Here is a new resource for women who are serving in the military and want to breastfeed, from a La Leche League Leader who served in the military.  Please pass it on, so that we can make sure it reaches the moms who need this kind of support!

It's called Breastfeeding In Combat Boots.

Babies were born to breastfeed!

A Sacramento man who is known as a "social commentator" and satirist has proposed a Ban on Divorce because he sees it as the logical extension of the Prop 8 initiative defending traditional marriage in California.

He won't admit that it's a joke, but I think he's on to something.  I would TOTALLY support a ban on divorce as long as it allowed an exception for physical abuse or cruelty (as certified either by police records or, in the case of emotional/verbal cruelty, by two counselors).

Absolutely all the research consistently shows that staying together (except in cases of high conflict or abusive relationships) is not only good for the kids, but its better for the health (mental and physical) for the adults long term.  Likewise, when couples stick it out, they often improve within 5 years even without therapy.  And couples who do take advantage of (marriage friendly) counseling tend to make greater gains more rapidly.

Too many couples have no real reason for divorcing except that they are tired.  The social, medical, and emotional fallout of these divorces far outweigh any benefit gained.

So, I say, let's take up the cause.  I know the man meant it as a joke, but by all means, let's take up the call to ban divorce except under the circumstances I described above. 

The children and your own medical and mental health will thank you for the effort.

A reader emails:

The WSJ solicited Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to answer the question "Where does evolution leave God?" (We'll leave aside the slanted wording of the question itself.) Dawkins' response would be lucky to receive a 'D' were he a student in your class, I would imagine. His basic argument:

Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complex—statistically improbable—and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe—the miracle-free zone that is physics.

It reminds me of Steve Martin's old comedy bit about how to make a million dollars without paying taxes: Step 1. Get a million dollars.

Unfortunately, Armstrong does not make much of a defense for theism. I'm still not sure exactly what she is saying, but I did catch that she accuses all of Christianity of taking a fundamentalist turn in the 17th century and that we need to be more flexible in our thinking about God. It's too bad that she was the best the WSJ could do.

Yes; I've seen her on TV once or twice in the past decade or so, and while I don't really remember any details, I do recall that her theology struck me as basically mush (though that might be unfair to mush), and this piece doesn't seem any better.

And you're right about how Dawkins would do in my class if he gave this answer, which would reveal his lack of attention to (among other things) my lecture on the spiritual nature of the intellect.

Work and other things are filling most of my time; sorry for the resulting lack of much blogging.

I am taking the occasional bit of time off. Last Saturday, Kim and I went down to Wooster to see NPR's Whad'Ya Know? (which is normally out of Madison but was on the road). On the way back from there, we stopped by Lehman's to look around - fascinating place.

After that fun day trip, I quickly put my nose back to the grindstone. Next Saturday I'm teaching an all-day moral theology course to aspiring permanent deacons for the Steubenville diocese, and I need to finish prepping that, in addition to the usual weekly tasks.

So, blogging will remain light.

I have a couple more follow-up posts to make on this topic, as I obviously have strong feelings about it.  I will write more from my own perspective shortly, when I have a moment, but I want to post the initial response from the Big Push campaign, which is a grassroots organization which aims to have Certified Professional (non-nurse midwives who specialize in out-of-hospital birth care) Midwives (CPMs) licensed and able to practice legally in all 50 states, an initiative I support.  (In fact I am just starting my own training to become certified as a CPM.  It's a long road, because there is a ton of training, and study and experience and a board exam that is required - it will take me years, but hey, a journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step, eh?  Prayers for the journey appreciated... ;))

The official response is below.  I should also add that there is good research evidence in favor of the safety of planned homebirth with a trained midwife - more all the time, including a new study just this month out of Canada. 

Check this out and I will write more in response to the Today Show shortly.

Physicians Take Anti-Midwife Smear Campaign to the Airwaves
Home Birth Mothers, Celebrities, Insulted on National TV

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 11, 2009)­  Referring to women who choose to give birth in out-of-hospital settings as “hedonistic” and likening childbirth to a “spa treatment,” members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a trade group representing the professional and financial interests of OB/GYNs, took their anti-midwife campaign to the airwaves in a Today Show segment rife with insults, stereotypes, and misinformation, using one family’s tragedy as a platform for the organization’s well-funded assault against choices in childbirth. 
 
“About the only thing ACOG has right is that women are choosing out-of-hospital deliveries in record numbers,” said Steff Hedenkamp of The Big Push for Midwives Campaign. “What Erin Tracy and other apologists for the group’s anti-midwife position fail to see is that one of the forces driving women to seek out-of-hospital care is the paternalistic, profit-driven model of maternity care that far too many of its own members provide.”

During the segment ACOG reiterated its claim, which has been thoroughly debunked by a large and growing body of medical literature, that out-of-hospital delivery is unsafe. Describing women who choose to give birth in private homes and freestanding birth centers as “hedonistic” mothers who knowingly put the lives of their babies at risk for the sake of an “experience” they believe will be like a “spa treatment,” members of the group echoed last year’s position statement claiming that women who choose out-of-hospital deliveries base their decisions on what’s “fashionable” or “trendy.”

“ACOG clings to this ridiculous fantasy that women choose to deliver their babies outside of the hospital because they want to be like Ricki Lake, Demi Moore or Meryl Streep and that if women would only watch enough fear-mongering stories on morning television they’ll be brainwashed back into hospitals,” said Katherine Prown, Campaign Manager of The Big Push for Midwives. “Insulting our intelligence and promoting policies that deny us choices in maternity care are not exactly winning strategies for stemming the tide of women seeking alternatives to standard OB care.”

Earlier this year, a New York City couple lost their baby during a planned home birth under the care of a Certified Nurse-Midwife. Licensed and regulated in all 50 states, Certified Nurse-Midwives are trained to provide hospital-based maternity care. By contrast, Certified Professional Midwives, who undergo specialized clinical training in out-of-hospital birth, are legally authorized to provide care in 26 states, although outdated regulations effectively prevent them qualifying for licensure in the state of New York.

Legislation to license and regulate Certified Professional Midwives is currently pending in an additional 18 states, despite staunch opposition from the American Medical Association, which has joined with ACOG in adopting position statements that would deny families who choose out-of-hospital maternity care legal access to nationally credentialed midwives with specialized training to provide it.
The Big Push for Midwives Campaign represents thousands of grassroots advocates in the United States who support expanding access to Certified Professional Midwives and out-of-hospital maternity care. The mission of The Big Push includes educating national policymakers about the reduced costs and improved outcomes associated with out-of-hospital birth and advocating for including the services of Certified Professional Midwives in health care reform. Media inquiries: Katherine Prown (414) 550-8025, katie@thebigpushformidwives.org

#####
The Big Push for Midwives Campaign  |  2300 M Street, N.W., Suite 800  |  Washington, D.C. 20037-1434   |  TheBigPushforMidwives.org

If you would rather not receive future communications from The Big Push for Midwives Campaign, let us know by clicking here.
The Big Push for Midwives Campaign, 2300 M Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037-1434 United States

Our Mass readings for this Sunday include the words of St. James: "the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace." We should, I think, be used to the idea that there is a connection between peace and virtue. James speaks of "righteousness." The Greek word that he uses, dikaiosynē, can also be translated "justice." And I would say that it certainly includes within its meaning "justice" in the specific sense of that term - giving others their due. It likely also has a broader meaning here, though. From the Christian standpoint, the fullness of righteousness includes doing God's will in its entirety, and so goes beyond justice, to include charity.

We see this elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, at his Baptism, part of the Father's saving plan that will culminate in the Cross, Jesus tells John, according to St. Matthew's account, that "thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Not long after, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus refers a number of times to righteousness. In the Beatitudes that begin the Sermon, Jesus says, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness." He thus suggests a connection between righteousness and being poor in spirit, meek, merciful, and the like, and so between righteousness and charity. Shortly after the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us that he has come to fulfill the law, that one must keep the entire law, all the commandments, and in this way have a "righteousness" that "surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees." Again, this is a righteousness that includes charity. One could also cite evidence from various other New Testament books, including, perhaps, from elsewhere in James.

The Church's liturgy and doctrine continue to speak of interrelationships among peace, justice, and charity or love. In the Preface for the feast of Christ the King, which we will be observing in a just couple of months, there is the reference to "a kingdom of justice, love, and peace." But what, more specifically, is the interrelationship among these? The Church suggests that justice and charity come first. The Servant of God Pope Paul VI famously said, "If you want peace, work for justice." And the Catechism, quoting the Second Vatican Council, expressing an Augustinian insight, tells us: "Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity." But, as St. James seems to indicate, it works the other way around as well. Sowing and cultivating peace is necessary for the practice of Christian righteousness, justice and charity. How so?

St. James offers us some explanation of what he means by practicing peace. He links being "peaceable" with being "gentle, compliant," constantly and sincerely merciful; with refraining from being covetous, envious, or wrongly aggressive or belligerent. One might say that these practices are elements of charity as well as of peace; the point is that they are indeed, in a fairly direct way, elements of peace. In the context of his "treatise on charity" in the second part of the second part of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas, somewhat similarly, refers to peace as an act of charity, and discusses several vices against peace: discord, contention, schism, war, strife, and sedition - all properly understood with the help of appropriate qualifications, of course. By shunning these vices and practicing instead the opposite virtues, we are practicing peace, and thus also the righteousness that is charity. And even before speaking of peace as "the work of justice and the effect of charity," the Catechism begins its treatment of peace by referring, not unlike St. Thomas, to vices against peace: anger and hatred.

We must, for the sake of righteousness, practice peace both as individuals and as societies. Regarding the latter, note again that St. James and St. Thomas mention war as at odds with peace. The Catechism, having offered the important caveat, "Peace is not merely the absence of war" - that is, "it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries"; rather, it "is 'the tranquility of order,'" the order that is justice and charity - continues its section on peace with its treatment of war. This subsection in turn begins with the Church's very important teachings: "Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war"; "All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war."

The Catechism then goes on, drawing from Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and others, to add that "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed," and to explain: "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy." Only when the conditions that the Catechism then enumerates are all fulfilled - and only when the war is then fought in a morally licit manner, as the Catechism explains shortly thereafter - is the use of military force acceptable, rather than a vice at odds with peace, justice and charity, righteousness before God.

The Catholic faith is, then, not pacifist; the Church does not teach, nor, I think, even allow the view, that the use of military force is in itself morally evil and unacceptable; rather the Church speaks (all of these references continue to be from various places in the Catechism's section on the Fifth Commandment) of the "grave duty" of legitimate armed defense of the civil community against aggressors - though the Church does also teach, "Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms ...," either because they, probably mistakenly, think that bearing arms would be intrinsically evil and hence never permissible, or because they discern that they have a special kind of call to "bear witness to evangelical charity." And perhaps more importantly, the Church is firm in its conviction that the pursuit of justice and charity must take into account the very real ways in which war always has evil effects.

As a final note, let me suggest a link between what St. James says and what we hear in our other readings. Jesus and his true disciples - prefigured by "the just one" of the book of Wisdom - are gentle servants, even when their righteousness offends others and leads to persecution. In order to practice peace as directed by Sacred Scripture and the Church, we must follow Jesus along this way. We have the Lord's own assurance that even if we must thus accept death, God will raise us to eternal life.

Let us all form our consciences accordingly. Let us, above all, pray for peace; let us also practice peace, even through humility and trust in God and acceptance of persecution. Let us in this way pursue righteousness.