David Ancell / Sunday, June 04, 2006 / Comments(0)
I’m on some kind of roll today. I’m hoping to also get a podcast posted soon about how the Church has indeed been attentive to the Holy Spirit. Maybe the fire of Pentecost is somehow getting to me in this way.
I think next time I go to a presentation where the speaker mentions the “seamless garment” theory, I’ll ask where in the Cathechism it can be found. Well, really, it isn’t anywhere in the Catechism. Now, before I say anything else, I do want to mention that this term gets used in ways that are perfectly legitimate. However, the origin of the theory and how it was initiall presented has some problems.
Certainly, the Church supports living wage, affordable housing, etc. Certainly, the use of the death penalty should be limited to where it is strictly necessary (which is quite likely never, especially in a developed nation). Certainly we can work to change many of the conditions that contributed to women having abortions and reach out to those who have fallen into the hands of an abortionist. However, all of these rights have as their foundation the right to be born. Without this, it’s kind of silly to argue about what kind of housing the people should have. After all, in this case, one is holding the view that some don’t have the right to live.
By the way, here is an article by Charles Rice that tells of the origins and the problems with the “seamless garment.”
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, June 04, 2006 / Comments(0)
Having just seen some copies of Always Our Children in the narthex of a church that I was in, I thought I’d see what Catholic Culture had on it. I was hoping for an official Vatican statement, but I guess there isn’t one. I still found this document by Bishop Bruskewitz, and I suspect that he is telling the truth on this one.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Thursday, June 01, 2006 / Comments(0)
Speaking of the morning-after pill, take a look at this article by the president of the Memphis Regional Planned Parenthood that says that there is no reason not to make the morning-after pill available without a prescription. It seems that this article relies almost entirely on emotion, and it was quite irresponsible of them to publish it. I wrote this letter to the Commercial Appeal in response. You can see what they printed here.
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to the May 16th guest column of Barry Chase, president of Memphis Regional Planned Parenthood. In it, he claims that there is not a good reason that the “emergency contraceptive” named Plan B is not available without a prescription in every pharmacy in the nation. As a pro-life pharmacist, I can think of a number of good reasons why it should not be made available.
Mr. Chase states that Plan B will reduce the number of abortions. However, Plan B can work by making it difficult for the newly conceived embryo to implant. Therefore, by destroying an already-conceived and developing life, the drug is causing an early abortion. A 2002 article published in Annals of Pharmacotherapy suggested that this can happen when Plan B is used any time during a woman’s menstrual cycle. By the way, the package insert of many, if not all, oral contraceptives list this as a possible way in which they work.
Plan B provides absolutely no protection against sexually transmitted diseases. Allowing women to receive this without seeing a physician may increase the risk of complications from undiagnosed STDs that could have been treated if the woman had sought medical care. Also, having Plan B easily available as a kind of safety net will at least provide an easier opportunity to engage in more high-risk behavior. While Mr. Chase asserts that Plan B is safe, the long-term effects of repeated use of it are not known.
As Mr. Chase said, we need to recognize the reality of sexuality and reproductive health. However, the solution is not more birth control. Recognition of the reality of sexuality requires that one recognize that sex brings with it the possibility of new life that must be respected.
David Ancell, Pharm.D.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Thursday, June 01, 2006 / Comments(0)
I just read this article, and it made me sick. I’ve blogged before about Governor Blagojevich’s executive order requiring pharmacists to distribute the “morning after” pill. However, he is now taking his agenda to a new low. He wants pharmacies to post signs telling consumers of their “right” to receive the abortifacient with contact information in case they have trouble getting it. From what I understand, his order also covers contraceptives. His bio page lists “fighting to protect Illinois women’s access to birth control” as one of his priorities.
I hope the voters of Illinois throw his rear end out of office in this year’s election. I also hope that a lawsuit causes his executive order to be flushed down the toilet. This is simply intolerable.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, May 29, 2006 / Comments(0)
I believe it is very important to support legislation that fights the Culture of Death and promotes the Culture of Life. However, there are other things that we can do. A few weeks ago (ok, I’m way behind), I found out about the story of Morgan Norton in a local paper. She was a high-school student who suffered extensive brain injuries in a car accident in which alcohol was involved. I do not know, nor does it matter at this point, whether she was the one who was intoxicated.
When I read this, it reminded me of my commitment as a Catholic to uphold the sanctity of life. It also reminded me that all human life is precious in the eyes of God, no matter what the person’s condition. People should receive the care they need. I do not know Morgan Norton or her family, but I can still help.
I want to ask if there are people willing and able to make a donation towards her care. There’s no doubt that there will be plenty of bills for her family. This is just one small step we can make in promoting a Culture of Life.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Comments(0)
Apparently, some people have been blogging a little too much about their jobs, according to NY Times article. One was asked to stop using the company’s name. Others were fired. I can’t understand why they didn’t know better than this.
Many of my coworkers know I have a website. I used to have the name of the company I worked for on my page, but I have removed it since then. It’s no one’s business, and I don’t want to appear to be representing the company’s views in any way. Given that I work in health care, it would be illegal for me to post stories about my patients. I take no chances in that area. My work in biotech pharmaceuticals is such a specialized area that it would be very difficult to explain what goes on anyway. I am certainly not going to post things about my coworkers for the whole world to read. It’s hard for me to imagine how that would not be detraction.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Comments(0)
Last night, I went to a talk on a Catholic perspective on immigration. Well, the speaker’s view seemed to be that we should just open the border because, as Catholics, we are a “Church without borders.” Needless to say, he was dead set against sending the National Guard to the border.
In the discussion that followed, I raised an issue, as I often do. My point is that openness to immigration and securing our borders were not necessarily mutually exclusive ends. We need to keep our borders secure enough that someone with an idea other than that of coming to find work (e.g. terrorists) won’t find easy entry. On the other hand, we can make our immigration process better for those who truly want to come in and work. By having them here illegally and without proper documentation, we open them up for exploitation.
Well, a certain professor whom I won’t name took issue with my idea that Al Queada might enter though the Mexican border, calling it “absurd.” His reasoning, spoken with the attitude of an angry liberal, was that they hadn’t done so in the past. Well, first of all, it might not be Al Queada, but someone else. Second, these guys were smart enough to find a plane with enough gas to fly from NYC to LA and hijack it. If we open our borders completely, I find it difficult to believe that no one will figure out that they can use it to get into the country. Keep in mind that I’m speaking only in terms of possibilities here.
Anyway, I do believe that it is important to be well-grounded in what the Church actually teaches. So, I looked in a couple sources. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an explanation in paragraph 2241. Basically, it speaks of the obligation of a more prosperous nation, to the extent of its ability, to welcome the foreigner in search of a better life than he can find in his own country. However, the Catechism also states that political authorities can, for the sake of the common good, make immigration subject to certain conditions and to require certain duties of them. Immigrants are required to respect and support their new nation.
The Compendium of the Social Doctine of the Church has more good information. The relevant articles are 297-298. Paragraph 297 mentions that immigrants ought not to be perceived as a threat to the level of well-being obtained in a more prosperous nation. They can fill an important labor need that might not be fulfilled by the citizens. However, paragraph 298 explains that foreign laborers should not be exploited or denied their human rights. Interestingly enough, it goes on to say that appropriate regulation of immigration is an “indispensible condition” for ensuring that “immigrants are integrated into society with the guarantees required by recognition of their human dignity.” It also speaks of fostering appropriate conditions in the immigrant’s country of origin.
Of course, there can be health debate about exactly what our nation is able to do. There will be debate over what conditions should be placed on immigration. It seems necessary that we consider immigrants from all places and not just those from just across the borders. However, we must remember the guiding principles in the Church’s teaching in any solution that we propose.
I don’t know enough about the issues to know just how many people we can allow to come here. It seems to me that we aren’t likely to be able to completely secure our borders to where no one can get in, and we do need to have the means available for people seeking a better life to come here. I’ll end here by citing a couple of blog posts that I’ve found interesting:
This one from Steve Kellmeyer.
This one from Jimmy Akin.
I’ll leave these uncommented as they speak quite well for themselves.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, May 22, 2006 / Comments(0)
I found a couple of timely articles on Catholic Exchange that I wanted to share:
On the Da Vinci Code and Women in the Church
On how the “Lesser Evil” principle is a bunch of garbage, especially as it relates to condon usage
I like Russell Shaw’s explanation of the problems with proportionalism in the second article. Even if the “lesser evil” principle were legitimate, it could not apply to condom use because it is the use of a moral evil to prevent a physical evil.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, May 20, 2006 / Comments(0)
I occasionally buy courses from The Teaching Company. They have great lecturers, but some of their philosophy and religion courses don’t exactly appear to be conducive to faith. They feature a professor named Bart Ehrman who seems to put the Gnostic writers on an equal footing with orthodox Christianity.
However, if you are looking for something to listen to to debunk myths of the Da Vinci Code, they have offered two free lectures by Ehrman. Much of what is in here appears accurate. The only flaw that I find is that he states that there has been developed “rigorous criteria” for scholars to determine what the “historical Jesus” really said and did because the Gospel writers weren’t objective. They had, according to Ehrman, a “theological agenda.” However, other than that, you can find some great explanations of how the ideas that Constantine influenced Christianity and that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene are not true.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, May 20, 2006 / Comments(0)
I have to sent forth my usual disclaimer that I don’t endorse everything that Diogenes on CWN says. Sometimes he is downright uncharitable. However, it’s hard to fault him on this one. He brings forth a letter from Cardinal Arinze to Bishop Skylstad, president of the USCCB, regarding the translation of the liturgy. I just love Cardinal Arinze. Maybe this will bring us a step closer to getting a better translation of our liturgy. Then again, maybe it will cause a continued stalemate.
From reading the letter, it sounds like Skylstad was wanting to request that a new translation of the Roman Missal not be promulgated under the grounds that people are so used to our translation that it would not be “pastoral” to change it. Cardinal Arinze wasn’t buying it. I think he summed it up well like this:
The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.
This is so true, and not just of the clergy. Anyone who is a catechist can have an influence on others. For example, when I was a senior in high school, we watched a video on the Church’s teaching on contraception. The video was very dry. Afterward, we heard a somewhat sarcastic-sounding statement from our teacher that said something to the effect of “Well, there’s the Church-approved version of birth control.”
On another occasion, years after the above occasion, I was in a group where the ordination of women was discussed. The arguments against the ordination of women were talked about, but it was clear from the context and the tone that the person presenting them did not believe them. She basically said she didn’t. It was clear that the context in which these were being presented was not a proper understanding of Sacraments.
No doubt we will have some upheaval when the new translation comes out. If something isn’t done, it is likely that the only explanations of the new translations that gain wide circulation will be sneers. Of course, people who know the best resources will go to them, but the average person in the pew may not. It’s sad to report that few people think to go look for an explanation that shows the goodness of a teaching or decision of the Magisterium.
It would be a shame if people didn’t come to an appreciation of a more accurate translation of the Liturgy. I’ve made some comments on this before, and I wish to expand them here. I really don’t know what the motive is behind people not wanting to use a better translation of the Liturgy. Maybe they don’t understand the problem with the current translation. Maybe they have a theological agenda that is not exactly Catholic or even Christian. Maybe they really are concerned about people not being able to understand the text. Maybe they are afraid of the rebillion of the dissidents. I won’t judge their motivation.
However, I want to look especially at the idea of making the text understandable. Sometimes, people have, whether intentionally or not, watered down the theology in order to make something more acceptable or understandble. Well, it’s true that the translation may be easier to understand, but the understandble translation might make the actual text harder to understand because it isn’t accurate. In other words, one gains an easy understanding that is not correct and therefore doesn’t learn the truth.
Here’s another problem with making the text more understandable . . . what we are dealing with in the Mass is the Paschal Mystery. Notice the word mystery. We can’t completely understand this. If we translate the texts so that we think we can understand them, we can turn our faith into a dull intellectual exercise. We fail to teach ourselves to wonder at this marvel that we cannot fully comprehend. The finite cannot fully comprehend the infinite.
I really hope that some teeth will be applied to ICEL and whoever else may be involved in the translation. When I hear some people giving better translations of, for example, the Nicene Creed, I long to be able to say the words at Mass just like this. We need that new translation of the Liturgy as soon as possible.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized