Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

2012 Election: Moral Issues Are Critical

Sunday, September 30th, 2012

by Bishop Thomas John Paprocki

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the “ayes” and the “nays” sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, “The ayes have it!”

What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently “rare” is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion “regardless of the ability to pay.” Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that “gay rights are human rights,” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

Certainly there are “pro-choice” Republicans who support abortion rights and “Log Cabin Republicans” who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.   (Bold and  italics type are the blogger’s.)  For an excellent 4 minute video on the constitution and this upcoming election, listen to this video made by teens from San Diego High School.

MEDICAL RELEASE FORM When Choosing Not to Breastfeed

Sunday, August 26th, 2012

(With a strong insistence on N.Y. mothers to breastfeed in hospitals, I thought this medical release form was appropriate.)

NAME OF THE BABY:__________________

SITUATION:  I have chosen not to breastfeed my baby for personal and/or for medical reasons.   I understand that not-breastfeeding entails health risks to my baby and to myself.  While my formula-fed baby may be healthy, I understand that research shows that breastfed children are overall healthier as babies and also in their later years compared to their formula-fed peers.  While I may be healthy now and in later years, I understand that research shows that I may suffer some adverse consequences from not breastfeeding.

RECOMMENDATIONS:*  Mothers should do exclusive breastfeeding for six months and nurse for at least one year.  Anything less is second best.

ALTERNATIVE:  I may choose to use donated breastmilk.

RISKS OF NOT-BREASTFEEDING:*
I understand that medicine, breastfeeding, and formula-feeding are not exact sciences.  I understand, however, scientific research shows that not-breastfeeding exposes my baby to increased risks of the following diseases:
•leukemia  •lymphoma  •type 1 diabetes  •obesity  •diarrhea  •type 2 diabetes  •allergies      •ear infections    •respiratory tract infections  •asthma  •eczema  •urinary tract infections  •bacterial meningitis  •multiple sclerosis  •inflammatory bowel disease  •botulism •gastroenteritis  •necrotizing enterocolitis  •Crohn’s disease  •ulcerative colitis •autoimmune thyroid disease  •sudden infant death syndrome

I realize my child may have poorer school performance with lower cognitive scores during grade school and high school.  Likewise there might be more doctors visits and hospital visits because I did not breastfeed.

By not breastfeeding I understand that I, as the biological mother, may have an increased risk for the following diseases: • breast cancer  • ovarian cancer  • lupus  • thyroid cancer  • anemia  • osteoporosis (increased chance of a hip fracture)  • endometrial cancer • rheumatoid arthritis

I hereby certify that I have read (or have had read to me) and understand the possible risks of not breastfeeding my baby, whether by choice or for medical reasons.  All of my questions regarding the risks have been answered to my satisfaction.
Mother’s Signature:_____________________________Date:____________________
Witness/Professional Signature:__________________________Date:______________

*The above recommendations and risks are found at the following websites:  American Academy of Pediatrics: aap.org, American Academy of Family Physicians: aafp.org, and the U. S. Breastfeeding Committee: usbreastfeeding.org.  See USBC’s “The Benefits of Breastfeeding” and “The Economics of Breastfeeding.”

© 2006 Sheila Kippley.   Reproduction permission is given for purposes of breastfeeding education.  This release was adapted from the release form her husband had to sign before eye surgery.

Motherhood: The Highest Calling

Sunday, August 12th, 2012

In the evening of July 24, I happened to turn on talk radio while working in the kitchen and began listening to Dave Ramsey’s talk show on finances.  Mr. Ramsey is a popular national radio personality and a personal money-management expert who, to me, seems to stress being debt-free.  Several questions that night dealt with finances so that the mother could stay home with her children.

He listed the expenses a working mother with young children incurs, and it came to $25,000— similar to what the experts were saying about ten years ago.

I was especially impressed with his emphasis on the importance of being there for your children.  As he said, “the highest calling is motherhood.”  And he repeated himself, that he could think of no higher calling.  Thank you, Mr. Ramsey.  It is so rare to hear that kind of statement today.  I’m sure it was appreciated by many mothers who hope to stay home with their children.

Sheila Kippley