulge(-ing waistline)

I have poor self-discipline when it comes to diet and exercise. If there was a diagnosis for binge-and-purge dieting (actually, I think that exists), I would be institutionalized by now. I'm not proud to say it, but since I began the married life I have been a poor example of how to eat or not eat, exercise or not exercise. I'm so up and down with my regimen that Cedar Point should name a ride in my honor. I'm either eating fruit, veggie, and protein smoothies (and they taste healthy, not delicious) or I'm eating ice cream sundaes. I'm either running 3-4 miles a day for three or four months or I'm crashing on the couch with that sundae I mentioned.

Almost 7 years ago, with our first baby on the way and working a 2nd shift desk job, I was experiencing the effects of sympathy baby weight. I topped off at that point at a hair under 200lbs, and will never forget the Christmas pictures of Monica and me smiling at my family's house on Christmas morning, her with her expectant mother glow and me with my well-rounded cheeks. I committed to losing weight and, after entering my office's weight loss challenge, proceeded to diet and exercise my way to a trim 167lbs. Since then I have gone up and down, up and down, up and down. I am currently at my highest ever, topping the scales at 204.

I can make excuses all day about how I have four kids, how I'm in school school full-time; how everybody puts on some weight and I'm much smaller than most of America. I could say that I will weight until I (did you catch that?) finish school and then take advantage of my probable three 12-hour shifts weekly to focus on weight loss, but those are all excuses. Those are the things that should be motivating me to lose now. All that plus my secret desire to actually look like this again in Under Armour:


I want my four kids to see that their daddy wants to be in top shape so I can have more energy to play with them. I want to show my patients that I care about myself and I will certainly care about them. I need to eat right and exercise so I don't feel tired when I sit down to study. And I certainly can't wait until next summer or who knows what I might add to my adipose stash by then. I need to stop waiting for motivation to hit me in the face and get motivated NOW.

Thankfully, I have a good friend who also wants to shed a few pounds. We've made a commitment to encourage and push each other to lose a practical amount by Christmas, with a "mile marker" weight at Thanksgiving. So, I hope to be writing you all again in 3 months at the smaller 180lb mark. I've lost more before, I can do this now.



Monday, September 17, 2012

The politics of "I'm NOT a ______"

Have you seen this bumper sticker? It's one of the Democratic National Committee's bumper stickers that they're sharing with constituents. Someone down the street from us has one on the back of their truck. I'm sure that they're a wonderful person and know what they believe in and the policies they can get behind. So, why not just say "I'm a Democrat"? Are we so far removed from actually talking about our own stance on issues that an officially sanctioned party slogan doesn't even claim membership, but rather touts NOT being a member of the other party? Seems like all we see these days are the negative ads, the "Look at how awful that guy is" jabs, rather than "THIS is what I stand for" statements. This happens on both sides of the aisle, neither Democrats nor Republicans are exempt. But as the president, Mr. Obama, I'm looking you square in the eye; you haven't upheld your claim of a post-partisan, post-racial, most-transparent-administration ever since you were sworn in. Actually, I've felt that the polarization in this country has been worse in the past four years than I can remember in my lifetime. I, for one, would like to think that if I was running for office or leading a political movement I would have the courage to actually stand up and say publicly over and over again..."I believe in THIS and I'm going to stand behind it. How do YOU feel about this issue?" I believe that it's only this type of attitude that will bridge the huge ideological gap that our country is experiencing right now.

In the meantime, since I'm not running for office and can say whatever incendiary thing I want...and since I know that my Democrat readers have a good sense of humor, I'll leave you with this replacement bumper sticker:

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Does legality determine morality?

A friend of mine and I were talking over the weekend about the current state of affairs in our country, particularly the erosion of our country's moral fabric. While we both agree on the fact that there is a general sense of moral relativism, a "let them do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody" attitude, we discovered that we were coming at issues from a different perspectives. My buddy had viewed issues more from a sense that issues like the push for same-sex marriage were created or pushed as part of a grand plan to undermine traditional marriage. I, on the other hand, believe that on issues like same-sex marriage the proponents truly want to legitimize these couples in the eye of the world, using legal means to achieve what they believe to be an issue of equal rights. The question for me became: where did this come from? How did human society for thousands of years view marriage as a singular entity, a union between a man and a woman, and now we see individuals and groups who believe that marriage should be defined as a union between any two individuals regardless of sex? Here are my thoughts on the issue...

While often attacked by modern society as being old and out of touch, the Catholic Church has held to its teachings on sexual morality since the time of Christ, approaching human sexuality as not something merely physical, but as containing a sacred element. We believe that every act between husband and wife should be both unitive and procreative...not that every conjugal encounter must result in a new life, but that whenever they engage the couple must be open to the possibility of the gift of life. This is why we believe in periodic abstinence as a means of spacing children. So, anyway...in 1930, under pressure from its members and society, the Anglican church became the first Christian denomination to allow use of contraceptives under some circumstances, during the Lambeth Conference of that year. Since that time, every major protestant church has allowed the use of contraceptives to the point that the Catholic Church is the only denomination that still teaches against it.

Over the next several decades, as the use of contraceptives became more widespread, various methods were improved upon and we had the emergence of "the pill". Still the more widely preferred method today, the contraceptive pill is used to alter a woman's hormones to prevent or terminate a conception. The rate of conception when on the pill is roughly 2-5%, giving rise to the term "protected sex" and taking away the procreative aspect; essentially sex became a recreational activity rather than an expression of unconditional love. It became an act rather than a promise. It became something to protect yourself during rather than something within which to give yourself freely and fully. However, the term love certainly did not go away...

"Free love" was a favorite term during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and 1970's as young people began a wholesale shed of their Greatest Generation parents' values. With sex offering both the pleasure they desired and very little chance of producing a child, sexual partners grew in number, couples began to cohabitate more outside of marriage, and popular culture reinforced the new practices in both radio and television.

With the rise of the sexual revolution, aided by contraception, there was still one question that remained in the way of total sexual emancipation: what to do in cases where contraceptives didn't do their job and a conception occurred? It's foolish to look idealistically at the issue of abortion with the assumption that prior to this time abortion did not occur. It did, although it was illegal and believed to be immoral by the majority of society. However, abortion did offer the opportunity to rectify a failed contraceptive, and so our country saw the infamous Roe v. Wade court case that ultimately made abortion a non-criminal act. The case hinged on two basic questions: 1) when does life actually begin, and 2) is it a woman's right to abort the life of her unborn child because it is in her body? According to the law, a woman can choose to abort the child, because life begins when she decides it begins.

With contraceptives accepted by the majority of society and abortion a legal act, sex became viewed as mainly an act of pleasure and not one of meaning and commitment. With this perspective, any sexual act that brought pleasure was sure to be accepted as good, because remember...sex is about pleasure, and nothing else. From this position it makes sense that sex between two men or two women would be accepted as much as sex between a man and a woman, because sex is no longer about an act which is naturally inclined to reproduction, but one that expresses...whatever one wants it to express. And so we see how homosexual acts are more acceptable to those who view sex in this light. So why homosexual marriage?

In the eyes of many, a thing or action is considered good if a majority of persons believes it to be good, if the act is legal, or if it is somehow "endorsed" through laws that support that thing or action. In the case of same-sex marriage the underlying motivation is to legitimize what many in society believe to be immoral, that being sexual relations between two persons of the same gender. The result is an undermining of society's respect for traditional marriage. The same thing has happened before in examples like unmarried cohabitation; society previously frowned on this arrangement and although many still disapprove, the sheer number of couples living together overpowers traditional thoughts on saving sexual cohabitation for marriage.

What is lacking in today's common thought is true logic in the application of legality, morality and where the two intersect on issues. Rather than simply seeking good as one defines it for him or herself, logic aids in the pursuit of good to a natural order and principled end, seeking the good of others first and applying a natural moral framework to one's worldview. Within this view there are limitations on what is good. Not that we should or must force our beliefs on others, but that holding principled views regardless of society's moral tide is acceptable, even when others can't accept that.




Monday, August 27, 2012

If I told you I strangled a puppy...

Would you hate me? Would you think I was heartless and possibly try to press charges against me for committing canicide? Would you want to lead a raging mob to my house if you found out I intentionally strangled a little, big-eyed, fluffy, cute-as-a-button puppy? Yeah, I figured you would. What if I told you I put my dog in a cage designed to be strapped to the top of my car, would you decline to vote for me as president? Or, what if I told you that there was a law being passed to allow breeders to selectively kill puppies at the point of birth by putting a knife through their brain or simply allowing them to perish from the elements? Does that upset you? Fortunately, I don't have to tether my rage into words, as I have the president of the United States, mister Barack Obama, to give his thoughts on allowing little puppies...oh wait, I mean babies...to die:
(emphasis mine)
As I understand it, this [law] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there's, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
That transcript came from 2002, during his tenure as an Illinois state senator, where he was arguing against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" which was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Senate and protects babies who survive botched abortions. Sounds humane though, doesn't it? But in case you're thinking I'm just pulling more Obamaphobic quotes...here's a bit more for you to digest from the person elected to lead our country. I encourage you to read through to the end to get the full effect of Obama's words (again, emphasis mine):
Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?
Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably befound unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it.
How can anyone listen to this and not see the illogical thought in saying that a premature baby who is, for instance, delivered alive and healthy at 25 weeks has all the rights of anyone, but if the baby is unwanted it has no rights up until it's born at 40 weeks? Are there any doubts that he has indeed sold his soul to the abortion industry?

Saturday, June 9, 2012

You know, I think I will take your expert advice on the size of my family!

Being the father of four kids has some pretty cool advantages. "Perks of the job", as it were. Near the top of the list is a universally free ticket to the advice of any and every self-imposed expert on why my family size is big enough and how I should probably look into learning "how these things work", so I'm not surprised next time a baby shows up. These experts range from strangers in the supermarket, coworkers, new acquaintances, and store employees.

Monica recently told a new coworker that she's the mother of four children. The woman, with her "family size expert" card proudly on display declared "Wow! So, you've decided your done, right?" Well, now that YOU mentioned it I suppose I probably should be done. I mean, the fact that you've known me for all of 83 minutes and can apply your extensive life experience to mine means you have every right to make pontificating statements on my behalf. Thank you!

I can remember on different occasions how some of my own coworkers, upon hearing that we were expecting our third or fourth child, exclaimed with great giddiness, winking, and sly nods "You really ought to look into how these things happen, Chris!" Shoot...I'm glad you pointed that out because this whole time I was always anxious that the stork was just going to show up at my house again with a little bundle that I would have to accept whether I wanted to or not. Whew, glad that I now know I actually have a hand in this whole process!

I tell you, it's a relief to know that I have so many people willing to give of their wisdom on behalf of my family choices. I also appreciate the fact that so many people stare me down in stores and mention, "You must be Catholic!" It's just good to know that they're sympathetic to the fact that I'm a "good Catholic" and that the Church wants me to blindly bring as many babies into the world as possible. Right?

Imagine if I went around asking people that have two kids whether they've decided to up their count to 5 anytime soon? You know, just randomly state at the grocery line something like "Hey there! That's a cute couple of kids you have. When are you going to get on the stick and have a few more?" What about asking the 30-something childless couple whether they planned to turn in their Audi TT for a Dodge Caravan and fill that puppy up? That would go over well. Inappropriate and quite judgmental, right? Fact is, I actually have no stake in how many kids you have, and wouldn't make you think it. So why do people feel uninhibited enough to randomly assume and assert we're gonna cut things off at four?

The truth is, we do want a big family. Not simply because we're Catholic, but for a number of reasons: 1) We both come from big families and recognize the joy that having lots of built-in playmates and lifelong friends brings. 2) We have been incredibly blessed, even through adversity, and desire to spread that joy and blessings to our descendants. 3) Family memberships to the zoo cost less per person when spread across 12 people. 4) Child tax credits are awesome, especially when multiplied by 10. The joking aside though, we WANT more kids!

I do find the whole "good Catholic" part amusing. I think people look at big Catholic families and assume we've sworn some double-secret uber-oath to the Holy Father that we will be very fruitful and multiply the church's ranks, or something. It might come as a shock to some readers to hear that I've never once heard "family size as a measure of virtue" preached from any pulpit I've ever tuned in to; or, that there are big families in denominations other than Catholic who value the big family life! Having a big family isn't about building a portfolio for the big Guy, or trying to be holier through suffering life out. A "good Catholic family" may have 10 kids or they might have 0 kids. Some even have three! We respect parents of any number of kids...being a parent is rewarding but it's also challenging and difficult! No matter the size, it's important to respect the work that all parents do. What matters most is that family size reflect God's will as you seek Him on earth. For us, that will hopefully mean a few more kids before it's all said and done and before I learn better. And, maybe somewhere along the way, someone in some grocery line or health department desk will look and ask "So, do you have any plans for more?"

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Yes, I am in college...

(Funny, not entirely accurate, currently a little too close to home.)

To all my readers who have inquired into my recent lack of posts, I say "thank you" for your appreciation of my blog. The last 1.5 months have been quite busy and quite honestly I got back on the blog without realizing how long it's actually been since I put fingers to keyboard here. Monica, me, and the kids had a really great month of May. A wonderful trip to the beach with even more wonderful friends, my 30th birthday, the first of two cousin's weddings for the summer, the start of my summer classes, and moving into our "summer home" (we are house-sitting for some friends until August) are just a few things going on in our lives that have kept us incredibly busy...and constantly remembering that we are incredibly blessed.

A few random thoughts:

I was at a Save-A-Lot store with Monica's younger brother, stocking up on some great deals I saw there. They had small canisters of coffee, regular priced $2.50, for $1. I had to buy 10. They also had Honey Bunches of Oats Raisin Medley on sale for around $2. I had to buy a dozen. So I'm standing there waiting to check out, dressed in my my shorts, t-shirt, and ballcap and joking with Ben. The lady behind us gives us a knowing smile and says to me "You must be in college!". Ummm...uhhh...well..."Yes, I am" I smiled back. That is obviously true, but what she probably perceived as a young kid just stocking up his dorm food stash is a guy with a lot more than just "I'm in college". How do you smile back and say "Sure am! I'm also a 30yo married father of four with a previous bachelor's degree who lost his job and moved his family across the state to pursue a new career in nursing and since I'm living with the in-laws I'm taking advantage of these awesome deals!"? Nope, simply "Yes, I am" will have to do.

I am also realizing much more lately how easy it is for me to fall into my trap of "I know best and I'm gonna argue my point". I often forget the saying (and I paraphrase) "the smartest people talk the least", or something to that effect. Basically, remember how stupid you actually are and take others' advice. A couple wonderful classmates of mine have been good enough to kindly and lovingly point out my argumentative and/or sometimes judgmental attitude, well after I should have come to the usual conclusion myself. Opportunities for humility are not always easy to embrace, but I'm trying...so thank you!

To end this random, "welcome myself back" post, I'll just say this: I am truly blessed. Blessed with a wife who loves me unrelentingly despite my numerous faults; wonderful children who are simultaneously a joyful blessing and a big-ticket item on my heavenly resume'; I'm blessed with real friends who I would do anything for and vice versa; blessed with a supporting extended family that humbles me with their love and generosity; and most of all I'm blessed with a God who loves me in spite of my failings and who provides for my every need, both known and unknown. Yes, I am a blessed man.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Liberal's "Inception" Moment and the War on Women

During the January 7th debate between Republican hopefuls, hosted by ABC, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos managed to pull a genuine "Inception" moment that may very well provide a better script than the fantastic Christopher Nolan movie by that name. During the debate, Stephanopoulos injected a question that greatly deviated from the main points that the nominees had been debating over the past several months. Out of nowhere, he asks this question:
Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
to which Romney responds:
if I were governor of a state-or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so.
OK, let's take that as a solid answer and move on...right? Hehehe...oh you trusting Republicans, you! Much to the confusion of the candidates and the audience, Stephanopoulos kept hammering on contraception. Not two weeks later, on the late Friday afternoon of January 20th, the Obama administration quietly announced that all businesses, under the Obamacare laws requiring that they provide insurance, will also be required to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to the insured. Now, I'm not a genius, but that is just so ironic, is it not? How nice of George and his friends at ABC to frame up this question for the Republican hopefuls, just before Obama, Sebellius, et al rolled out this mandate.

Before we could even bat an eye our country witnessed the effect of this "Inception" moment. At the turn of the year not a single Republican was talking about contraception. Stephanopoulos mentions contraception during a Republican debate; Obama's regime announces that they will mandate all businesses to provide contraception; many Americans and especially Republicans and faith-based organizations protest...and by February the GOP was being painted as anti-contraceptive, anti-women, and finally as waging a "War on Women" for supposedly wanting to ban women's access to contraceptives. Much like the man who is accused of murder, tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty, only then to be proven innocent in court...his good name has been slandered by a monologue pushed by the media and accepted by the un-critical masses.

Since January I have seen more slogans, signs, cartoons, etc decrying the "Republican War on Women." It's genius! It's like me going out in the street and yelling at the top of my lungs that I saw that guy I dislike trying to take advantage of some pretty girl. "He did it! He tried to take advantage of some girl! I saw him do it!" and everyone around me takes me at my word. If I yell a lie first and loudest, I will be taken at my word by those who are unwilling to challenge my claims and seek the truth.


This is truly a shameful moment for Democrats. Rather than coming forward and saying that they support a law mandating American people to violate their consciences, Democrats have turned the argument on their opponents and claim that Republicans, Catholics, and various other conservative groups want to bar access to contraception for all women, simply for opposing the mandate. "Republicans hate women! They're distracting from the economy to attack the females of this country!" So, you want us to stand here and take your lies, mandates, and restrictions on personal freedom and conscience rights without a fight or you will accuse us of changing the subject from the economy and jobs? Where did this even come from? No conservative I've ever heard of ever called for banning contraception. Many conservatives, like myself, desire to better educate the public about the dangers of contraceptives, but we see no reason to further tether citizen's freedom by making contraceptives illegal.

The fact is (and I know some of you reading this are going to dislike what I'm about to say) that the majority of elected Democrats are, by and large, a bunch of do-nothings. Our Democratically-controlled Senate, with more than enough seats to easily pass a budget, has universally rejected all of Obama's budgets they have received, as well as the House-approved budgets the Republicans have sent their way, to the tune of 3 years without a budget passed. You wanna talk about distracting from the economy? Let's talk!

The Democratic party, currently caught between their opposition to some of Obama's policies and their allegiance to their party, have taken the low road and began a shouting match with the Republicans over whether or not conservatives are trying to strip "womens' rights". All the while, conservative Republicans (for the most part) are trying to pass a balanced budget, protect Americans' constitutional freedoms, and focus on real issues while working to oust Obama from the White House in November. And for good reason. Obama has led the charge for outrageous deficit spending and undemocratic diktat over the past 3 1/2 years, all the while stumping for his unintelligible policies on the taxpayer's dime.

I know what you're thinking: Chris, you've managed to bring this discussion back to Obama and why he should be de-throned in the general election. Yes, I have brought it back. It's his fault. Republicans and conservatives at large had no intention of mandating anything, banning anything, etc. Obama does. His idea of American freedom is that we're free to do what he thinks is best. End of story. And so, with a simple, out-of-nowhere question during an otherwise innocuous debate, George Stephanopoulos pulled a Leo DiCaprio and planted that seed, deep in the public subconscious, that Republicans and conservatives at large want to take away contraceptives, keep a tally of how many babies we are or are not having, ban sex, take women out of the workforce, or whatever...all in the name of distracting from the real issue, the contraceptive mandate, the bloated deficit, the failed energy policies, etc that Obama has proffered on all of us. In essence, the Democrats have followed their old recipe of: 1) find an old, meaningless, nationally irrelevant horse, 2) beat viciously until dead, 3) keep beating. All in the name of distraction.

And inception.



Sunday, April 8, 2012

A Day to Rejoice

Dear Friends,
As I write this, Catholics the world over are celebrating Christ's victory over death; either currently celebrating the Easter vigil mass or, thanks to the beauty of time zones, already celebrating Easter day. As a Christian, we see a very special significance on this holyday that marks the point at which Christ proved His divinity by rising from the dead. Christ, the very God we adore, died on Good Friday. God literally died. Can you even begin to think through this? We don't understand the mystery of it, so far beyond the scope of my limited human intellect is the fact that my God died for us to redeem our fallen nature. But He did. He hung on a cross and died. Yet, on the third day He rose again. Christ, fully human and fully divine, rose to life from a death he freely undertook because He loved us so very much.

So incomprehensible is the fact that He loves us to the point of death...His body sat in a tomb while the world trembled...and much to the joy of heaven and earth He rose again. Without Good Friday there would be no Easter Sunday. And without Easter Sunday, the value of Christ dying on the cross is meaningless. We cannot separate the value of either day without trivializing either aspect. So foundational to our life and faith is this mystery of the God-man's death and subsequent resurrection.

The beauty of the redemptive act of Jesus is that His self-sacrificing love applies to all. Whether we believe in His divinity and give credence to His teachings makes no difference. He died for those who do and those who do not follow His way, so great is His love. While we will never be able to love others in the infinite way that God loves us, it is essential that we follow the single commandment that Christ gave us while on earth: to truly love God and love others, even when love is not easy.

Monday, March 26, 2012

"Before you pluck the speck from your brother's eye..."

"Remove the plank from your own..." - Jesus Christ

Difficult words to live by, especially in today's world. Christ's call to look to our own faults first is a real conundrum, especially for those of us who are easily fired up by real or perceived injustices, societal immorality, and all manner of illogical thought. I understand where Christ wants us to go with these words: if we truly desire the good of our brother (fellow humankind) then we must remove those things in our lives that keep us from our own goodness.

The issue, though is that Jesus didn't just use this little parable to point out that we can't look past our own glaring faults when seeing the faults of others...He also mentions in the gospels that we're supposed to "turn the other cheek" when someone wrongs us, essentially saying that we must not retaliate, but should show real love by forgiving the trespass of another without personal recompense. This can be especially difficult when people or groups we might count as our "enemies" throw insult after insult toward people with beliefs similar to ours, and the temptation to go blow for blow with those folks is strong.

So the Lord really threw out a difficult pill to swallow. For those of us who were raised with a keen eye for morality and ethics, we probably tend to see a lot more "specks", because our eyes are trained to. The problem is that this can easily result in the growth of a large "plank" in our own eye that we hardly see as we become too focused on the faults of others and not on growing our own capacity for love. Of course, love does not mean license and if we truly want the best for another we must at times speak up. The challenge Christ gave us is to balance love, justice, and humility as we seek the good of all. And that's a challenge worth accepting.


Saturday, March 3, 2012

Obama, States' Rights, and the Constitution

[Editors note: This post is a collaborate effort between me and my brother-in-law, Erich. I look forward to writing future articles with him.]

During a December interview on "60 Minutes", Obama was asked how he would rate his presidency. The president said: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history." I'm not going to attempt to define exactly what he meant by "modern history", but for the sake of argument let's look at modern history as 1776 to the present, shall we? With that in mind, we'll review the significance of Obama's comments as they pertain to the United States of America; particularly to "the Republic, for which [the flag] stands, one nation, under God, indivisible; with liberty and justice for all".

I recently had a conversation with a brother-in-law of mine, recounting a story that scares me more than a little. Not too long ago in the history of civilization there was a country that broke into factions and began to war with itself. One side wanted to split off and create their own independent nation while the other side wanted to keep unity for the sake of power. Rather than look to the law of the land, the bigger, more powerful side declared war on the smaller, weaker side that wanted to create their own country. Many men fought, suffered and died and in the end the side desiring to keep their little country together won. Sound familiar? It should, it was the Civil War...known to some people as the war to end slavery but to others as the war for state's rights. This was the point at which the power of the national government began to take precedence over the power of the states. Subsidiarity, for a large part, was gone. [I want to clarify that I don't think states' rights are more important than granting individual liberty to all people. Slavery is evil no matter what. The Emancipation Proclamation was necessary to guarantee freedom for slaves, but it did not require a war.]

So, let's tie this back to the flag and its pledge. The true reason for allegiance to the flag is obviously not allegiance to a physical starred and striped item, but to the "republic for which it stands" ...so what does "the republic" mean? It is the concise political word for the nation - the One Nation for which the North fought the Civil War to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, the Pledge specifies that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. We generally take indivisibility for granted, probably not giving our 50-state union a second thought. The fact is, our constitution specifically provides for national solubility, should one or more states desire independence. Practically speaking, states speak first for its citizens, not the federal government. Our current president has little respect for state's rights (or citizens rights, for that matter) that don't align with his agenda; he inflicts his presumed power on all citizens without regard for their voice. Would this still be the case had the Civil War gone differently, or not occurred at all?

No respectable historian would argue that Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. In truth, even his Emancipation Proclamation was only a "war measure" that would have become defunct if the war ended the next day – and it was written so as to avoid actually freeing any slaves since it only applied to "rebel territory." Both Lincoln and Congress announced publicly that their purpose was not to disturb slavery but to "save the union"; as a union is not compulsory, but voluntary, they actually destroyed that union philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature that was established by the founders. All states, North and South, became wards or appendages of the central government in the post-1865 era.

The Civil War was really fought over the issue of self-governance and state autonomy that our federation of states, our "United States of America" was founded on. Does this mean that I think the South should have seceded? No, I don't think they should have, but I agree with them on constitutional principle. As Erich stated during our conversation, "The Civil War is the point at which we went from being a constitutional federation to a national government." In the current system the federal government's rules trump everything else.

So how does this relate to Obama and his self-placement as 4th bestest behind FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln? Those of you that follow history will remember that these three presidents are some of the most prominent champions of national government's authority over the country's citizens that our country's highest office has ever seen. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and dismissal of the southern states' right to secede, FDR's New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society were progressive steps toward centralization of government power that has continued to build throughout the last 150 years and is currently being manifest in diktat by our current executive. Obama makes no secret of his willingness to impose laws, mandates, and sanctions upon the people that he was elected to lead. Abroad he has been both hawkish at times and sheepish at others, simultaneously throwing our troops under the bus and aiding wars or potential conflicts in Libya, Syria and Iran. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, contrary to his election promises. Our economy is stagnant at best and permanently weakened at worst, and for all his blaming of others Obama is the president and he has done nothing tangible to improve our global economic leadership. While promising to use a "scalpel" on the budget, he racks up more and more debt onto our shoulders and those of our children, with national debt significantly higher than ever before. Our constitutional rights as citizens are looked at by Obama as executive-defined, as he picks and chooses who qualifies for what rights. If you take his list and turn it upside down, Obama would certainly be closer to the number of 4th worst, but he didn't do this by himself. We have given our federal government and its "leaders" unprecedented and undeserved power. If our states, as constitutionally independent and self-governed units, began to exercise their rights and power, we would see a day in which the federal government's willingness to impose mandates at will upon we the people would greatly decrease. For all our sakes, I hope that day comes swiftly.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Faith and Public Life

After I wrote my last post in which I went through my opinions regarding the use of contraception, specifically hormonal contraceptives, I took quite a bit of heat from a variety of individuals. First, those who critiqued me as being "medieval" in my views, sexist, and trying to control women. Second, those who thought that my post tipped the scales on the border of arrogant and irreverent, since I wrote with a heavy dose of sarcasm and with a shortage of respect for the sensitivity of the subject. To all those comments I have this to say: I am passionate about furthering the respect for all persons and the unique dignity that they possess. While I stand to everything I said, I admit that it did come off with a self-righteous tone and for that I am sorry. In light of all this I went through the post and made some adjustments to ensure that my message and sincerity was clear. My meaning is the same, my delivery...less brash. For the entire post, click here.

As much as I mentioned early in that last post that I would try to leave doctrine out of the argument, the fact remains that I cannot entirely remove my faith from any debate which I undertake. Nor should I. In today's secular-driven world we are told be believe that our faith should be private, that we shouldn't "force our views on anyone else". If this is true, where should our faith be manifest? I, like many others, desire to live my life in a way that mirrors my beliefs in a God-centered worldview. How can I be expected to believe something, then leave that belief behind completely in my public life? Furthermore, why would I? If faith really exists in our life, it's because we truly believe it and desire to draw closer to the will of our God.
This doesn't mean that we intend to shove our beliefs down the throats of anyone within earshot. Those who argue that, by allowing faith to influence our public life we are somehow forcing our beliefs on others, insult the intelligence of everyone. By asserting that individuals cannot determine whether or not they agree with the beliefs of someone else, detractors of faith in public life are basically saying that anyone with genuine faith does not belong in the public sphere or they will subvert the vulnerable masses. There has been particular rancor directed at Catholic and Mormon politicians by those who claim these men would try to force their faith into policy. This narrow view would only have any base in reality if politicians began drafting laws that directly benefited their religion, the faithful of their church, or made a particular religion directly tied to the government. In contrast, people of faith typically realize that faith and the American Constitution share common principles: the welfare and betterment of all peoples, a just society in which all persons live as equals, and where respect for all humans from conception until natural death exists. In this light we see that faith may indeed foster a worldview that benefits all of society, not seek theocratic power for a particular church.

This broad understanding of faith and public life applies to all denominations in America. As a Catholic, I can only offer my own experience of how my faith is misunderstood from the perspective of secular society. For example, many people today view Catholicism as an out of touch, sexist, and controlling institution that seeks to somehow overtake the world. From a practical standpoint, I think that the Catholic hierarchy, and the pope in particular, have a pretty limited ability to actually enforce Church doctrine. I mean, compare them to every elected official. If a Catholic ignores a teaching of the Church, no church official comes knocking on their door to drag them to confession or demand higher weekly donations. Then we have our government officials who are more than willing to fine me, tax me, or even jail me for disobeying their civil decrees. Faith is not a compulsory affiliation; no one's forcing you to agree with doctrine. The common and condemning narrative of "you can't tell me that what I'm doing is wrong" is actually an intentional replacement of the more accurate "don't make me question or feel guilty about my choices". Since many people today have an issue with any kind of authority figure telling them the difference between right and wrong, they begin saying that people of faith are trying to strip them of their free will. I'm tempted to pull out a big "PLEASE..." here, but I won't. Instead, I'll reiterate what my picture above is trying to convey - that faith is voluntary, no matter what religion you ascribe to. Hearing the beliefs of a person of faith can neither coerce you to do something or make you believe. It's time society stopped fearing religion and embraced the positive aspects that faith brings to the public sphere.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Demographics

I've added a poll to my blog, in an attempt to better understand the demographics of my blogites. Please take a moment to vote.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

To All My Female Friends:

I love women. I am by no means the perfect guy and have many shortcomings, but I do put a heavy emphasis on respecting the beauty, grace, and dignity of the female half of the world. In light of this, I decided to write about my personal opinion on a very hot topic in our country today: contraception and it's role in society and the lives of individuals. This post will not be theological. I do not plan to go into scripture or church teachings. It is not a commentary on current political events involving contraception. What this post contains is reflections on my personal opinion regarding the use of artificial (hormonal) birth control and the affects that I have witnessed and have been reported. (If you're tempted to stop here...DON'T!)

To begin, I think it's appropriate to give the facts on hormone-based contraceptives. Some of you probably know about about them so I'll make it brief. Hormonal contraceptives use either a single hormone (progesterone) or a combination of two hormones (progesterone and estrogen). Both types use artificial replicas of the actual hormones. The two-hormone combination works to both make the uterine lining uninhabitable for a fertilized embryo and to prevent ovulation. There are differing strengths available, some to completely stop the woman's cycle and others that prevent menstruation for 12 weeks and then allow for 7 days of menstruation. The single-hormone version does not prevent ovulation; rather, by preventing the proper buildup of uterine lining cells, the embryo is unable to properly implant and dies. In the most plain language possible, hormonal contraceptives shut down or severely impair the proper function of the woman's reproductive system.

The first pills were introduced in 1957 following requests by prominent feminist leaders of the time. Some serious dosage reductions occurred after early pills were reported to cause side affects such as nausea, weight gain, blood clots, and stroke; the FDA approved the use of the pill after dosages were lowered. The pill was touted as a major leap in women's rights, because it "equaled the playing field in sexuality" and allowed women to have casual sex without fear of getting pregnant. This very superficial view was short-sighted and ignorant on the ways that the pill would actually affect women. Rather than empower them and make them "equals", it did quite the opposite. (KEEP READING!)

I'm going to assert that women today are respected less than ever before. Margaret Sanger and her lot thought that because women had periods and were the child-bearing sex they were not of "equal status" (and women have historically been mistreated in various cultures, there is no doubt) and the pill would help level the playing field. Unfortunately, the emergence of the pill has often reduced women to objects of pleasure since women can be, in a sense, chemically "sterilized". Aside from the simple fact that I disagree with contraceptives on the basis that they detract from the true meaning of our unique human sexuality, I also abhor the vast negative side affects they have both physical and psychological.

In our world of modern medicine it's unfortunate that hormonal contraceptives, are as pushed as they are. It seems like a simple solution, right? Pop a pill! You'll be so happy! The contraceptive commercials today make you think that you're buying happiness pills, not mentioning the hormones that flood your body and alter its function.

According to cancer.gov oral contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and increase the risk of breast, liver, and cervical cancer. It would seem that if there are any treatments that the government would mandate as integral to women's health, it would be things like cancer screenings and yearly heart assessments, not cancer-causing artificial hormones that are part of a woman's voluntary choices. Preventative health services? If the government is trying to prevent diseases why don't they say "The pill causes more cancers than it prevents...we won't discourage its use because you're free to make your own decisions, but it can potentially kill you." Remember, this isn't a case of a life-saving drug such as chemotherapy having negative side affects. Contraceptives are not necessary for life and health, regardless of what an administration or for-profit organization tells you.

In our all-natural, organic-crazed society that freaks out when we hear apples have toxins in the peels and not washing your grapes can cause, umm, something...why are we so excited to gulp down chemicals that alter our body's function? If we took our ability to make independent, logic-driven decisions and combined that with our modern desire to be chemical free, wouldn't it make sense that we leave outdated, artificial hormone, cancer-increasing contraceptives in the dust? Shouldn't we take a look at the whole picture? It's really no wonder that so many women are getting married, chemically preventing children until their later reproductive years, then become completely astounded at the fact they can't get pregnant.

My take on the main reason contraceptives are so prevalent? People don't understand or aren't aware of other options, like natural family planning (or NFP). Or they have heard of it, but are sure that it cannot be effective enough to ease their mind about the possibility of pregnancy. This method should not be confused with the "rhythm method" that simply guesses at the woman's fertile time each month. Instead, NFP measures physical signs that point exactly to fertile and non-fertile times. It's not easy, but it's effective. The downside? 7-10 days per month of abstinence to avoid pregnancy with 98% effectiveness. It's a totally different mindset than contraceptive use, but it's less intrusive on the body and allows each woman to refocus on the uniqueness of her physiology and the natural signs that are expressed. An added bonus, did you know that couples who use Natural Family Planning to space their children have a 2% divorce rate? True Story.

OK ladies (and gentlemen), I've said quite a bit. You can tell I'm passionate about this. Eventually I want to use this passion to do professional education on the dangers of hormonal contraceptives. In the meantime, please don't allow yourself to be merely an object. Wouldn't it be great to know that your man respected you so much that he wanted to follow your biological clock, rather than change your physiology so your body is available for him whenever he wants? Wouldn't it be liberating to let your own body tell you when you're fertile, not some pharmaceutical company's product? Wouldn't it be cool to see society move just a little back in the direction of respect and dignity? I know it's a stretch, but it starts with you. Think about it.

Friday, February 17, 2012

The Mighty Quinn

At the request of my wise and sensible wife, I am suspending the half-finished, politically-charged piece I was planning to post tonight in favor of something lighter. Don't worry, the aforementioned post will be finished and published before long. For now, on to more lighthearted writ.

I was inspired this evening to reflect on the reasons I appreciate the only other male in our family unit: my little boy. While I feel a special connection with each one of my children, it's safe to say that as a father I have a unique connection with my son. He's fast and tough, but prone to getting injured from taking turns too sharply, attempting ridiculous stunts, or facing the wrong end of the occasional switchin' when he's gotten too far into trouble. He's my "dude", my "feller", the rambunctious little guy that I love so much.
It's difficult to put into words what it feels like, from a man's point of view, to have a son. You see so much of yourself in him, good and bad. You want to guide him while letting his personality and individuality develop. You want to teach him the right ways without dictating each action. It's a delicate balance of father/son, teacher/student, friend/frenemy that pulls me between wanting to be his very best friend and knowing that my duty as a father often takes precedence over how he feels about me in the moment.

I'm proud of my son for a lot of reasons. I could go on and on about his puzzle-solving skills, his early reading abilities, his infectious smile or his fun-loving spirit. I could tell you about his love of swords, football, playing superhero, or wrestling with me as much as I'll let him. Instead, I'm sharing a video that reflects his energy, showmanship, and deep appreciation of his Daddy's music collection. Without further ado...

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The Catholic Church and Democracy

One of my teachers said that 65% of students cheat. That's right, 65%. Against the student conduct policy of ours and all other institutions of learning, 65 out of every 100 students plagiarize, share tests, write on their hands, use their phones, etc in an attempt to get the grade they want, because they're not willing to take the effort to learn properly and honestly to earn the grade the want. So, after assessing the statistics and getting pressured by students to allow cheating for easier grade attainment, many institutions have decided to drop their rules on cheating entirely. Yep, that's right...students are no longer held liable for knowing the information in order to pass a particular class. If a student wants to learn the information for later use they can study and learn, but if they want to bring in their laptop and copy the test answers from Wikipedia, well that's fine too. Not only that, but students at these schools are now able to submit any documentation of their knowledge (without checks for accuracy) to these universities in exchange for a bachelor's degree. Yes, they can actually write out their qualifications, self-determined and without the restrictions of the university, determining whether they deserve a degree. It makes sense though, right? If you can't enforce policies that were meant to ensure that people walking out your doors are prepared for the world outside, just change the rules! Now everyone is happy.

OK, so that was all a fictional account, as I'm sure you might have guessed. No, universities are not dropping the no-cheating policies. In fact, since I've been back in school there has been a full-page addendum with every syllabus I receive detailing what constitutes cheating. The guidelines are quick to point out that expulsion is likely if you are caught cheating. That's pretty much a death toll for a career in your area of study if this happens. Imagine if schools changed their policies based solely on student preference. The ugly possibilities are endless, just use your imagination.

Now, compare this little bit of fiction to the real-life pressure the Catholic Church has faced over the years and is facing even more today regarding their stance on birth control. The popular line goes something like: "65% of Catholics contracept, why doesn't the Church change its stance on contraception and sterilization?" *sigh* This is the argument kids use when they want to go to that questionable party or the like, "Come on Mom, everybody's doing it!" As if parent's judgement is based solely on the "survey says:" model.
[content update: see Cardinal George's comments below:]
Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.
Theoretically, it is argued that there are Catholic voices that disagree with the teaching of the church and therefore with the bishops. There have always been those whose personal faith is not adequate to the faith of the church. Perhaps this is the time for everyone to re-read the Acts of the Apostles. Bishops are the successors of the apostles; they collectively receive the authority to teach and govern that Christ bestowed upon the apostles. Bishops don’t claim to speak for every baptized Catholic. Bishops speak, rather, for the Catholic and apostolic faith. Those who hold that faith gather with them; others go their own way. They are and should be free to do so, but they deceive themselves and others in calling their organizations Catholic.
Cardinal George, 2/26/12
[original blog posted 2/15/12]

The Catholic Church has remained unchanging in their teaching on this issue throughout its entire 2000 year history. In 1968, following the rise of the Sexual Revolution and facing pressure from internal and external forces, Pope Paul IV wrote his encyclical "Of Human Life", a document written to explain the Church's teaching on human sexuality and the great meaning and depth that it entails. In it, Paul IV writes:

In the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control, many have appealed to the demands both of conjugal love and of "responsible parenthood," it is good to state very precisely the true concept of these two great realities of married life...conjugal love reveals its true nature and nobility when it is considered in its supreme origin, God, who is love"
For the entire encyclical, click here.

So should the Church simply drop this beautiful and personal dignity-centered teaching solely on the basis that many of those claiming the title "Catholic" do not agree? Should we give in to society's view that sex is simply a biological means for pleasure that should be "protected" from the unwanted stress and inconvenience of children? Should we agree with many who view pregnancy as an "illness" to be prevented by hormonally stopping a women's normal body function? (this point alone drives my crazy thinking that so many women voluntarily ingest pills and have no idea the long- and short-term affects of it on their bodies) I think the clear argument is that no, the Catholic Church should not change their teaching on sex and contraception due to the pressures of those who don't agree. The Church sees sex as a beautiful gift from God; society sees it as something everybody's going to do because they can't help themselves, so let's sterilize them to prevent more unwanted people. The Church sees a woman's natural biology as a means to space pregnancies. Society sees a woman's natural biology as a stumbling block to hassle-free sex and in need of medical alteration. If we were to follow popular thought and abandon age-old teaching, then many more people would do whatever they want "guilt free"...but it still would not be right.

In America we generally think that democracy is the way to run everything. Let the group decide! Let's get the group consensus! Let's go sit in front of some buildings until they do what we want! That's not how truth works. Don't get me wrong, I think that democracy is the best governmental option that we have, but it's good for government. If the Church, schools, businesses etc all adopted democracy then we would be in a very bad place. Because whether we like it or not, people do need guidance. As an individual I don't know everything. My human nature is pretty weak, and without guidance I would be inclined to do whatever feels best to me in the moment. In matters of faith, education, business, etc this model would result in a complete institutional collapse.

The Church has stood unchanging in its views on this and every matter of morality and ethics since it began 2000 years ago. Even during the early 20th century as almost every other Christian denomination began allowing their members to contracept, the Catholic Church held firm in the assertion that truth stands unchanging, no matter the changes that the world around us should undergo.

I know that I'm part of a literal minority these days. My view is unpopular and often deemed "out of touch" and based on "medieval beliefs". I'm OK with that. I'll continue to get looks when I go out with my wife and four kids age 6 and under. But I'm going to keep embracing that line "You must be Catholic with all those kids!" with pride, because I'm part of a Church that defends God's truth above all else. In this crazy world that's something to be proud of.

Monday, February 13, 2012

The Public Enemas?


Yes, that's what I said, the Public Enemas. Before you continue that thought of Johnny Depp and Christian Bale chasing each other across the 1930's gangsterland American landscape, let me point out that I said "public enemas", not "public enemies". This title is the self-chosen moniker for my 30-member nursing school cohort. I'm sure your first question is something like this: "Why would you name your class after an act involving a public rectal flush?" My answer? I. DON'T. KNOW.

The short story is that on the day of our orientation we were separated into groups to come up with suggestions for our class name. One group got especially adventurous with their names and Public Enemas got nominated. Somehow 9 votes were cast for this name, and I actually think that at least half of them didn't know what they were voting for (sorry if you did!) and the other half must have thought it would be a good laugh. Well, we now claim that name. I feel like I need to wash my hands every time I think about it.

In reality, we never call ourselves the Public Enemas except in jest. The name will probably live on as the class joke and provide endless opportunities to reference ourselves as the crew slapping on the latex gloves and grabbing the warm, soapy water...here we go! Enemas for everyone!

The name aside, I'm blessed to have a good group of people around me. Going into nursing school I was a bit apprehensive that I might not enjoy the company of my classmates. This is definitely not the case. While I've gotten to know some of the group better, I feel that I can look to anyone in our cohort for help in understanding a lesson, reviewing an assessment, or providing insight into a care plan. There's also a camaraderie that's forming; a unified march toward a common goal. I can see our group meshing more and more as we become more comfortable with each other and our various personalities, preferences, and backgrounds. And while I probably drive the group a little crazy with my constant joking commentary (I think I got Karl to the point of either wanting to gag me or gag himself to keep from laughing during lab today) I appreciate the fact that I feel as fully engaged with this group as I could have hoped. I appreciate studying with 3-8 classmates most days after class on the 4th floor library that towers 12 stories over campus. The 4th floor is our place of choice, as it offers a spacious area with group study tables and big screen monitors that we can plug our laptops into and do group test reviews online. I also appreciate the fact that we're a diverse group of post-graduate students who appreciate the value and gravity of education more now than we did the first time around.

So to my fellow Public Enemas, goodnight. And maybe, if the opportunity comes up, we could give ourselves another name. The Foley Catheters is available I hear.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Caesar or Christ?


I am gravely concerned. Very, sincerely, gravely concerned. Why? Perhaps it's the fact that I'm closing in on my 30th birthday (nope), or maybe because I'm 3 weeks away from head-to-toe assessment evaluations (nope) or maybe it's the fact that with four kids under my care I'm seeing the world in a different light (nope). OR...maybe it's the fact that our country is literally pushing itself towards a cliff as we race to the end of the American dream of life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of property. YES!! (you know that property, not happiness, is the actual text?)

I remember that my Grandma used to say how the world was changing for the worse and people were getting so relativistic in their morality, seeking only what made them happy. My mom continued that trend, lamenting the little chinks in the armor of our country's moral fiber that made us so great in such a relatively short span of history. At the time I would chalk part of their sentiment to the unease that any change naturally brings to many people; now, I can say with much certainty that not only were their concerns founded, they were tied right in with our country's slow march toward big-government socialism where our elected officials decide what's best for us and expect us to sit down and take it, because we're too self-absorbed to care about anything that doesn't take away our ability to watch our 60" LED TV before having sterile sex in our 3500 square foot house that's home to me, my girlfriend, and our two dogs. Oh yeah and my custom Mustang.

OK, so you probably can guess that I want to talk about the recent decision by Barack "I think I'm the sun-god Caesar" Obama to force all institutions, including those that are Catholic, to offer abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives through their insurance plans...free of charge. For an excellent primer on why the Catholic Church is right on this issue, follow the link here. Now, for those of you who are not familiar with the current events, I turn to Stephen White at CatholicVote.org:

Here’s how the HHS mandate and the new “accommodation” work.

Then: All employers that don’t meet the narrow “religious exemption,” including Catholic hospitals and universities, are required by law to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception and sterilization procedures with no out of pocket costs to the insured.

Now: All employers that don’t meet the narrow “religious exemption,” including Catholic hospitals and universities, are required by law to provide insurance coverage. All such coverage must include contraception and sterilization procedures with no out of pocket costs to the insured.

You see the difference? No? Don’t worry, the smart people in government (the ones sworn to protect your rights) say it’s all good…


Remember, by "then" and "now", we're talking about a roughly 2-week span from making this policy official, violating the religious liberty of every American citizen by defining what we must believe (yes, even individuals who are not Catholic should be alarmed because, don't worry, you're next!), then re-crafting the accounting in the plan to try and make us feel better for not having to tell our employees that the insurance we provide covers procedures we find morally objectionable.

Obama wrote back to those of us that signed a petition requesting that he rescind this mandate and said that "99% of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives...99%". HOLD THE PHONE! Really, Barocky? Didn't your mama, teacher, law professor etc teach you that it's generally a bad idea to assert that 99% of people do ANYTHING other than the biological functions necessary to stay alive? Who do you think will believe this, and where do you get your statistics? I consider myself a very reasonable person that can see through political schmuckery like this, so I'm gonna give you a pass on this one. You freaked out a little bit, are trying to respond to nearly 30,000 people that signed the one petition asking that you rescind this mandate, so you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is. So you're a bad leader under stress. We knew that. Let's try this one: "free preventative care with no co-pays, including contraceptive services, no matter where they work." OK, here's where I need audience participation...when you hear the words medically necessary what comes to mind? Cancer treatments, emergency appendectomies, setting a broken bone, a C-section when labor goes badly, etc etc etc. How many people out there think that contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs are medically necessary? Raise your hands there folks? Anybody? OK then. Are they necessary for use if you want to stick your private parts wherever, in whoever, whenever without the "consequence" of children? Sure. It's also medically necessary that when I jump out of a plane I secure my parachute or I will die. But are you going to pay for that? No. See, the issue here is that people don't want to use self-control. This whole idea of "preventative services" is the whitewashed version of "free sex for all!" This is really an unsurprising move down that steep slope my mom and grandma talked about where morality and personal responsibility are left in the dust. Like a good friend tells me all the time, "People are OK with saying that it's wrong for me to steal, it's wrong for me to kill, it's wrong for me to judge, this is wrong and that's wrong...once we get below the belt don't you dare tell me what I'm doing is wrong!" So the government protects this sexual liberty by saying that "preventative services" must be free. Free to prevent us from the consequences that true respect for sexuality would bring us: attachment, real love, children, fidelity, stable homes, stable cities, states, countries. Free to objectify women to nothing more than a thing for pleasure. Free to prevent couples from having kids so when they want to divorce there's no "baggage". OK so you see where I'm going with this?

Essentially, I'm really irritated by the attitude of so many people today that believe sex should mostly be divorced from anything but physical pleasure. "Wherever, however, whoever, without consequence". I know that people are going to do what they decide to do and I can't stop them. But, I shouldn't have to pay for their sexual exploits. The government doesn't have a stake in making sure that people get off however they want...as a matter of fact if I was a president I would try to support people that want to have kids. More citizens right? I didn't think we were communist China. Hmmm. That's another post.

So, I'm running out of steam here and my soapbox is starting to lean a little. I love Christ and His teachings more than the government, so believe me when I say that I will not follow this mandate to provide contraceptives to anyone and everyone. Won't do it. Christ, not Caesar.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

The Power of Music

I am a huge fan of music. I enjoy it immensely. I have had an appreciation for music since I was a little kid, growing up in a house where there was music playing regularly and dance parties to the oldies station or Dad's LP's were a regular occurrence. We would move the furniture out of the center of the living room and groove our little feet to the likes of George Benson, Linda Rondstadt, The Doors, Michael Jackson, etc etc etc. Classical music was also a big hit at our house, we'd listen to various albums (on audiotape, no less) while on road trips all over the country. I grew up with an appreciation for various types of music, and my range of music taste only expanded through high school and college as I began to add contemporary groups like Collective Soul, Matchbox Twenty, 3 Doors Down, Goo Goo Dolls, Creed, and U2 to my favorites. I would listen to music whenever I had a chance. Like my cousin-in-law (is that actually a term) John once said, "Music is Chris' anti-drug".

At the end of my freshman year in college a friend gave me a copy of the Gladiator soundtrack to borrow. I promptly copied it and played it over and over all through finals. At that point in time, listening to the powerful movement of the wordless music, I began to really realize the power that music has over the human heart and mind. In a very real way, music can help us stay in or move out of emotional states. If we're upset many of us will either listen to angry music to stay upset, or listen to uplifting music to help lift us back up. If we're feeling happy we're probably going to listen to something that will keep us happy. I like to listen to high-energy, hard-driving music while I'm running, as it keeps my adrenaline flowing and prevents me from hearing my own loud breathing. I'm sure many of you have similar habits.

I had a fascinating revelation while sitting in my Human Physiology class last fall. My professor was talking about the auditory nerves and the fact that science can explain how we can hear, but it cannot explain the "musical experience". This really gave me pause. We have established scientific explanations for our ability to receive, process, and interpret the meaning of soundwaves as they hit our eardrum, travel through the olfactory nerve, and are recognized as sound by the corresponding area of our brain. What we can't explain is how our brain manages to translate sound into emotions of all kinds. I know that when I hear a particularly moving song I am unable to resist the sensory flood that it produces; I am unashamed to say that I cry at hearing Ave Maria, get chills when listening to the Hallelujah Chorus, and am hypnotized by the sound of Ravel's Bolero. There is no scientific explanation for music's affect on the brain, its ability to stimulate an emotional/hormonal response in our bodies, or the total experience that music manifests. With nothing else to explain it, I thank God for the gift of music and the link it gives us to the divine.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Being a Daddy

Daddy...Daddy...Daddy...DAAADDDDYYYY!!!! Have you ever heard that sound before? I hear it all the time. Rather, my eardrums pick up the sound of one of my little's voices but my brain doesn't always register it...at all. Yes, I am one of the 99%. One of the 99% of dads suffering from post-audible assault syndrome. It's a result of my kids rather whiny voices shooting at me with impatience as I'm on the phone, in the bathroom, studying, helping one of their siblings, etc...but the general result is that my brain is self-conditioned to hear them less. And I do feel bad about that. I love my kiddos, I love them more than anything else God has given me save my wife. But being a daddy isn't easy and it isn't always fun.

When we first got married and were getting ready to start a family I had this idea that child-rearing was basically a matter of example. Baby see, baby do. I'll just be a good daddy and do the right things and the kids will soak it all up and they will do good things too! BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha...*sob*...ha!!!! I know right, how naive!

All joking aside, the truth is that parenting is difficult. It's a constant task that requires real love and dedication. Kids are definitely little sponges and they happen to have a mind of their own. The combination of their own little wills, my manifest parental imperfections and inexperience, and you end up with kids that still need direction, discipline, constant reminders, etc...all day long. This cuts to the core of the issue: having kids is all about being a parent, not just having kids. It's about doing the difficult things that shape our little ones into responsible individuals, good Christian citizens, caring souls.

Ultimately, the trials of parenting are outweighed by the joys. I get so much happiness from my little ones, watching them grow and develop in some ways that remind me so much of Monica and me and in other ways their individuality blossoms. My littles are so excited to play with me, it really is humbling how much they look up to me and seek my time and attention. Whether it's having "Daddy wrestle time", dance parties, reading time or sing-alongs in the car, they treasure the time I give to them as much as I treasure their presence. So, I need to begin the reversal process on my daddy hearing problem and tune in a little better to the message beneath their yelling. It's not just "Daddy, I need!", but "Daddy, I need you." They're a blessing no matter how I look at it, a source of joy and fun and love. I pray that I will continue to be the daddy they deserve and thank God for the four little gifts He has entrusted to me.

Friday, January 27, 2012

The Value of a Friend

Do you ever have that moment when a friend calls you out of the blue to say "I was thinking about you today...I hope things are going well in your life" right when you expect it the least but you need it the most? It's a really good feeling, and I've had a couple friends call me recently right when I needed to take five and talk with a buddy.

While I appreciate the times that friends call from far and wide to offer encouragement and give reprieve from my studying, I often overlook the fact that my closest friend and confidant lives right under the same roof. Yes, it's true...my wife Monica is my very best friend. Almost seven years of marriage, four kids/two houses/career changes and being back in school she's still the one I love the mostest. But amidst the daily grind of classes at Kent, drive time to and from campus, studying at home, Monica teaching T in kindergarten, wrangling the other littles, getting breakfast, lunch, dinner, baths, diapers, bedtime...I (often) forget that she would like to hear about how my day went, whether anything exciting went on, and whether I'm actually interested in the things that SHE experienced that day.

Monica sat down at my side yesterday while I was engrossed in some nursing terminology on my laptop; she just sat there for a few minutes until, evidently exasperated with my continued zombie-like focus on a digital screen she sweetly closed the computer, looked at me with her beautiful blue-green eyes, and mentioned that I was the one who spends 8-10 hours of my day in an environment not dominated by little people under the age of six, and I actually get to have regular grown-up conversation. Yeah, I forget that sometimes. The fact is, I do get to talk with interesting people and learn some pretty interesting stuff every day, while my lovely wife dedicates her entire day to caring for our kids. I know other husbands and wives out there experience this same situation or one very similar on a regular basis. I'm going to try hard to break the trend and spend a little additional time dedicated to my very best friend. Shoot, I think I'm gonna log out of this thing and go talk with her now...until later my friends!