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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.