What about actually looking after kids?

The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian have each published prominent articles on child care in the last 2 days.

Starting with the Herald, it blurted out the headline “Childcare fine for babies”. Hooray, Hooray, Hooray for us all!  A mother was interviewed and happily confided in that she no longer needed to feel “guilty” (hooray etc).

Now what caused all this commotion?  A couple of studies.  These found that a kid kept in a childcare since being a baby didn’t show any real difference in behaviour to a kid introduced into childcare as a toddler.  The moral – don’t feel bad about putting babies in childcare. 

Of course, the story didn’t consider any of the following:

·        How is this information relevant to whether a child deserves to be cared for by its parents from birth?

·        Assuming that all toddlers are the same after being in the prison yard for a few months, how does this justify putting them there in the first place?

·        Are the child’s wishes relevant?

All nonsense.

Next the Australian. This story was a bit more realistic and serious.   

It turns out that kids whose parents split, and are required to live half their lives with each parent (called “shared care” in the biz), don’t find that any too secure (thank goodness someone worked this one out).  According to the study, what gives security is a child feeling that the child’s and the parents’ lives are integrated.  The report emphasised that parents need to understand that concepts like ‘equality of time’ (so as to create a perceived fairness between the parents) do not translate to the child’s world. 

Isn’t there another debate going around where we hear adults crying about ‘equality’. It’s a pity that a national paper cannot write a similar story about that situation.

Mercy and children

This is not an upbeat post, but that is often the nature of mercy.

Western countries still have procedures for 'pauper's burials'. These take place where the deceased either has no survivors or where the survivors do not have the means to bury the departed.

The processes are all much the same - the dead are gathered at a mortuary and once a sufficient number are 'collated', they are buried (or in Australia usually cermated) together in mass graves. In New South Wales, the number to a grave is 6, but in other countries it can be many, many more. There is no funeral service and the grave is left entirely unmarked.   

In New York, pauper's burials take place at Hart Island, known as the 'Potter's field'.  Over 850,000 people are buried there, with about 1,500 being added each year, even to this day.  To save on expenses, prisoners from a nearby island-jail conduct the burials and maintain the island. 

Cruelly, many of the dead are children, either born (and died) in poverty or found dead after being abandoned.  A cross erected on the island brings the situation into relief. Simply reading the inscription on the monument leads one automatically to prayer.   This is about as an anonymous end to a life on earth as could be imagined.

Upon learning of all of this, I began to understand that there is something merciful in burying the dead, a traditional corporal work of mercy.

Of course one of the most tragic of all cases of destitute burial (as it is known in Australia) is where the body of an abandoned newborn baby is discovered. When this occurs in the city where I live, it often makes the news, and in the end there is sufficient public feeling for a proper funeral service and burial to be mercifully arranged. But that is not always the case.

In South Australia there is presently legislation being considered to create what is often known as a 'baby safe-haven' scheme. The idea is that mothers who either abandon their newborn babies, or worse kill them, often do so in very confused psychological circumstances. (These circumstances are such that infanticide can act as a partial defence to undiluted murder in New South Wales.)  The purpose of the scheme is to allow distressed mothers a place where they can anonymously leave the baby which will then be adopted out.  The child, sadly, is unlikely to ever learn who its mother is, but it will be alive and not joining those in the pauper's grave.

This is one part of the world in which we live so easily forgotten, if ever learnt of in the first place. 
 

Attachment parenting – attachment marrying

Attachment parenting is becoming quite popular, if only as a parenting buzz word. It earned a recent Time magazine cover and a corresponding SMH story attracted hundreds of comments.

A recent article in The Catholic Herald published by the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Virginia contained a fresh perspective on atachment. 

It is written by Elizabeth Foss, a homeschooler and Charlotte Mason devotee. Elizabeth, as an undergraduate at the university of Virginia was taught by Mary Ainsworth, a Canadian psychologist known for her work with respect to emotional attachment between parents and their children.

The article begins with a disturbing statistic - most divorces occur when the kids are old enough to leave home. The parents are left behind to find, adopting the words of Pink Floyd, that "we have grown older and we have grown colder and nothing is very much fun anymore".  Elizabeth anecdotally recalls a vividly seared memory of the collapse of a seeming successful marriage in such circumstances. Marriages ending this way mirror the slow collapse of a star:

“[Such] marriages die the slow death of emotional distance over time."

She further comments on one contributing cause of this

"Marriages fail because spouses are not attached to one another. Marriages fail because couples reach out to one another and find no one there.”

Elizabeth the suggests that ‘attachment theory’ should be capable of being extended to marriage, because couples like children need to know that someone is there for them:

“They need to know that when the winds blow, they can find safe harbor in each other’s arms. They need to know that God has brought them together to be ministers to one another and that He won’t abandon them in their earnest seeking to shelter each other’s souls.”

I commented in an earlier post about Monsignor David Bohr’s excellent book ‘The Diocesan Priest’. One chapter of the book discusses the indelible mark left upon the priest’s soul upon the conferring of Holy Orders. ‘Indelible’ such a powerful word, reminiscent of baptism, and no doubt an awesome and fearful experience for a young priest. Elizabeth develops a similar idea in relation to the sacrament of marriage (which of course binds for life), which creates a bond between the souls of the wedded, and which can be enhanced by attachment:

“We [Catholics] believe that the sacrament of matrimony confers grace. We also believe that it forges a bond between husband and wife. With this bond, a moral change occurs in our very souls. We are called to cling to one another. To attach. Sacramental marriage is attachment at its healthy best.”

She then finishes by reminding the reader of the importance of the attachment between parents. I remember reading parenting books emphasising the importance of the child seeing that their mother’s and father’s first love (after God) is between themselves. Elizabeth puts an attachment spin on this idea:

“We often think of the attachment between mother and child as the deepest human attachment. Perhaps we should reconsider. In marriage, God calls a man and a woman to a deep and permanent union where they can cooperate with Him to bring new life into the world. They are called to grow ever closer to one another and to God as they live sacrament day to day in their homes, secure in the knowledge that marriage itself is a channel of divine grace. They create an enduring domestic Church, a haven of secure love, and together they are a testament of faith to the world.”

Elizabeth Foss has a strong internet presence and lots of valuable resources for attachment parenting and homeschooling at elizabethfoss.com

 

The Church in China

I’m reading a (somewhat surprisingly) interesting book at the moment, The Diocesan Priest by Mons David Bohr – only about $7 on Kindle.

Some nice themes come through in the book. One of the first is the way that in the very early days of the Church, its members were enveloped in it. These men and women were the ones who had to (just simply had to) spread the Church. While the rank and file were theologically led by Apostles and their successors, given the (lack of) size of the Church and the newness of its mission in the world, it was up to all the members to spread its word. An analogy can be made with my cricket team (or indeed Dachshund breeders). There is a core group of about 10 of us. People come and go from time to time, and if we want to keep the team going, we have to do something about it. There is no one else. It is our team - our flame to maintain.

The next theme (which is still being developed – I am not finished the book) occurs as time passed and circumstances changed. The Church ceased being ‘grassroots’ and had to become more institutionalised as it grew in size, acceptance and territory. Public and specifically defined roles began to develop. Church activities came to take place in more specifically defined and public places. With this growth, there was a greater emphasis on the role of the clergy as being the persistent public face of the Church, and church buildings came to be the public place of the church. I take that it slowly became possible (not necessary) for the laity, in public church matters, to sit back. The consecrated religious became the public mission-pushers. (Of course, in private, it is always the married laity who raise the next generation, and hence supply the next candidates for the public mission, and hence are central to that mission.)

It seems trite that the Church today in much of the world is still in this institutionalised stage. Moreover, modern Australian society easily facilitates (almost forces) lifestyle compartmentalism so that instutional involvements can be isolated and need not mix with other public activities. For instance, in the workplace there is usually no real need for anyone to know what religious belief you hold. It is not even clear how someone would know your creed simply from your external signs (religious artefacts aside). This is a shame and a challenge and not a great reflection on Sydney circa 2012.

Considering the above, it is particularly refreshing to read of a modern day place where the Church’s institutionalised structure is not strictly established and where being a Catholic is likely to be noticed, so that if you wanted to (or had to) you would probably need to go to some effort to keep it hidden (or underground). The place I have in mind is China, in particular Shanghai.

The Diocese of Shanghai recently ordained a new auxiliary bishop - Bishop Ma Daqin. As far as I understand the news stories,  as a priest Bishop Ma was associated with the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association . That Association is government controlled and in tension with the Holy See. Upon his ordination as a bishop, he announced to his congregation that he was now leaving the Association to concentrate on his new responsiblity. The Bishop’s move is essentially an act of defiance. He has not been seen since, and is thought to have been detained. Now that’s not compartmentalised living.

It is also worth reflecting on the building in which this announcement took place – St Ignatius Cathedral. Built by Jesuits in the early 1900s, it was seized by the Communists in the 1960s, suffered extensive vandalism including the tearing down of its spires, smashing its windows and then turned it into a grain warehouse. In the late 1970s it reopened. The first Mass in the vernacular was celebrated in 1989, and the cathedral is still undergoing repairs.

Isn’t this a different perspective on being a Catholic in society.

Nuns, orthodoxy and the media

More about nuns and media
Apologies if this rambles a bit, but I would like to start collecting some of these ideas.

Past posts on this site have been critical of unorthodoxy in religious life, including with some nuns. They will probably continue to be so – but it should also be considered that dissent from orthodox positions is not always harmful, certainly need not be so, and can sometimes be of benefit to the orthodox position.

American nuns
I recently watched some interviews with Sister Joan Chittister, an American Benedictine. She is a regular (secular and religious) media interviewee, very intelligent and well spoken. She also conveys a natural sense of compassion and mercy in the way that she interviews, which I find sort of makes you want to agree with her. 

Also, and like anyone who notices the religious media, and of course the secular media when religious issues boil over the divide, I am aware of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious’ dissent against the Church’s criticism of aspects of their views following an apostolic visitation and doctrinal assessment. This has lead to a nun-driven US bus tour (‘Nuns on the bus’ - only in America, which also protested some Republican proposed budget measures) and a secular media flare-up following the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s censure of Sr Margaret Farley’s book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics.

Sr Margaret Farley is also reported as being a particularly genuine and reflective person, which I imagine is true.

Nonetheless, these women raise issues that do not fall squarely within Church doctrine. What I would like to examine here is how this matter is approached publically. That is, what are the circumstances in which you and I come to hear about it, as we most likely do not know any of the protagonists first hand.

Firstly, there is the way in which such issues are presented in the secular media. Secondly, there is the way in which the Church itself, without recourse to the secular media, approaches views of members in dissent. The first of these – the secular media approach – only seems to have the capacity to distort reality and divide. The second, which probably cannot be successfully presented in the secular media, can be of benefit to all Church members for different reasons.

Media issues
Needless to say, the issues raised by the Church and the nuns have found themselves in the secular media. Why is that? I think it is because it allows presentation of a dispute which is attractive to subscribers to that media. The general approach, so it seems to me, is for the doctrinal issues raised by the Church to be portrayed as a cruel and calculating bishop-driven, out-of-touch-Vatican stomping upon innocent, lovable nuns (Get Religion has many posts on this, see also Russel Reno’s recent post on First Things ). This style of reportign was probably best exemplified with the press coverage of Sr Farley’s book

It should be trite to observe that such coverage seems to benefit nobody. I suspect that it must also offer the ‘darlings’ of the story the temptation of power – they are media currency and can have their views expressed in the public (for a time) seemingly at will. An Australian exemplar of this occured a few years ago with (the now former) Fr Peter Kennedy – the parish priest of St Mary’s in South Brisbane who lost the plot (including placing Buddhist statues in his Church), and became an ABC favourite for a few weeks, only to now be forgotten. In respect of the recent US nuns issue see here for example, ).

And now for the good in all of this
I do not agree with Sr Joan’s positions on most matters, and nor with Sr Farley (not that I am a scholar of either of their views in any depth). However, I regard their positions to be of value for two reasons.

The first is that these women seem to me to present their views in a respectful and non-confrontational manner. They also appreciate that their views on some issues are not those of the Church. That they can present their views shows that the Catholic Church is a broad church in which people can express different views which can be discussed. This does not change the Church teaching, but it shows that the problem to disagreement is not simply to silence or expel people, or for people to think that have no recourse but to break away (as it feel is more of a pressure point in the Anglican Church).

It reminds me of Robert Frost’s poem A Minor Bird:

I have wished a bird would fly away,
And not sing by my house all day;

Have clapped my hands at him from the door
When it seemed as if I could bear no more.

The fault must partly have been in me.
The bird was not to blame for his key.

And of course there must be something wrong
In wanting to silence any song.

A chance for spring cleaning
The second point is that serious consideration (not acceptance) of such positions should be taken seriously as a means to reaching a deeper orthodox theology and understanding of the Church. Quoting from Michael Novak’s recent book No One Sees God (considering confronting atheism), arguments that try and cut across your own position can often be beneficial.

“[They] awaken [you] from complacency, force [you] to confront new arguments and to think more deeply about older ones. It tempers the hubris, self-satisfaction, and unreasoning enthusiasm too often visible among people of faith. It pops balloons of airy assumptions and facile answers. It hoists complacent believers on the petard of their carelessness self-contradictions. It invites the minds of believers to become firmer, sharper and tougher."
In other words, carefully considering the arguments of those opposed to you, you gain the chance to strengthen your own position by dealing with your opponent’s view of the matter, which you may not have realised to that point in time.

An abortion example
I think one current example of this, but from the other side of the spectrum, is Peter Singer’s position on abortion.

As I understand Singer’s argument, he differs from most (at least from my experience) pro-abortion people. Singer does not assert that an unborn child is not deserving of legal protection on the basis that it is not a living being. He accepts that it is, and
regards arguments otherwise as resorting

“to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive.”

I take it that such an argument is unorthodox to pro-abortionists. If it was put by a pro-lifer, it would be a heretical pronouncement, since (as I imagine it) for the pro-abortionist if the unborn are living, then much of their argument is undermined. But if considered as an argument by Singer (someone in their camp), it can be considered as something with which they seriously need to contend. It needs to be weighed up. (Hopefully, it would be accepted, but that this would lead to a pro-life position on the basis that they could not then accept Singer’s next proposition that morally some life does not warrant protection.)

So too it can be with the positions of the Sisters. Their arguments should give us occasion to sharpen our own positions by reflecting on their own.

Creeping insidiousness

Recently at work a colleague noticed me playing with a small string of coloured beads and asked about them. "My daughter made these.  It's a rosary ring."  No response besides a quiet 'oh' and a smile.

Why nothing more? In my office I have a few (non-religious) pictures by my daughter.  When first hung, these drew comments and conversation - how cute etc. But why silence when a religious artifact is presented?  I think there may be two reasons.  The first is that many people do not really know how to comment on religion when presented in the public square.  If you and a colleague walk past, say two Mormons, what is said between you?  It is something to be kept at home, in church grounds or maybe as a car sticker. 

Secondly, and I suspect that this probably applies more to the university educated believers in nothing (besides Westfield and evening television) - religious expression in a child is a cause for concern (as championed lately by Dawkins spouting indoctrination etc).  Over the next few weeks I may run a few workplace experiments in this respect to test my theory.

If the above is true, and there is a cringe factor in some circles about things like religious displays children etc, my suspicion for its cause falls on (not solely) media saturation of a particular point of view until you are berated into accepting it.  This morning I came across an instance.

A Federal member of parliament was commenting on marriage laws. He supports gay marriage but does not think it has the numbers to successfully pass as a new law.  He suggested (and note that this was the second story from the top all morning on Australia's public broadcaster) that the Federal government (of which he is not a member - he's in the opposition) try and pass a law about 'civil unions' for gays. He thinks that this law has some prospect of passing, and that it can serve as a needed step to acceptance of gay marriage - ie he suggests an incremental approach. 

Anyhow, and this is the insidious bit, the news story (like so, so many on this topic) was focused through a gay rights group's disgust with the proposal, along these lines:

Newsreader (in his most important voice): "A prominent gay rights group has slammed Malcolm Turnbull's suggestion that ..."

The point, of course, is that if this story is fed to you as a 'rights issue' in the sense of this being an unfair thing to say (because it was not 100% in support of gay marriage), and so to is every other story, and such stories are common, and such stories receive top billing in news, then how can it be long before it becomes very hard to resist this line of thought?  And more so for believers in nothing (besides Westfields).

I am  now wondering if the 'faint praise' or silent response to the rosary ring was an instance of a society manufactured response about religion. 

The brand new Venerable

Fulton Sheen is now venerable: the Venerable Fulton Sheen.

No Catholic writer or speaker has had more influence on me than Fulty. 13 or so years ago, and with no real knowledge of Fulton Sheen, I purchased a cassette with two sermons from one of his 'open retreats' - 'Continuing Calvary' and 'Zealous Fools for Christ's Sake'. I must have listened to them at least 30 times. Fulton's words still haunt my thoughts.

Fulton Sheen had many, many themes, one of which was the way in which religious people should present themselves to the world. This had two aspects, the external and the internal, and both were important.

Externally, Fulton compared religious to ambassadors - they should have a certain pride in whom they speak for and represent, and this should be outwardly reflected. They should not (as he put it) 'denude' the collar or habit. They should be easily identifiable as standing for Christ and his Church. But this was not all - there was a danger in the love of the 'garb' alone, a false air about it (probably akin to the disgraced founder of the Legionaries of Christ - always looking so proper but being so hollow). This was where the internal came in.

Fulton always pushed the internal: his daily holy hour; his insistence on having the tabernacle present so that you genuflect before Christ - "you're going to meet him as judge some day" he'd quip. There could not be one without the other.

It is this combination of an external Catholic presence tempered by an internal Catholic presence that I hope will now be revealed in spiritual biographies of Fulton. He has not become Venerable by being famous, but by living a life of heroic virtue, and it is discovering this that we can now look forward to. In particular, given his fame, we can hopefully come to see how the 'clay' that was Fulton kept it all in perspective. How, as he put it, he “kept his eyes on Christ”.

Now to finish - two final matters. The photo below is dear. It represents two great Catholic moments of the 20th Century touching - one era ending and a new one beginning. Blessed Pope John Paul II, fit and energetic, embracing a weakened and aged Venerable Fulton Sheen in St Patrick's Cathedral in New York. This was taken only months into JPII's papacy and months before Fulton's death. It is a baton change in the Catholic relay race.

Finally, the video below is the touching story of one of the miracles attributed to Fulton's intercession. It is pleasing to see a miracle openly discussed, and the way the evets are told gives an insight into the normality (albeit within a medical emergency) within which the miracle occurred - the request for intercession as a normal part of life.

Good on you Venerable Fulton and pray for us.

An outsider's perspective

An interesting titbit. A friend is getting married. He would like to do so in a Catholic Church. He's no regular Churchgoer but knows that I am.

A few weeks ago, from nowhere, he asked what I knew about the Franciscans – a Fransciscan friar is the marriage celebrant. My answer - not much.

Being asked questions like this, particularly on the spot, particularly when asked by a non or nominal Catholic, and particularly when you cannot give the answer, often forces a direct examination of just how much better you should understand your Church.

Nonetheless, I gave him the little I knew. The Franciscans were founded by St Francis (“You can take it that I know that much” he replied), are a particularly large order and have a lot of 'spin offs' (for want of a more ecclesiastical term) each with different characteristics. The Franciscans also have a lot of saints, including, recently, Padre Pio, a Capuchin.

He asked about the Franciscan way of life, and I said it was exemplified by simplicity and poverty. I relayed some limited experience of mine with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who give supply priests to my parish. These friars live very simply, and make sacrifices like wearing sandals without socks year around and not taking holidays.

He said that he had always thought that the friars were meant to live simply, and was seeking my confirmation.  He explained that the one he had met was wearing new Diesel jeans.

I felt embarrassed for my Church.

Recently, my friend provided the latest instalment of his Catholic experiences. It turns out that he and his fiancé went to Sunday Mass with these same Franciscans, but he came away disappointed and even confused. Now why do you think? Because there was too much incense? Too many pious hymns and genuflecting? No. Because he found nothing sacred and, as he said, an obvious desire by the celebrant to bring it all down a notch or two - to bring God to our level.

The first thing that surprised him was that during the Mass, which happened to occur during NADOC week, each opportunity was taken to make reference to the Aborigines. He said it almost became embarrassing. Next, was the sermon. Now, the Gospel that day was Jarius’ daughter. With its strong narrative, that’s a pretty good draw for an irregular churchgoer. But the celebrant used it to explain his own love for food, by making passing reference to how Jesus asked that the little girl be fed after the miracle. He spoke about the joys of food.

Finally, and I find this part the most interesting (and consider that it shows a depth of ‘natural religion’ in my friend), he could not understand why distributing communion was not the priest's province alone, particularly given that there were less than 100 people in attendance. He explained, as though this was likely to be news to me, that just before communion these people came up from the congregation to assist handing out Holy Communion. He was baffled.

In a way this is all good news. It reminds me of Fulton Sheen's story of a man who saw a lack of reverence and asked Fulty to explain what was wrong with his Church. As Bishop Sheen said "I then did - and a few months later received him into the Church". The man realsied that there was something sacred in the Church, and the start of his journey was his 'natural' repulsion (by a non-churchgoer) at seeing something that is obviously meant to be sacred treated without due reverence.

Good and bad news - Bishop Robinson

Last weeks Catholic Weekly (the Catholic newspaper in New South Wales) ran a large advertisement for an upcoming 'forum' with Bishop Robinson.  The show is being put on by 'Catalyst for Renewal' and the 'Aquinas Academy'.

For those who may not know,  Bishop Robinson is a retired auxiliary bishop of the Sydney Archdiocese and had become a controversial figure for his liberal position on sexual morality. In fact, he now goes on speaking tours which attack the church's position on such matters, all under the guise of him trying to start a 'conversation' or something similar.

Catalyst for Renewal and the Aquinas Academy are likewise liberal organisations and in this respect they also have a fair bit in common with the Broken  Bay Institute (an earlier post). 

As a brief aside, it is interesting to note one striking similarity between these institutions: their logos.  In each case, theorganisation hasa logo that claims to be Christian, including having deep theological significance in their imagery but to any man on the street would seem entirelynon-Christian. Have a look:

Anyhow, and getting back to the story, for the past few years Bishop Robinson and the Catalys for Renewal have been putting on events in Sydney. These are typically given provocative names like 'Power and sex in the church'. To its credit, the Sydney Archdiocese has nothing to do with these - they cannot even be held on Church property (which calls into question why the Catholic Weekly ran the ad). Instead, they are currently held at a Salvation Army hall, which is seen, by attendees, as a badge of honour. 

Now, how can this be good news (as the headline has promised)?  It is this - if you look at the You Tube videos of one of these events, you will see much of the usual - priests without collars, the audience laughing at any joke at the expense of the Pope etc.  But you will also see a very greying and aging audience - much older than I would have imagined.

There are not the numbers of youth marching proudly down the street at Sydney's recent Corpus Christi parade.  Instead, and this is one matter that I am looking to explore generally on this blog - this is an older generation hanging onto (or so it seems to me) an outpost of Kumbaya-ism.

So while this mob may get a bit of press in the more liberal parts of the Catholic world (Eureka Street etc), and the odd ad in the Catholic Weekly (perhaps through bad judgment) this type of event may be fading out. 

Surrogacy battle continues

In an earlier post, suggested amendments to Queensland surrogacy laws were noted. These form part of a broader roll back of same sex laws by Queensland's new government - the Liberal National Party with a huge, huge majority. As part of the roll back, same sex couples will not now be able to have state-sanctioned civil unions, but can instead 'register' their relationship (which, so I take it, will provide various civil rights).

On Friday, the Queensland government formally announced that it would amend surrogacy laws to prohibit surrogacy being available to same sex couples.   Below comment is made on selected media coverage of the surrogacy announcement, but prior to that, one concern about the proposed change is worth considering. 

The concern is this - the proposed amendments to surrogacy laws do not remove the availability of surrogacy all together, but only to same sex couples.  While I regard the proposed change to be in the best interests of the child (as per the earlier post), those interests would be far better served by a total ban on the practice. This is not just because surrogacy is a very troubling notion in itself, but (and as explained below) because the proposed changes risk further legitimising the practice of surrogacy amongst heterosexual couples. To illustrate, contrast this situation with 'gay marriage'. 


In gay marriage debates, arguments against same sex marriage often focus upon marriage as being the natural 'institution' between heterosexual couples within which families are created (all things being equal) and then raised. Marriage has a natural connection to heterosexuality that it does not have with same sex couples - same sex marriage, on this analysis, is impossible. 

By contrast, surrogacy is not natural in the first place. It needs legitimisation from the outset. The very idea of a mother becoming pregnant with the sole pre-pregnancy intention of giving a child away does not strike as natural. 

The changes to surrogacy laws, if considered as being in the same sphere of debate as gay marriage (ie a gay rights issue), mean that the Queensland government is effectively saying that surrogacy is legitimate when used by heterosexual couples (in the same way that marriage is) but not by same sex couples.  In the circumstances, the appropriate thing to do would be to ban surrogacy.  We can only wish.

Turning back to the media coverage of the issue, consider the following:

The ABC's current affairs radio story got into the act by using language such as the government 'delivering another blow' and dropping 'bombshells' and 'vowing' to 'write out' gay rights. No surprises here, but it does provide the chance to reflect upon the way that media coverage can seep into your world view by telling you what to believe. You listen to this story and it seems as though a great injustice has been occasioned. No real effort is made to explain why the laws are being changed, and what the perceived benefits of the change are.

Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald has a story about "kowtowing to right wingers" .

One of the more balanced articles was in the Brisbane Times, which ran a headline that suggested that there may be some sort of rationale to all of this - "Childlessness a 'consequence of homosexuality'".

The fight goes on.

And a better Christian

If you are in the mood for a simply wonderful short story about virtue and a dog (as people often are), have a look at Henry Lawson's 'That there dog of mine'. 

What makes this story so perfect is that the dog is not particularly anthropomorphised. The dog is allowed to be its natural dog-self, and it is the humans who are encouraged to reflect upon the defects in their own lives by observing and anthropomorphising aspects of the dog's nature which, if learned as human virtue, would make the humans all the better.   Another dog story that does this exceptionally well is the timeless Lassie Come Home by Eric Knight (compare it with Red Dog by Louis de Bernières, in which the author gets into the dog's mind, which only serves to make it too human.)

Henry Lawson's story concerns a swagman, Macquarie, who has suffered broken ribs after a fight, and his dog a broken leg.  A local hospital is willing to help the man, but will not see to mending his dog.  That being so, the swagman refuses assistance - if his dog is not good enough for the hospital, then neither is he. The animal has spent his whole life in thankless service to the (often undeserving) swagman, who realises that he cannot now abandon his hound.   In a telling passage:

 “That there dog,” said Macquarie to the hospital staff in general, “is a better dog than I’m a man – or you too, it seems – and a better Christian. He’s been a better mate to me than I ever was to any man – or any man to me. He’s watched over me; kep’ me from getting robbed many a time; fought for me; saved my life and took drunken kicks and curses for thanks – and forgave me. He’s been a true, straight, honest, and faithful mate to me – and I ain’t going to desert him now. I ain’t going to kick him out in the road with a broken leg"

Read the story for yourself to discover the ending.

There seems to be something about the nature of these animals, provided to us generously by God, that serves to be used not so much to praise the dog for its seeming virtue (after all, it is its nature), but to shine a light on our own lack of virtue, in the way that great literature or art can do. 

In its own way the dog is art, and going back to my earlier post, this is what makes me so delighted that Christ himself saw fit to use the dog's nature as an analogy in the gospel, and that several saints have had trusty canine compainons on their journeys. 

This may be a topic for a stand alone post, but the moral usefulness of dogs even goes a step further.  They can teach, and especially children, that life on earth is not forever and that relationships with loves ones will ultimately end in death.  The death of a dog has much to teach.

Anyhow, cheers for dogs.

Catholic education - better from home?

For homeschoolers, what follows should give affirmation in their deciding to embrace the education of their own children.  It is also a reason for homeschoolers to jump in and ask 'far away schoolers' "so what on earth made you decide not to home school your kids?" before (as so often happens) the onus is reversed by the homeschooler being asked "why did you chose to home school?"

This week, a Catholic organisation called the 'Broken Bay Institute' released a notification of an upcoming publication, said to be written for Australian Catholic educators, about the importance of keeping 'Catholic' in Catholic schools.  The publication is by Jim and Therese D'Orsa, who often write about Catholic education, and is titled 'Catholic Curriculum - A Mission to the Heat of Young People'.  

The press release for the book says that it aims to create an educational environment giving students a sense of  being Catholic so that they "gain the capacity to bring perspectives of faith and culture together in dealing with human experience" as opposed to students feeling like "victims of [cultural] change".

So what's the problem?  This all sounds pretty good. Well, having been exposed to post-modern theories of sociology at Sydney University, I'm always nervous when I see phrases like "perspectives of faith and culture" (or words like 'our faith journey', 'the Christian story', used elsewhere).  Such expressions ring of making your belief devoid of objective meaning, and instead only understandable as one way of seeing the world amongst others, all of which are equal. This is not language easily leading to a conclusion that the publication will foster in a desire to keep 'Catholic' in Catholic schools.    

In fact, there should be little surprise in this respect. It is published by the Broken Bay Institute. Consider the BBI's logo. Does this look like the sort of place that will succeed in keeping Catholic schools Catholic?

The logo, so the website informs, is not (as you may think) a representation of the planetary rings of Saturn.  It is said to be a Catholic symbol.  'What', you ask, 'if this is a Catholic symbol then wouldn't anything be?'  I suspect that that is all part of the 'faith journey' 'perspectives of faith' busness.  You see, the rings it turns out are ripples of water, and this obviously (apparently) represents baptism.  And the fact that there are three ripples - this supposedly reminds us of the call to holiness, mission and ministry. (In truth, this is, in fact, kymbaya-ism.)

Please do not miss the point.  I have no reason to believe that the BBI's publication will have any affect on Catholic education in Australia.  However, just think for a minute that this is the sort of gun that is pulled out when the idea of making Catholic schools Catholic comes up. If you homeschool, be grateful.  If you send your kids to a proper Catholic school, be grateful.

Report into marriage

Last Monday, the House of Representative's standing committee on social policy and legal affairs issued its advisory report into the Green's proposes Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 (don't you just love how even the titles given to legislation tells you how you are meant to think).

The Report's forward is worth reading, if only to gain an understanding of how assumption-ridden the 'debate' on same sex marriage has become, even at a parliamentary level.  

The parliamentary committee's chair is Graham Perrett MP. Graham is one of those mischievous types who proudly announces to all and sundry that he is Catholic, but also that he is pro gay marriage.  The news media laps this up like a dachshund yogurt.

Sloganism

As though the 'I'm Catholic' act was not enough for Mr Perrett, he (or perhaps some clever PR person) has also come up with a slogan which has gained extensive media coverage.  The foward says, with a sense of smugness: 

“It is important to remember that God did not write the Marriage Act”

I take it that the supposed effect of this slogan is for the reader to think "Yeah, you know what, that's exactly what is wrong with those Christian people - they don't get that the Marriage Act was not written by God". 

Mr Perrett must be given credit for being savvy enough to detect that so long as you come up with a good slogan, its superficial attractiveness, but substantive hollowness, will simply be ignored.  

Definition of marriage

The report does not appear to contain any proper debate about what marriage is.  Instead, it proceeds on the basis that marriage is the same as love, albeit love expresses through a public ceremony.  In this respect, the forward to the report states:  

“We also know what marriage signifies. Marriage is about the love and commitment that two people have for each other. The sexual orientation of the parties to the marriage is not the issue; it is what they pledge to each other in the marriage itself”

I find this assumption, that marriage is no more than love, both socially concerning and in as being a false premises adopted to enable a conclusion that marriage should be available to any people who express love.

While love is very important (or perhaps very useful) in a marriage, the reduction of marriage to no more than love is problematic for the institution's stability. What if love ends? What if love for another arises? 

What about the children?

The report is quite silent on the effect of same sex marriage on children. In parts, and ostrich like, it explains that questions like same sex adoption etc are matters for Australian States, not the Commonwealth. 

The avoidance of a mature discussion of effects on children is made all the easier by reducing the definition of marriage to nothing more than publicly expressed, and state-sanctioned, love. This avoids a discussion of the function of marriage as a means to raise a stable society through raising children in the best possible environment. 

I do not see how the discussion of children cannot be perhaps the primary focus when the legislated change to marriage laws will mean, for same sex couples with children, that those children, and seemingly necessarily, will not be being raised by their birth parents.  It baffles me to understand how this can be essentially ignored.

As I have said elsewhere on this blog, if you are minded to gain an appreciation of how important a link to biological parents is, have a look at current adoption laws and policies. In the sphere of adoption, nothing seems more important than for adoptive parents to appreciate that it is an unfortunate circumstance that has delivered them their adopted child, and that the connection between that child and its birth parents must be maintained as far as is possible at all cost.  It seems that this mandate falls away when discussion turns to gay people. It is a clash of ideology: children's interests and rights carry the day in the world of adoption, but the gay couple's rights carry the day in the gay rights universe. Crazy.

Social engineering

One final point to note is the committee's express hope that the changes to the law will achieve, all things being equal, a degree of social engineering.  The report says:

"It is now time to enact this legislation and raise future generations of children who won't believe that once upon a time same-sex couples in Australia could not marry."

It is concerning to think that the Parliament of Australia is now proposing to introduce laws to make your children think differently for the way you may want them to think.  I never asked Mr Perrett and his mates to raise my children. 

Shining marriage pastoral letter

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, and his auxiliary bishops, issued a pastoral letter on marriage yesterday. At least to me, the letter concisely ventilated the central issues in the 'same-sex marriage' debate, with a focus on children and the role of chastity. I also found it comforting and uplifting to have a pastoral letter read out, as opposed to being made available for collection on the way out of Mass.  In essence the letter said 'we are Catholics and these are the reasons (which were then summarised) why we Catholics oppose the idea that there can be such a thing as same sex marriage'.

Given that anything 'gay' attracts massive levels of media attention, seemingly on demand, the usual opposition was rolled out, and probably in the belief that balanced coverage was being provided. 

As is to be expected, the ABC led the charge.  Its website ran several stories referring to the letter and similar letters read to other Christian churches.  For a rather atheistic institution, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they honestly believed that the letter had been drafted by the devil himself. 

Today's lead ran with the headline: "Pastor slams anti-gay marriage campaign", and rather ironically given the headline, accused the Church of scaremongering.   The 'pastor' referred to was a Baptist minister from Sydney who is a common go-to man when a pro gay marriage line is needed from a Christian, and he faithfully delivered.  He was concerned that Catholics could not think for themselves.

Of course, there can rarely be a gay 'marriage' story without a contribution from the Greens, who in the same ABC story took the view that it was all scaremongering because (now get this) the proposed laws would not force Catholics to perform same-sex 'marriages'. (I'm not sure whether the Greens or the ABC actually read the letter they were commenting upon.)

Similarly themed stories were run in the Sydney Morning Herald who wheeled out Penny Wong with a 'gay marriage is inevitable' line. News Limited, and it must be said somewhat originally, went to the trouble of finding a comment from the pop singer from Savage Garden, who it turned out was quite upset by it all. 

The only thing missing in the thousands and thousands of words devoted to the event was coverage of what the letter actually said, why Catholics and other Christians had concerns, what those concerns were, and how the 'gay groups' (and, I suppose, the Baptist minister) responded to these positions. For instance, I could not find a link to the letter on any news piece. 

Now, it is not uncommon to refer to all of this as a debate, but there does not seem to be much debating going on.

New rights - off Target

I was in Target yesterday morning buying socks. I looked up at the checkout
to discover, or rather Target revealed its discovery to me, a brand new
right, apparently possessed by all Australians. It said (and I kid you not):

"Everyone in Australia

has the right to look good

and feel good about the

way they dress and live.

At Target, we aim to make this achievable

with stylish, fashionable clothing and

homewares accessible to everyone."

God bless their souls. 

How pleasing to have a new right to toss into the sack besides all those other newly discovered ones. Standing at that checkout I felt empowered. I felt like nodding, pumping my fist, like a rocker to a Bruce Springsteen anthem.

How far beyond Targets marketing office will this new right go? Will Clover
Moore get on board? Will Channel 7's Sunrise and Marie Claire (see earlier post)?  Does it apply at Christmas Island? Will it change the lives of the homeless? Can they now stroll into Target to exercise their right as Australians? Would Target be precluded from prosecuting these thieves on the basis of that they were only exercising a right Target itself promotes as being inalienable to all Australians?

If only all those nonesense rights went no further than the wall behind Target's checkout.

Homeschooling (on the) ABC

The ABC is Australia's public broadcaster.

As near as I can tell from my own ABC radio listening, and sites like the wonderful Get Religion, the ABC shares characteristics with other public broadcasters.  It is accused of being left leaning, but denies this religiously. It seems overly quick - indeed almost hungry - to adopt an anti-Church line, like rolling out a host of negative church stories and no positive ones. And when it does decide to run a 'positive' church story, its generosity is given to liberal stories where the theme is anti-orthodox.  The recent US nun fiasco being the latest example - poor, helpless 'nuns' being beat up on by dreaded Rome etc.

Sometimes, however, there are stories that don't quite fit the mold, at least when they first break onto the scene, when media tropes are yet to be established.  One of these, at least in Australia, is homeschooling.

In January 2012, the ABC ran a news story reporting that the numbers of homeschooled children in Australia is under reported.  The story bought its media currency by running an 'illegal homeschooling' line, and focused on a family who had not registered their daughter, and were brought before a court for this terrible crime.  Yet, the story was surprisingly positive, or at least balanced. It also received an in depth current affairs run on a highbrow radio program 'Background Briefing'.

In a way, I can see the balance in the story arising from what I imagine to be the inner conflict in an ABC's editor's brain, which I take to be like a Daleks:

Left side of ABC editor's brain:  'Homeschooling is a liberal activity. I must obey the ABC. I must run a positive editorial line.'

Right side of ABC editor's brain: 'Homeschoolers are quite likely to be Catholics of an orthodox persuasion. I must obey the ABC. I must run a negative editorial line against such people.'

Combined brain: 'Where there is a liberal/orthodox conflict, I must run a liberal editorial line.  But in this story the liberal line will be the orthodox line.  That does not compute. I am a confused Dalek. This is not in the ABC manual. I will need to adopt a novel approach of being balanced.'

To be fair, I do not know how the ABC's editor's work - but I would not be surprised.

Anyhow, just yesterday there was another story on the ABC's Radio National Life Matters program.  It also had balance - have a listen. There was also a similar show on 'Counterpoint'. 

Balance is, of course, not perfect.  The shows have themes including socialisation and an in-studio expert singing the praises of education as a profession which is to be handled by professionals.  But to me these are all okay - after all they are questions often asked by our own acquaintances when they hear of homeschoolng. It is good to have these put out into the public and discussed. (I do think that these programs would benefit from a more fundamental question - what is the best way to educate someone, rather than treat public schools as a default.)

At the moment these are good days for Homeshooling in the eyes of the ABC.

Catholic hounds, catholic cats

Catholic dachshund stories are thin at the moment, so this will need to do. 

The ‘cats v dogs’ arguments go on.  Not bothered by the ‘I’m just so independent’ card commonly played by the cats and their admirers, I side with the heroic loyalty of the hounds.  

It is also comforting to note that even though dogs return to the earth upon death, unable to enjoy eternity, so powerful and ageless is their example of faithfulness and loyalty that this trait finds itself expressed in the Church - as an example for us - through religious art, the lives of certain saints and in the gospel itself.  Three of my  favourite instances (sadly, none – at least expressly - involving a dachshund) are given below. 

Matthew 15:27 -  the Canaanite woman implores the Lord for mercy for her possessed daughter. Jesus questions her, asking if it is fair to take food from children (the Israelites) only to toss it to something lowly - a dog (the gentile). The lady, seizing on the example of the faithful yet lowly dog, famously answers (indeed addresses God directly with the words) that even lowly dogs are allowed to eat the scraps which fall from their master’s table. This will be enough for her.

Next, St John Bosco’s heaven-sent protector – the dog Grigio.  What a moment when  good Grigio must prevent his master from leaving his house one night as men lay in ambush for the saint. The dog having to snarl and snap. In a sense, this dog’s real master was from above, but nonetheless I sometimes think of the psychological confusion that the animal must have been under having to disobey his earthly mastery in order to serve his heavenly one – something Grigio was not fully able to communicate. True loyalty.

Finally, the artistic representations of St Dominic accompanied by a dog holding a flaming torch. The connection traces back to a story of the saint’s mother while pregnant having a vision of a dog with a flaming torch in its mouth, lighting up the world.  St Dominic’s name, and the Dominican order, are apparently susceptible to a play on words in Latin to mean ‘dog of the Lord’. There is an image of St Dominic with his dog in a stained glass window in St Patrick’s, Church Hill, Sydney. It always gave me some comfort to look up and see a dog, a creature whose faithful nature is well known, used in the church.    

Surrogacy in the news again

The world children live in is ruled by adults, and ruled tightly. In some ways, a fog of Dickensian darkness hangs over the rights of children, not often in the sense (in Australia at least) of their day to day living, but instead pre-birth.

A current example, that is again becoming newsworthy is surrogacy, particularly same-sex surrogacy.

If you did not know what surrogacy was, following an explanation, you’d most likely think the idea crazy.  A mother gives birth to a child (either her own child, in a genetic sense, or a child implanted into her womb with no genetic link), and then cedes the motherhood of that child to another person, with whom she had a pre-pregnancy arrangement.  Usually, the person to whom the child is given either could not have a child herself (due to infertility and a bodily inability to undergo IVF), or the person, as a matter of natural impossibility, could not ever have had a child, such as where the child is given to a man (or same-sex male couple). 

Until recently, surrogacy was illegal in Australian states due to many post birth problems, not to do with the children, but the birth mother not wanting to relinquish the child (see here for a good article on some issues).  This has been dealt with by legislation allowing the mother (who I feel guilty for not calling the ‘birth mother’) to keep the child if she so desires, and regardless of any pre-pregnancy arrangement (see here for a summary of the Queensland laws).

And, surrogacy is becoming newsworthy again.  As posted earlier, NSW just had its first case of same-sex male surrogacy. A mother gave her child to two gay men to raise as their child.  They became the ‘parents’ on its birth certificate. In making such an order, the legislation requires the court to have regard to the best interests of the child, and this arrangement was found to be in the best interests of the child (this is part of the Dickensian pall).

In Queensland, there is now news of moves to change the Queensland Surrogacy Act to prevent same sex couples from being able to obtain a child through surrogacy. No doubt this will cause a media storm.

One thing that strikes me about surrogacy news stories is that the focus is upon either the couple/person who is to receive the child following the birth (who cannot be named) or someone in a similar situation considering surrogacy, and who sees the laws as salvation.   I am yet to see a story about the issues that a child may face when it has to peel back the layers of social engineering to determine how it made its passage into the world.  This is certainly different to the focus on adopted children, where the link to their birth parents is paramount in giving them a sense of identity in the world (if you are interested, seek out the DoCS NSW or CatholicCare literature on this issue and you will begin to appreciate what child focused means).

We will have to see how it all plays out.

Walk for Christ

Thousands of Catholics walked through the centre of Sydney in the driving rain yesterday in a Eucharistic procession for the feast of Corpus Christi.  Maybe 4 times as many as were at the Marie Claire gay marriage media stunt (see earlier post).  No secular news coverage yet.  No news issue, I suppose. We'll have to ask the editors of Marie Claire how they did it.

All hail Peter Singer?

Each year at this time, Australians are bestowed with 'Queen's Birthday awards', leading to a morning of public broadcaster radio coverage of interviews with understandably humbled recipients.

To get a news story out of such an event, focus tends to be on a famous scientist or doctor, whose work has led to discovering a technique in treating some form of terrible suffering. This year that person is medical researcher Ian Frazer. 

A second angle for a story is to pick up on a controversial (if only slightly) recipient.  This year, that person seems to be Peter Singer.

You may have heard of Peter Singer. He's famous for animal liberation and (but only secondly) encouraging the killing of humans in circumstances currently just beyond the norm - like killing intellectually or physically disabled children at any time in the first few years after birth (in particular circumstances).  (If you are interested in a punchy critique of Singer's views in this respect, try and find a copy of James Franklin's book on the history of philosophy in Australia - Corrupting the Youth, which is well worth a read anyway).

Mr Singer's views have always tended to secure an disproportional amount of media coverage by the Australian and British public broadcasters.  This is not, as the uneducated may imagine, in order to critique his position, but to effectively sing his praises, albeit with a bit of weak counterposed opposition lacking his formidable rigour. (This last observation links back to a previous post concerning the potential harm that can flow from having opposition on these issues pushed through a purely Christian point of view, and not spiced with significant rigour .)

In any event, in today's interviews with Mr Singer, talk quickly progressed to his views of God. Singer is also wheeled out as a 'new aethist', commonly at those other events so lovingly covered by public broadcasters - conferences of atheists with their Parthenon of stars - Dawkins et al.  The interviewer asked Singer a question along the lines of 'we know you have strong views of rationalism over belief in God, so you must be very disappointed to learn that the amount of followers of religion is continuing to grow.'  'Yes', said Singer (and I'm paraphrasing), 'I can only try an promote the place of rational thought' - and so it went on.

I have three comments about this. First, it seems to be assumed, in the question asked and answer given, that if you are religious, you are not rational.  This is a great convenience for an interviewer, since (amongst other things) it prevents any potential embarrassment between interviewer and intervieweee.

Second, it is sad that the subject matter of  the question (that religion is growing) is treated as little more than a position to hold in a debate, or as being akin to a political view that can change between elections. The tone has no room to consider that a religious position reflects a way of life for a person.  Marriage is now treated the same way - as though it is something to be supported or not, rather than as a way of being.

Thirdly, and this brings me to Burwood library. No doubt you have never heard of Burwood library - a suburban local public library in Sydney, but you may be able to identify with the following, drawn to my attention by my wife (and for a more substantial future post).  If you went and had a look at the books in the religious section (say, out of a sociological interest), you would discover that there are very few - I'd say less than 5% - which would give you any insight as to how to live as a Catholic (my creed). There are plenty that tell you how to live as an atheist, and why that is a superior state of being.  There are many others about lapsed believers who take a swing at their former profession, there are may 'comparative religion' books and finally, there are plenty of Kumbaya books (see up and to the right for a definition). In short, unlike the art, cooking, history and chemistry sections, there are not many books about how to be a Catholic in a religion section.

I suppose the point can be viewed as to how has religion's role in large parts of the 'public square' has been reduced to cannon fodder for attackers (a la Singer and his mates), or something of a sociological phenomenon (al la Burwood library), rather than something that most of us humans do?  All for another day.

Surrogacy laws and media coverage

I have just come across a report of a recent NSW Supreme Court decision concerning the operation of the Surrogacy Act to two men. The two men have become the parents of a child by application of the Act.

Before commenting on the decision, and the issues generally thrown up (which are being saved for another post), there are some things to note in respect of the news coverage.  Firstly, there was not much at all, which is a bit funny given that this seems to be the first application of the Act to two men.  Secondly, the news was focused through a Christian lens. The stories all quoted from a statement by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) which was reported to have "condemned" the decision, or more properly the practical operation of the Act.

I suppose that a counterpoint between 'gay' and 'Christian' makes for an easy story, but to me it can too easily operate as a way of avoiding what should be treated as a serious social issue, and not an ideological battle. I would hope that the ACL people do not hold onto their views simply because they are Christian, but also because their view is the most reasonable position to take on an issue, and ought to be adopted regardless of creed.  This is a theme I would like to consider more fully (again in future posts). It throws up issues like lazy journalism. It also gives occasion to wonder about the effectiveness of lobby groups like the ACL given their relative success in gaining media coverage on issues of this type. Does this have a propensity to harm one side of a debate by allowing it to be too easily caricatured as fundamentalist? Does it marginalise the issue in an unhealthy way?  Anyhow, something for another day.