What is the compelling interest of the state?

With the recent passage of legislation in New York State recognizing homosexual "marriage," I am prompted to ponder what the role of the state is in regulating marriage. In ages past the argument was made that the state had an interest in the encouragement and fostering of families as the building block of society. As redefined in recent legislation marriage is itself divorced from the very concept of family.
In 1974, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that, “The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.” (Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195) Indeed, this same purpose has been repeatedly cited in other court cases. But we are now living in a world in which a vast number of individuals seek to separate sex from procreation. Simply put, one large segment of the population seeks sex without children while, at the same time, another segment is seeking to have children without sex. What a world!
When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy.
Absent the interest in promoting procreation and protecting the traditional family as the optimal environment for raising children, what is the compelling interest of the state in recognition of "marriage"?
The cynic in me predicts that the parties who will benefit most from this redefined institution are the divorce lawyers

Where's the focus?

A reporter noted that Francis Cardinal George has written books reflecting on the role of God and the Church in the world and asked the Cardinal if he had considered writing a more personal memoir. Cardinal George responded: (full story here)

I'm not very good at that. A priest is supposed to point to Christ, not to himself. I really believe that firmly. … I found that strange when I first got to Chicago. They were all very interested in my personality and all the rest. … All of a sudden charisma became the qualification for leadership. If you're not charismatic, you can't lead. Whereas the church is very different. It's the office that counts. I'm going to be gone. It's the office that's important, not me the officeholder. … Priesthood is an office, and we're trained, well trained, to disappear behind the office.

This seems to have a tone strikingly different from that adopted by Fr. Michael Pfleger, another Chicago-based Catholic churchman, who went to a nationally broadcast radio show to express his thoughts on the possibility that he might be asked to change assignments at the request of the local ordinary to whom he made a promise of obedience: (full story here)

"I want to try to stay in the Catholic Church," Pfleger said. "If they say 'You either take this principalship of (Leo High School) or pastorship there or leave,' then I'll have to look outside the church. I believe my calling is to be a pastor. I believe my calling is to be a voice for justice. I believe my calling is to preach the Gospel. In or out of the church, I'm going to continue to do that."

There certainly seems to be a difference in focus.... just sayin'.

Here is a battle that probably won't be fought...

I have been spending a little time studying the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal which is to be put into use beginning at the start of Advent this year. Among the things I have been looking at are the rubrics of that Missal to compare them to the currently used missal. I have been paying particular attention to those rubrics which address the relative orientation of the priest to the people. It is evident from a close reading of the rubrics that the document assumes the priest is facing in the same direction as the people for much of the liturgy.

1. The revised missal seems to retain in spirit the rubrics of the second typical edition of the Missale Romanum (1975), March 1, 1985 although the language varies slightly
2. The matter of orientation of the priest relative to the people is addressed in only a few instances.
3. The current missal seems to allow for the priest facing the altar for the sign of the cross and then turning toward the people for the greeting, while the revised missal seems to envision that both the sign of the cross and the greeting be done facing the people.
4. The Penitential Rite, Opening Prayer and Profession of Faith give no indication as to orientation.
5. Specific instructions to face the people are given at the Orate Fratres (Pray Brethren) in both instances.
6. The Eucharistic prayer indicates the consecrated body and blood of Christ are to be “shown” to the people but does not indicate that this "showing" requires facing the people.
7. The elevation at the doxology omits any reference to the “showing” of the host or chalice.
8. No indication of orientation is given for the Pater Noster , however the revised missal instructs the priest to face the people for the greeting of peace.
9. Specific instructions to face the people are given for both the Ecce, Agnus Dei and the closing prayer

Though not explicit, it is convincingly evident that the Fathers of Vatican II and the Congregation for Divine Worship clearly anticipate that normally the priest would be facing the same direction as the people. This is indicated by the apparent necessity to include explicit instructions for the priest to "face the people" or "turn toward" the people at specific times. Such instructions would be unnecessary were the priest already facing the people.

I note however that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal indicates:

299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.

There is ambiguity inherent in this instruction as to whether it is the circumambulation of the altar, the facing of the people, or both which is considered “desirable”, moreover the original Latin would more commonly be translated "useful" rather than "desirable". In either case, it is plainly evident that a posture versus populum, or facing the people, is optional and not mandated.

In short, the missal apparently envisions that the priest's posture for the much of the Mass would have him in a position to pray with, rather than at, the people. Unfortunately many people would react by saying, "The priest is turning his back to us," and fail to recognize that the priest is instead facing God along with them.

Alas, I'm sure there are many who would have a difficult time accepting this interpretation and that there are few priests willing to fight that battle.

Signs of the times

Long time... no post. I've been weaning myself of the delusion that the thoughts that go through my head are worthy of notice, but this exercise is mainly for me as I try to knit a few things together. As is the case today when reading two stories that struck me for different reasons.

In one corner we have the story of the Northwestern University prof who decided he could best advance his students education by having a couple (not married, but at least affianced) engage in a live demonstration of the use of sex toys. (story here) Tuition at NU is over $40,000 per year. There are men who, although lacking the academic background of the esteemed professor, could provide the students with a more in depth and hands on experience for considerably less. They are known as pimps.

Meanwhile, out west, the #3 ranked Brigham Young University men's basketball team suffered a loss to New Mexico. Apparently the BYU team was hampered in part due to the loss of 6-foot-9 forward Brandon Davies who was booted off BYU's team for breaking the school's honor code. Davies' offense? He was dismissed from the team Tuesday for having premarital sex, according to reports in the Salt Lake Tribune. (story here)

The disconnect between these stories is remarkable. It is also remarkable for me to consider which university is going to come under the greater fire.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics

The Chicago Sun Times reports this morning that a study shows that abortion does not increase mental health woes. (story here)
According to the story:

Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion. Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling — similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion.

The proportion of first-time moms seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher. About 7 per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with 4 per 1,000 women pre-delivery.

Those who deliver need mental health care at a rate of 7 per thousand. Those who abort at a rate of 15 per thousand. So abortion is better for your mental health? Twain was right... lies, damned lies and statistics.

A difficult move explained without pretense....

The Archdiocese of Milwaukee announced today that it is filing for a chapter 11 reorganization under US bankruptcy regulations. The press will assuredly report widely on this story and I'm sure the commentators will have much to say. I am pleased to see that Archbishop Jerome Listecki, in his typical fashion, had the courage to state the truth prompting this decision simply, starkly and boldly. "We are here because of one reason: priests sexually abused minors. For that, I feel deeply ashamed."
There is much background information on the archdiocesan web site, but the statement of the Archbishop entitled "Love One Another" certainly bears reading.

No Mom, she's just my roommate, housing assigned her to me.

In case there had been any remaining doubt, I guess that I am officially a neanderthal. Hearing that Georgetown University, a Jesuit school, is considering "gender blind housing" for incoming students, I have apparently been caught simply napping at the station as the cultural express blazed through town.
One Georgetown student opined that such a change would be beneficial to the community as, "It would be helpful to the many people on campus who have friends of the opposite sex and who have different sexual orientations." I don't think I would have had the courage to try to sell that one to my parents.