The Penitence of Advent

It's official... Advent is here, Thanksgiving is past, and we're allowed now to listen to Christmas music in the open. Deck the Halls!

I've heard occasional criticisms of the way that American Christians celebrate the coming of Christmas. Many faithful Catholics I know are quick to remind me that this season is Advent, not Christmas... liturgically, a "purple" season. For those of you who are blinking at this information, purple signifies penitence. My thought is that it is precisely because Advent is a season set aside, it is appropriate to get into the "spirit" of the season. Advent is penitent, yes, but not in the same sense that Lent is. It is a penitence not of sorrow but of expectancy.

Being with child myself reminds me all the more of the difference. I, too, am in a condition of "denial" as I wait and prepare for my little one. The little denials of pregnancy include things like alcohol and too much sugar. I have to be dependent on others to lift heavy objects for me. But in these little sacrifices, I celebrate. Expectant mothers wait for their newborns with both sacrifice and celebration, at the same time. I can't help thinking that this is how we can view the Advent (coming) of Jesus, also. I don't want to forego celebrating the coming of Jesus any more than I intend to pass on baby showers or enjoying the fun of talking about baby names. Part of the season of expectancy is preparation; and spending too much time on dourness and too little on celebration tends to make it harder, not easier, to remember whom we are awaiting.

But what about secular Christmas songs? Yes, it's true, we do have a lot of traditions that have little to do directly with Christ's coming. We sing songs about sleigh bells and shopping and snowmen; How does this remind us that we're preparing for Christ's coming?

My mother made a good point on that subject. She reminded me of my childhood, when at family birthday parties we would sing Ring Around the Rosies, and play games like Pin the Tail on the Donkey. What did these, indeed, have to do with the child whose birth was being celebrated? Yet songs and games that became tradition, even if they had nothing overt to do with the birthday girl or boy, were part of the celebration. They were not so much a sign of that person, or even of birth, as they were simply elements of our idea of celebrating. They were things set apart, things we reserved for birthdays. That made them special and relevant.

Celebrating that Christ is coming is appropriate, and it is likewise appropriate to celebrate this coming using feast elements that we reserve for Him, and for this time of year. If they serve to remind us to make ready for Him, then they have served their purpose.

My husband and I already have a cradle set up for the baby, and we already have decorations set up for Christmas. They both prepare us and add to our sense of anticipation.

O come, o come, Emmanuel! We'll keep the lights on for You.

Sanger Represents "American Values"?

The good news is that a new Planned Parenthood clinic has been effectively blocked from being built. Through the process of choice. One by one, contractors have chosen to drop out of the project, after urging by pro life groups and the threat of a boycott by Austin and San Antonio area churches. Alexander Sanger, grandson of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, says "It's profoundly threatening to American values."

American values? I wonder how many Americans with values of any sort would agree with the values espoused by Margaret Sanger and the organization she founded. We already know that the majority of Americans are pro-life. Poll after poll has demonstrated it, including a very recent Gallup poll showing that teens are even more pro-life than adults.

But even fewer would agree with the Sangers if they knew Margaret's motivation for promoting abortion. Sanger was, to put it bluntly, a racist and a believer in eugenics. She toured internationally espousing Nazi views and promoting abortion as a way of eliminating black and other non-aryan populations. If you don't want to believe this on the strength of web articles, I urge you to get hold of original publications written by Ms. Sanger herself. I found her writings in a university library, and discovered for myself her racist views.

Today is a time when racism is far less tolerated than it was in Margaret Sanger's day. Her grandson, Alexander, must therefore be far more cautious in being upfront about the racist goals of Planned Parenthood, even as Planned Parenthood continues to build the vast majority of their clinics in ethnic neighborhoods, among people who favor the complete illegalization of abortion even more strongly than the general American population. Yet Alexander, on his way into office, said "With all her success, my grandmother left some unfinished business, and I intend to finish it." And we know what her unfinished business was: minority people have not been eliminated.

Perhaps I am just not cynical enough. I do not, cannot, believe that the Sangers represent American values. Americans value equality, and the rights of all people. The contractors who are refusing to participate in the war against minorities... they are representing, far more surely, American values.

Encouraging News about Teens and Abortion

If you listened to the squeakiest wheels, you would get the impression that most people, and all reasonable people, are pro-choice. Pro-choice, these same squeaky wheels would further claim, means in favor of abortion rights, whether or not they would personally have an abortion. The implication is that even if you don't believe in abortion, if you are reasonable, you will support complete availability of abortion on demand with no restrictions.

There's just one problem with that line of thought: it isn't true. A recent Gallup Poll contradicts it. Teens, we learn, the group most available for indoctrination on the subject, oppose abortion on demand; at least, the majority of them do. What makes this information even more interesting is the realization that this is the group most likely to benefit socially from the availability of abortion.

Think about it: this is a group of people who, if they become pregnant, have the most to fear. They have social ostracization to worry about, not to mention family censure and the destruction of many of their plans for the future; yet this group -- 72% of them -- believes that abortion is morally wrong. And not just for them personally, but for society... in fact, an even higher percentage of the teens polled, 79%, believe that abortion should be either banned completely or legally restricted.

The percentages, in fact, are even higher than those of their adult counterparts who have far less to worry about in the event of unexpected pregnancy. Yet even among adults, the same opinions prevail: 72% of adults polled favor the illegalization or restriction of abortion.

So, when we hear that most people favor "choice," we should ask just who those people are. When Gallup, a neutral and objective pollster finds that the majority of Americans, both adult and youth, disapprove of abortion and want the law to do something about it, the American people have spoken. Those who say otherwise are not speaking for the majority, and should not be permitted to dictate public policy. They are merely squeaky wheels.

All (alleged) Pedophiles Created Equal?

No matter how hard you try to avoid it, you simply cannot, lately, escape the media blitz surrounding the Michael Jackson pedophilia case. Our nation is just beginning to wind down from the Catholic Church scandal, and it seems as though the American people are hungry for more sensationalism and rumors of pedophilia.

But with one difference: the information mills seem to be scouring the horizon for evidence that Poor Michael Jackson is a victim of unfair allegations and attacks on his reputation and career. No such evidence was sought or supplied in most of the Church scandal stories.

Stories like this week's from the Sunday Herald highlight comments made by Jackson's family members stating that he couldn't possibly be guilty. Even while they relay Jackson's own defensive comments with tongue-in-cheek cynicism, they further his defense and imply that Michael Jackson's oddity points to instability, not malice.

Where were the interviews with family members when priests stood accused?

The news stories and gossip-on-the-street also frequently imply that the Jackson case is more about an attack on his status than it is a rightful accusation. The prosecutor might be, just possibly, acting on a grudge, the article mentioned above hints. It points out the possibility, then quickly pulls away... just presenting it long enough to leave a doubt in the mind of the reader. Other people, both journalists and gossips alike, have stirred the same rumors. Other rumors include that this is nothing more than a career opportunity for all lawyers involved, or even that poor Michael Jackson is being accused for financial gain, or even solely because of his race.

How often do you recall seeing mainstream media imply, over the past two years, that many of the priest accusations might have stemmed from bigotry or the wish for financial gain?

Finally, I haven't seen any broad, categorical denunciations yet based on Michael Jackson's alleged behavior. I have yet to see any pedophile jokes beginning with "How many singers does it take..." You see, when it is a popular figure who is implicated, the natural instinct is to want to limit accusations, offer "other sides" to the story, and most certainly to prevent the accusations from being spread more widely against others who share a career or religion with him. No such protection has been offered the Catholic Church, or priests in general. We've all been subjected to the priest jokes.

Am I bitter? Maybe a little. But mostly, I am hurt for the people who are hurt in both scandals. The innocent victims of molestation, whether by a rich man or by a poor man who represents a rich institution, deserve our compassion. But those accused also deserve a fair hearing. Perhaps because Jackson has both more to lose financially and more resources personally available to him, he will get the fair trial that many accused priests have not gotten. Even in cases where charges were rejected by law enforcement for complete lack of evidence, many priests have suffered punishment merely for having been accused.

And I hurt for the priests who have never been implicated at all. Many good men who have diligently served God, Church, and parish have suffered from the categorical judgment of all priests. I hurt for them, too.

The "media" must bear some responsibility for imbalance in reporting the two scandals. Yet they cannot bear all the responsibility for leading us as a nation in judging the accused in a very imbalanced way: for they could not lead us if we would not follow. If we must be hungry enough to feed the frenzy for sensationalistic stories of high-profile pedophilia, shouldn't we at least demand consistency in how they are presented?

"Defective" Humans?

Today I am scheduled for a prenatal sonogram, and I am filled with excitement. I get to learn, I hope, whether my baby is a boy or a girl. This is an occasion of joy, and the opportunity to decide whether to keep the blue hand-me-downs or the pink. Getting a peek into the window of the womb should be a moment of wonder and joy.

Sadly, prenatal testing isn't always either so joyful or so optimistic. It has become routine in the United States for obstetricians to ask pregnosaurs if they want amniocentisis and other screenings for birth defects. The purpose is heavily implied, if not stated outright. "Defective" babies, many in our society believe, ought to be eliminated. UK's Daily Telegraph refers to it as "weed[ing] out those with serious chromosome disorders."

Weeding out?

Are less than perfect babies weeds to be removed like stray thistles? What does this say of our view toward disabled, and for that matter, even minority people? Eugenics have rarely been used to remove the ill or "damaged" from society without eventually progressing to the removal of social outcasts and minorities.

And by "removal" I mean genocide.

Look at what happened when the Nazi party decided to rid Germany of "defective" people. They started with the ill and disabled. They moved on to welfare recipients, retirees, criminals, and social undesireables. Before long, they'd moved from social undesireables to racial undesireables.

Is this really the direction we want to go?

I'm having this sonogram to make sure that the pregnancy is progressing properly, and to prepare myself and my doctor for any potential delivery problems, not to "weed out" my child should he or she be discovered "defective." I already declined genetic testing for my baby.

Does that mean it makes no difference if it turns out that my baby has health problems? Of course not. It simply means that my baby's life is of value for its own sake, and that this value is not dependent on being physically perfect. I dearly hope that my baby will not have any health problems; but I could never stop loving this child, enough to "weed" him or her out, if my hope for a healthy baby were disappointed.

For that matter, I look at my husband. He is one of the most gifted, kind, generous, hard-working people I have ever known. He is a blessing not only to our family, but to each person who has the pleasure of knowing him. I thank God that my mother in law would never have aborted him, had she known that he would be born with asthma, allergies, ADHD, and Tourette's syndrome. I am likewise very grateful for the blessing of my son who has Tourette's.

Anyone who thinks that a child with problems is "defective" must first overlook his own defects; for don't we all suffer from various challenges and shortcomings?

I wish the phrase "birth defect" had never been coined. No human life should ever be considered defective.

Should Politics Determine Justice?

I half expected that once Terri Schiavo had been rescued, even temporarily, her case would disappear from the media, at least for the moment. As a search for news about Terri Schiavo will indicate, this is not the case after all. Knowing that her feeding tube could be removed at any time by future acts of judges leaves her still very much in the limelight, and the ethical questions that the case evokes will probably not cease as long as the war wages between politics and ethics.

Although I have moral views on the subject, I prefer at the moment to concentrate on the ethical issues. Morals (usually taken to mean religious or personal views on right and wrong) vary from person to person. One might hope, though, that Americans would have a solid enough ethical vision that a more universal understanding of right and wrong, and how power should be used, would permeate our society, and our judicial system.

Unfortunately, that assumption, too, would be wrong.

The fact is that a number of people influential in the case, as well as in the media, have made decisions and statements based not on the facts of the case itself, but instead on a predisposition toward one or another political view on the "right to die." Terri Schiavo has become a spokesperson for both camps, without ever having spoken publicly on the subject.

Very much as in the right to choice (abortion) debate, in the right to die (euthanasia) debate, the arguments have often focused much more on whether or not the "right in question" should be upheld than on whether or not the person in question wanted to exercise the right. It has become a battle of ideals, and somehow the needs and wishes of Terri herself have been forgotten in the chaos of the fray.

Rhetoric has flooded in from both sides, often in pithy one-liners and clever phrases. One camp argues with loaded language, referring to the battle not as a battle for Terri's individual rights but as a battle, in general ideals, for the "right to die." The other camp uses likewise loaded language, asking why the "right to die" must become the "duty to die" when the decision is not made with the victim's legal consent.

While the language war saddens me, because it takes attention off of the case and focuses only on political factions, that doesn't remove the ethical, and more important, question of which side is right.

The only way to get to the heart of the matter is to stop tossing about rhetoric and stop arguing about whether or not patients have a "right" to be put to death, and to start examining the case itself. Terri Schiavo’s case simply cannot be decided justly without examining whether Terri actually expressed a wish to be euthanized in a legally recognizable way. Hearsay has almost never been acceptable as legal witness, and in Terri’s case, there have been contradictory hearsay statements. We must, then, ask ourselves whether Terri has filed anything giving power of attorney to another person to make this decision. That is what the law demands, and for a judge to demand less makes assumption and politics the determining factor.

Terri's husband has argued that she stated a vague wish years earlier not to be kept alive artificially, and that that should be sufficient. Since this is only hearsay, we must remember that the burden of proof calls on him to defend his position. The first burden is to prove that this contention is based on her interests, and not his own.

Because of the absence of any legal testimony on Terri's part, her husband's claims must bear all the closer scrutiny, including medical evidence much more substantial than what has already been considered by the court. The testimony of not only paid court witnesses, but also those who have been involved in Terri's care over the past 13 years simply must be considered, to evaluate the veracity of the claim that Terri cannot be rehabilitated. These are people who have far less reason to be biased than those paid witnesses who are defending a political viewpoint rather than the justice of the particular case.

Finally, the court must be compelled to examine all the medical evidence, and not only the testimony based on recent examinations of Terri's state. Medical documents, such as those that indicate other possible causes for Terri's collapse (such as bone scans that introduce the possibility of extensive abuse) must be admitted as evidence and considered fairly. To make any decision without weighing all available evidence reeks of bias, and leads to the strong possibility of an unjust decision based on politics rather than the merits of the case.

The handling of the Terri Schiavo case has, to this point, ignored the precepts of justice that Americans have a right to expect. It is not too late, thankfully, to turn this around and look at the case itself. The only way this will happen, though, is if we stop looking at this woman who is unable to speak for herself as a pawn for one political camp or the other, and remember to look at her and her case as individual. Terri Schiavo is a person, not a cause. Let's remember that.