A few things

I am officially ending this blog with this post, but I will probably leave it online. With the birth of my son in March, I haven't had the time to maintain it. I still manage to post on YouTube, however. I hope to resume posting at Our Lady's Blog soon.

I want to end by commenting on politics.

First, a story I read in the Houston Chronicle this morning. In short, a tech at an animal hospital became pregnant, and the hospital worked to make conditions safe for the unborn baby. The woman sued because she did not request the changes and felt discriminated against. According to a 1991 Supreme Court ruling, a company is required to make safe conditions for a pregnant woman, but changes can only be made at the woman's request. This comes from a case against Johnson Controls, a battery company, who had limited the work that fertile women could be done.

Here is where the abortion culture has clouded our mindset: we can no longer distinguish between fertile, potentially pregnant women, and actually pregnant women. When a pregnant woman is working excessively or around dangerous chemicals, there is actual harm being done to her baby. When a fertile woman is working around dangerous chemicals, there is potential harm being done to the woman herself, but not to a non-existent baby.

The hospital did the right thing. It should be a crime for a woman not to request precautionary measures to prevent harm to her unborn baby. But because we've separated so strongly born from unborn, we seem to think as if there is no continuity between the two, and that the baby who comes out of the mother is different from the one that was there moments earlier.

This article does explain why it was difficult for my wife to have her hours cut back on her while she was pregnant. In our rational naiveness, we thought that with the progress made in women's rights (despite the setbacks) that companies would know that pregnant women shouldn't work extra hours. But my wife had to fight for every cutback she received. The company treated her as if she was any other woman, or, well, any man. Is this really the type of equality we're looking for? Apparently, for some of us, it is.

Finally, I want to reprint an email from the Population Research Institute. It is my opinion that no Catholic, or any person who cares about humanity, should vote for Obama. Despite McCain's many faults, the fact that Obama opposed the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" of Illinois, which is effectively anti-infanticide legislation, is enough to disqualify him.

Let me say this again: Obama supported the murder of born infants. Abortion is the murder of unborn infants. Obama supported the murder of born infants.

Let me say this again: Obama supported the murder of infants who had been issued a birth certificate from the state of Illinois. He supported the murder of infants who were then issued a death certificate.

Let me say this again: Obama supported the idea that it is morally acceptable for a woman to give birth to a baby and have the doctors leave it aside to die, provided she didn't want the baby and it was done in a hospital setting.

How can we trust this man on anything, when he feels that such atrocities are morally acceptable and should not be forbidden by law?

Here's a YouTube video on the subject.

This is a pivotal election for the pro-life movement.

In one corner stands Senator John McCain, a grizzled veteran who sports war wounds. His claim to the presidency comes from his decades of experience as a public servant and his straight-shooting approach toward leadership. His Vietnam War record is famous and widely admired. However, he has had trouble winning the trust of many conservatives who continue to wonder: is he really one of us?

In the other corner is Senator Barack Obama, young, athletic, and, at least to the youth and minorities that turn out in droves to see him, ”wildly charismatic." His rhetorical skills are seemingly unrivaled, but he has a tendency to speak in glittering generalities. And even moderates are troubled by the fact that, in his short time in the U.S. Senate, he has managed to compile a record to the left of any other Congressman, even our lone socialist.

But for committed pro-lifers, these matter are secondary. What they want to know is how do these two figures rate on a strictly pro-life scale? What issues separate them, and by how much?

First of all, there is the issue of judicial nominations. The Supreme Court is currently effectively deadlocked on the Life issues, with Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas reliable pro-life votes, and Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter equally reliably pro-abortion. Kennedy, the Court's "swing vote," see-saws somewhere in the middle.

Stevens and Ginsburg are getting on in years, and Souter has reportedly expressed a desire to retire. This has led to a flurry of speculation on the candidates' purported nominees. If a pro-lifer were to take the White House in 2009, he would have the opportunity to fill up to three Supreme Court seats with judges who share his views, creating a strong majority on the court. A Pro-choice liberal, on the other hand, would presumably nominate people of like mind. Given that the Democrat pro-abortion majorities in both Houses of Congress will probably increase in the fall, this scenario would amount to giving the pro-choicers a kind of one-party dictatorship, since all the powers of government--legislative, executive and judicial--would no longer separated, but would be controlled by people of the same ideological bent.

How do Obama and McCain differ on the matter of judicial appointments? The Illinois senator's prospective judicial appointments, as outlined in the National Journal, are not only pro-choice, but zealously so. These justices could include people like Diane Wood, Eric Holder Jr., and possibly even Hillary Clinton. Obama himself insists that he wants "people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling for what ordinary people are going through." He seems to forget that Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law, not championing Robin Hoods for underprivileged or minority groups. That is the job of liberal politicians.

Who would McCain pick? Prospective candidates include Michael McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Paul Clement. These are all pro-life conservatives, who are not likely to agree that the Constitution allows abortion on demand. McCain has consistently voted for to confirm pro-life judges, and insists that men like John Roberts and Samuel Alito would be his models when choosing candidates.

How McCain and Obama compare on other Life issues?

Obama's abortion record is nothing short of atrocious. He co-sponsored the infamous Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would have swept aside all pro-life laws to ensure that abortion on demand, without restrictions or conditions, remains the law of the land. He also supports expanded access to abortifacient contraceptives. While an Illinois senator, he voted to increase taxpayer funding of abortion, and consistently opposed parental notification laws. He also opposed legislation against partial-birth abortion, enthusiastically supported embryonic stem-cell research, and even voted against anti-infanticide legislation in Illinois.

In statements to NARAL and Planned Parenthood, Obama proudly declared that on the "fundamental issue" of choice, he "will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." Small wonder, then, that the president of the pro-life group Fidelis, Brian Burch, has challenged the public to examine Obama's "quotes and his record together." With all the press spin and Obama hype, Burch says, it is sometimes easy for the public to overlook what Obama says "in front of the people that it matters most, namely Planned Parenthood, NARAL and specifically as a legislator himself."

John McCain's record on the Life issues is the mirror image of Obama's. He has a 100% pro-life voting record, having consistently, over decades, cast votes in defense of the unborn. To be sure, he is not perfect. He allows exceptions for rape and incest, going along with an effort to change the GOP platform to reflect this. He has also adopted the same stem-cell compromise that President Bush earlier did. He would allow experimentation on existing stem-cell lines while forbidding funding for the creation of new ones.

In sum, McCain is conservative on life issues, if not particularly vocal. As George F. Will of Newsweek aptly put it, "McCain sounds at best perfunctory when talking about things other than those that really interest him." The abortion issue has never been McCain's "thing," but if his rhetoric does not show passion, his record does show quiet consistency. He would turn the abortion issue over to the states, supports parental notification laws and ban on partial-birth abortion, and opposes tax-funded abortion and human cloning.

This puts him head and shoulders above Obama, whose radical pro-abortion stance and his inflammatory rhetoric on the issue, clearly place him at the pro-abortion extreme of his party. McCain may be only a pragmatic moderate on the pro-life issue, or he may be a little more, but Obama, clearly, is rabidly pro-abortion.

Spread the word.

Gregory of Nazianzus' Second Theological Oration

This is a short paper I wrote for a theology class. The oration can be read here.

The focus of Gregory's second theological oration is on the incomprehensibility, ineffability, and indispensability of God, as well as how natural theology and philosophy leads rational beings to belief in God.

In regards to God’s incomprehensibility, Gregory begins by explaining that God does not and cannot have a body. If God were to have a body, then we must say that either He is in the world (=finite being), or that He is (or contains) the world (=possibly infinite, though not necessarily so), and we must say that He is composed of something, which would imply change in God. Furthermore, the attempt to explain why God must have a body is an effort to understand the Divine Nature. If God does not have a body, then He cannot be comprehended by bodily creatures. Gregory writes:

“This darkness of the body has been placed between us and God…It is impossible…for a fish to glide about outside of the waters; so it is quite impracticable for those who are in the body to be conversant with objects of pure thought apart altogether from bodily objects” (XII).

And:

“For what will you conceive the Deity to be, if you rely upon all the approximations of reason? Or to what will reason carry to, O most philosophic of men and best of Theologians, who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited? Is He a body? How then is He the Infinite and Limitless, and formless, and intangible, and invisible? Or are these attributes of a body? What arrogance for such is not the nature of a body!” (VII)

Later he says that, “the Divine Nature cannot be apprehended by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness” (XI).

After he argues based upon reason, he makes a negative argument from authority, namely, that there is no record of an inspired teacher teaching that God has a body. (The argument from authority is written almost as a footnote, and is not intended to carry any force within the argument itself.) Thus if God is not a body, it is proper to say that He is incorporeal.

But this poses a new problem, in that a single word cannot contain God’s essence. It is easier to reduce God to a term or two, to describe Him as the “Self-existent” being, but none of our mutable words can describe the One who is Immutable. Ironically, it follows that we can describe God as ineffable. Gregory says,

“But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate imperfectly, to any one who is not quite deprived of his hearing, or slothful of understanding. But to comprehend the who of so great a Subject as this is quite impossible and impracticable, not merely to the utterly careless and ignorant, but even to those who are highly exalted, and who love God, and in like manner to every created nature” (IV).

He also says, “But this term Incorporeal, though granted, does not yet set before us---or contain within itself His Essence” (IX).

In our refusal to accept these facts, viz. that God is incomprehensible, incorporeal, and ineffable, certain despicable persons, deceived by the Evil One, have strayed from rational worship of the true God to irrational worship of bodies, be they persons, ancestors, images, pictures, or celestial objects, to which we have deified our passions and mocked ourselves. He says, “And before now men have insulted themselves by worshiping monsters, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things” (XV, emphasis added).

Worshipers of the true God have not sought to comprehend God, for they know the folly in such an undertaking. So Enoch hoped to call upon the name of the Lord rather than to know Him, and Abraham was satisfied with worshiping God as well as he comprehended Him, and Paul dared not speak the ineffable words which he heard uttered in the Third Heaven. “We too will honor it by silence” (XX).

Gregory spends the latter half of the oration praising the beauty of creation and the lamenting man’s futile efforts to understand it. Although we cannot understand God, we can know about Him and that He exists on account of natural theology. Gregory says at the beginning of the oration, “Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things…because though these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their Author” (VI).

It is important to read the second half of the oration in light of this early statement. At times Gregory seems to be making statements to the effect that it is impossible for humanity to come to any understanding of the physical world other than some bare minimal facts. For example, he says, “What scientific laws, pray, can you law down concerning thunder and lightning, O you who thunder from the earth, and cannot shine with even little sparks of truth?” (XXVIII). An atmospheric scientist would explain the nature of electrons and charges in the clouds and the ground.

It is unlikely that Gregory would be bothered by such a materialistic explanation of the universe. Materialists are missing the point. He says, “For, granted that you understand orbits and periods…you have not arrived at comprehension of the realities themselves, but only at an observation of some movement, which, when confirmed by longer practice, and drawing the observations of many individuals into one generalization, and thence deducing a law, has acquired the name of Science” (XXIX). He wants to know “who gave him [the sun] motion at first?” (XXX).

In Aristotelian terms Gregory is seeking the efficient cause rather than the material cause. The problem with the materialist is that he presupposes that there are no efficient causes or that efficient causes, even if they exist, are unnecessary to discuss and understand. Because we can explain how the world works, there is no need to explain why the world works the way it does. The materialist is confusing the questions “how?” “why?” and “who?” It is the latter two for which Gregory is seeking answers. But is does not follow that because the “how?” can be answered that the “why?” and “who?” are sufficiently answered or need not be answered.

Gregory’s real question is “why is there something rather than nothing at all?” By seeking the answer to this question we can reason from that fact that there is something to the need for a creator, but the sheer audacity of the question affects in us a sense of wonder at the incomprehensibility and ineffability of that Creator.

Who was Gregory of Nazianzus?

When I tell Catholics that my son's name is Gregory, they will usually say something like "Oh, just like Gregory the Great." Actually, my son was named after Gregory of Nazianzus, who, like Gregory the Great, is a Doctor of the Church. He is much more highly venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy, and is known to them as "Gregory the Theologian."

He is grouped together in a triad of theologians, along with Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, known as the Three Holy Hierarchs. More recently, a new grouping has been in vogue which replaces Chrysostom with Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's brother, who collectively are known as the Cappadocian Fathers, due to the fact that all three were from a region in modern day Turkey known as Cappadocia. This is not to diminish Chrysostom in any way, but rather is to recognize Gregory of Nyssa who was a contemporary with Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus (Chrysostom was born about 20 years later and was from Antioch, rather than Cappadocia).

Gregory of Nazianzus was born around the year AD 329. His father, also named Gregory, was Bishop of Nazianzus. Both Gregory and Basil studied under the great teachers of the day (albeit pagans). They were educated in Athens in the fields of rhetoric, poetry, geometry, and astronomy. They also studied with Julian, who would eventually become the emperor, apostatize from Christianity, and persecute Christians in a failed effort to reclaim a pagan empire.

At the age of 33 he was baptized by his father and ordained a priest against his will. When his father tried to consecrate him as a bishop, however, he fled to Pontus where Basil had organized a monastery. Like Saint Augustine later in the west, he desired the contemplative life but eventually accepted that God had other plans for him. During his sojourn, he reflected on what had happened and returned to Cappadocia to accept his ordination. (This occurred approximately at Christmas and Easter, respectively.)

Meanwhile, Arianism flourished in Constantinople. In the year 379, Gregory traveled to Constantinople to deliver his "Five Theological Orations" which earned him the title "The Theologian." These five orations expound the orthodox creed of Nicea. In an humble chapel in Constantinople, Catholics and heretics gathered to hear the man speak. They were attracted by his learning and eloquence, and it was they who heard the man who would later be recognized for giving us the greatest contributions to understanding the Holy Trinity.

Gregory's work influenced the Arian Emperor of Constantinople, Theodosius, who would recognize only Gregory as bishop. Theodosius was baptized in 380 and immediately issued an edict commanding the people of Constantinople to hold to the Catholic faith taught by St. Peter. After disposing of the Arian Bishop Demophilus, Theodosius appointed Gregory as the Bishop of Constantinople, who was joyfully received by the people.

In 381 Theodosius summoned 150 bishops together for the Council of Constantinople, portions of which Gregory presided over. The purpose of the council was to confirm the faith of Nicea, and appoint a permanent Bishop of Constantinople. Gregory was the obvious choice for orthodox Christians, but the semi-arians who opposed the orthodox faith also opposed Gregory's appointment as bishop. Gregory decided to resign.

After Gregory returned to Nazianzus, he found the Church there overtaken by heresy. He failed to find an adequate man to serve as bishop, so he took the position himself. Eventually, his failing health made the job too difficult, so in 383 the Archbishop of Tyana appointed Gregory's cousin, Eulalius, to be bishop. Gregory then retired to Arianzus, the place of his birth, to live out his final days in study and contemplation, the life for which he always yearned. He died in 389 in Arianzus.

Observations of the Church of England

A couple days ago I overheard someone say, "the Anglican Church is a lot like the Catholic Church." Unfortunately, that is not as true as it once was. Once upon a time, the Church of England was actually quite faithful to orthodoxy, with some notable exceptions, of course. But I suppose it was inevitable that, since it failed to preserve the Sacraments, that it would eventually get sucked into the spirit of the age and seek deep into relativism. Now it is a moribund faith.

Although Catholicism has benefited by the influx of Anglican converts, the decline of Christianity in England (as with the rest of Europe) benefits Islam (and sometimes militant Islam) the most.

Some astute observations are made by Michelle Malkin, and Argent by the Tiber reports on a female "bishop" ordained in Austrailia.

A model for other bishops

Archbishop Naumann answers questions. Argent by the Tiber has the story.

Fetal Pain

Source: Zenit.

By Father John Flynn, LC

ROME, MAY 25, 2008 (Zenit.org).- A topic receiving more attention recently in debates on abortion is the question as to whether a fetus can suffer and feel pain. A book just published brings together a variety of evidence by experts, mainly Italian, on the subject.

"Neonatal Pain: Suffering, Pain and the Risk of Brain Damage in the Fetus and Unborn" (Springer) is edited by Giuseppe Buonocore and Carlo Bellieni, who are both members of the department of pediatrics, obstetrics and reproductive medicine at the University of Siena.

The contributions from the large number of experts who contribute to the book agree in affirming that a fetus can feel pain before birth, the two editors explain in their introductory essay. "Recognizing human dignity and human suffering from life in the womb is a clinical duty in the service of better treatment," they declare.

One of the contributions, a joint effort by nine experts, looks at the evidence obtained from ultrasound techniques. The introduction of three-dimensional and four-dimensional ultrasonography has enabled a far more detailed evaluation of the fetus, thus allowing the observation of how it reacts to specific stimuli, they observe.

The uterus is a protected, but not an isolated, environment and touch is the first sense that the fetus develops. By week 10 of pregnancy an unborn child can be observed bringing hands to its head, opening and closing the mouth, and swallowing.

As well, recent experiments show that newborns have functional memory, development of which began in the period before birth. The authors note that, in fact, newborns remember tastes and odors perceived in the uterus and these perceptions might have an influence on future preferences. Sounds, also, are heard by the unborn, including the mother's voice. Newborns have even been shown to recognize music that the mother listened to during pregnancy.

Protagonist

Another joint article examines the specific question of fetal pain. The team of medical experts who authored the piece starts by noting that the unborn child is a protagonist, promoting cellular traffic with the mother, and so the fetus needs to be considered a patient, whose well-being is taken into consideration by doctors.

There is evidence, they observe, that acute or chronic pain, or even prolonged stress, can be dangerous for the fetus, especially if it happens during a critical period of brain development. Possible negative effects range from a lower pain threshold to an increase in age-related memory impairments.

Based on experiments with primates, the article hypothesizes that fetal pain can even impair the functioning of the body's immune system, with long-term implications for infections and autoimmune diseases.

Regarding stress, the authors cite a study on a group of mothers who suffered stress and compared them to a control group. The babies of the stressed mothers were characterized by a lower birth weight, smaller head circumference and a lower gestational age at birth when compared with the babies of the control group.

The authors observe that some medical experts don't consider the fetus can feel pain because it is not conscious, and also because it is normally asleep in the womb. The article on neonatal pain in Buonocore and Bellieni's book reply to this by saying there is considerable scientific evidence showing that fetuses are sensitive to a variety of sensation in the uterus: sound, changes in light, touch and pressure, and changes in balance.

Moreover, even if a fetus were not to recognize pain consciously as we do, it still remains an unpleasant experience for the unborn, they add.

Stress effects

Another chapter of the book looked at other effects of stress on the fetus. Two members of the Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology at Imperial College London, Kieran O'Donnell and Vivette Glover, explain that maternal stress is very much related to the development of the fetus.

In addition, in cases of medical intervention carried out on fetuses there is evidence showing a response to an invasive stimulus from the age of 16 weeks gestation. Even at the age of 12 weeks a fetus will move away if touched. Nevertheless, O'Donnell and Glover admit that we still do not know exactly when the fetus starts to feel pain or when it becomes conscious.

In a concluding chapter, Marina Enrichi urges readers to value prenatal life. A better knowledge about prenatal conditions and the development of the fetus will bring with it a perception of fetal life as something precious, resulting in greater respect for the developing embryo and the woman bearing it, she argues.

One of the consequences of this, Enrichi augurs, is that all of us and society itself will begin to wish to create a more protective environment for the unborn baby and the mother.

Nervous system

The Italian medical experts are not the only ones convinced of the need to pay more attention to the pain suffered by the unborn. On Feb. 10 the New York Times ran a major feature article reporting on the findings of other doctors on this topic.

The article started by citing the experience of Kanwaljeet Anand, who while a medical resident in a British hospital saw the significant harm caused to premature babies when they were operated on without anesthetic. At the time, 25 years ago, doctors thought the nervous systems of the babies were too underdeveloped to sense pain.

Through trials, Anand clearly showed this was not at all the case and that once the babies received anesthesia the mortality rate dropped from 25% to 10%. Pain relief for premature babies soon came to be standard, the article said. Anand continued his observations in this area and noted that babies as young as 22 weeks of gestation demonstrated a reaction to pain even when pricked by a needle.

The consequence of this observation was the consideration that the fetus might feel pain. This became an important question with the development of fetal surgery, since whether the unborn feels pain is an important consideration for the surgeon.

Anand, now a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and a pediatrician at the Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock, told the New York Times that he believes fetuses can feel pain by the 20th week of pregnancy, and possibly even earlier.

The article also cited Nicholas Fisk, a fetal-medicine specialist and director of the University of Queensland Center for Clinical Research in Australia. Fisk has carried out research showing that fetuses as young as 18 weeks react to an invasive procedure with a spike in stress hormones and a shunting of blood flow toward the brain. This is a reaction also present in infants and adults and is designed to protect a vital organ from threat.

The New York Times article acknowledged that the question of whether the fetus does feel pain has obvious implications for the abortion debate. In fact, medical evidence is showing they do feel pain, and as time goes by researchers are pushing back more and more their estimation of the age at which the fetus is affected by pain.

Admitting that a fetus does feel pain, however, is difficult for abortion advocates, as it is just one more bit of evidence proving how wrong they are about denying the unborn a chance to live.

"Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being," states No. 2274 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Recognizing that a fetus can indeed feel pain is one step on the path to acknowledging it is a person.

Tidbits

This is from a Google Gadget called "Tidbits." It's a terse quote which should be on the walls in doctors offices, hospices, courtrooms and halls of legislatures when considering "end-of-life" and "wellness" care (wink, wink, State of Oregon).

Aegroto, dum anima est, spes esse dicitur
— It is said that for a sick man, there is hope as long as there is life