A play shows changes in views towards abortion

This opinion article is about going to see a play that was made in the 60's. The story is written by a person who saw the play in the 60's and recently. When she saw it recently and heard everyone applaud when the young woman in the movie announced that she was going to have an abortion, she realized just how much our culture had changed in that time.

How right she is. 40 years!?! I don't think we realize just how short a period of time that is in the grand scheme of things. When history looks back on this period of time, they'll say things changed overnight and won't be able to explain how such massive shifts in thought occured in such a short amount of time.

The news story additionally saddens me that abortion has become so political that it is seen as a good thing to have an abortion. Don't miss understand me, although I'm against abortion, I am willing to concede that those who disagree think they are doing what is right. But even the most vigorous supporter of abortion makes it clear that they see the need to get an abortion as an unfortunate situation. Everyone agrees that in a perfect world, no one would ever 'need' one.

So how can it be that we applaud when someone makes the decision to have one, no matter what our opinion of abortion is? When friend tells you, "We've decided not to let my Mother have the operation. We don't think it'll work and it'll put her in much pain. We're just going to let her die gracefully." If that happens, do you stand up and cheer? No, even when you agree that the best thing was done, you know that it is still a painful moment.

Every abortion is a painful moment. It is a moment to make a major decision about the future of our lives. And it should NEVER be cheered for, even if you support the right to 'choose'.

kencraw on 04.30.04 @ 06:03 PM PST [link]

More on adoption

On my brother's blog (be afraid, be VERY afraid! Only go there if you have thick skin!) my brother responded (scroll down to April 27th) to my entry about the adoption show on 20/20. His thought is that we should make a reality TV show out of getting to have someone's baby.

Brian (my brother) suggests that I'd think hell was freezing over (well actually getting bigger, but you know what I mean) with such an occurance, but I don't think it would be as bad as what's happening. What bothers me is that it is entirely becoming about money and to the degree that we're on the road to having 'babies for sale'. Right now it looks more like college football: If you come 'play' for us, we'll make sure you have a really nice facility to 'practice' in and everything you need, whatever that may be, will be taken care of. There's even been a case where a pregnant woman in jail made the adoption contingent on getting her out of jail (all adopting lawyers take note!).

If there was some process for determining who was more 'qualified' to be parents and it wasn't judged by the government or based on how much money the applicant had (even indirectly), even if it was somewhat random, I wouldn't be opposed to thinking about it.

Now the actual reality TV show, that may be a little over the top.

kencraw on 04.30.04 @ 05:25 PM PST [link]

Terri Schiavo is being killed again

Somehow I missed the headline (or maybe there wasn't one) that a judge yet again let loose Terri Schiavo's husband on her and he (of course) immediately pulled the feeding tube out. Here is an opinion article on the subject.

Sometimes I have a hard time with the Schiavo case because it also distresses me to think about all the laws that exist and are being created that continue to eliminate the unity of marriage. The classic case is when I call up the phone company and they tell me I can't make a change to the phone line in our house because my wife was the one who set it up originally. "It's state law!" they tell me. We can't even act as one entity to the phone company, much less to a more important governmental agency. So when I hear about people wanting to change the laws to make it more difficult for a spouse to make decisions about the medical care of their spouse, a jerk happens in the back of my head that warns me that we are continuing down a very bad road with marriage.

On the other hand, I completely agree with the Pope that food and water are not live support mechanisms and that we MUST respect the dignity of human life by continuing to give them food and water as long as they will digest it.

Anyone else have some advice to help break my quagmire (or how to spell it at least)?

kencraw on 04.30.04 @ 05:07 PM PST [link]

More attacks on Mel Gibson

I was made aware of this article a couple days ago. I don't even feel the need to respond to it and think it's idiocracy speaks for itself. What I find particularly interesting is that this person is one of those who has clearly bought into 'The DaVinci Code' whole, as made clear by his point #2. The book is clearly harmless.

kencraw on 04.30.04 @ 04:58 PM PST [link]

More examples of TV show bias

Every time I think I'm watching too much TV, I read something like this and realize that I'm right to think that. It is amazing how much TV, even the TV that thinks it is being sympathetic to religion, is really further re-iterating how much they don't understand the basic principles of Christian faith (or any faith for that matter).

kencraw on 04.30.04 @ 04:51 PM PST [link]

Quote of the Day

“We're supposed to be for children, and they say it's OK to eliminate our very clientele. That's hard to understand." NEA (National Education Association) member Connie Bancroft speaking of the NEA's support for abortion.

kencraw on 04.30.04 @ 04:43 PM PST [link]

Witness of a pro-life 'protestor' at the Washington March

Read this blog entry when you have a moment to cry. She went to the Washington D.C. march to be present amongst them to let them all know that she regretted her abortion and was treated horribly.

kencraw on 04.27.04 @ 06:40 PM PST [link]

New document on Mass protocol

The Church has just released a document about how we are to celebrate Mass and specifically in regards to the Eucharist. The document is called 'Redemptionis Sacramentum' and can be found here.

The document highlights a number of abuses that the Holy Father believes needs to be stopped. Some of those things were:

-The Homily being given, or any preaching for that matter, by laypeople.
-Breaking of the Host at the time of consecration
-Priests forming their own Eucharist prayers
-Singing/use of musical instruments during the Eucharistic Prayer
-Excessive commotion during the Sign of Peace
-Eucharistic services should be avoided if at all possible

Two other things were of interesting note. The first is that the right of priests to say Mass in Latin has always existed. The second is that, except where absolutely necessary, Eucharist should be distributed by ordained ministers.

Thoughts on any of these?

kencraw on 04.27.04 @ 10:36 AM PST [link]

Quote of the Day

“If we do what we can, God will do what we can’t.”

-E. C. McKenzie

kencraw on 04.27.04 @ 10:04 AM PST [link]

The best hour in radio, PERIOD

I listen to Catholic radio frequently on the way to and from work. Sometimes I catch "The Bishops Radio hour" at 11:00 AM locally because I am going into work late or doing something over lunch. This is a show supported by Bishop Weigand of the Diocese of Sacramento, CA. Considering that it is a local show I'm always amazed at the quality people they get to interview. Frequently they are people on the state and national level. People who you'd never think would be on a local radio show. The only example I can think of at the moment is Ted Kazinski's brother, the one who turned him in, when he was recently fighting the death penalty.

It's available on the web at: http://www.ihradio.org/live.ram. That'll play whatever the radio station is playing at the moment and the show is from 11 to Noon Pacific time and is replayed from 9 to 10 PM. Listen in. It's the best hour of radio on the web!

kencraw on 04.26.04 @ 03:32 PM PST [link]

What's the deal with Kerry?

OK, I'm trying to stay away from the whole Kerry and Catholicism thing because I think we're playing with fire here. But recently Teresa Heinz (Kerry's wife) said that she believed that the fetus was a life, amongst other things.

Kerry was asked if he shared the same views as his wife. His genius reply:

"I do not know the answer to that. We've never-she's never had to vote."

What in God's name does that mean? I don't care what you think of his political views, the guy seems to be insistant on saying stupid things.

kencraw on 04.26.04 @ 03:18 PM PST [link]

More proof of how corrupt adoption has become

This type of show is proof that the world of adoption is half way on its way to becoming a 'for sale' industry. I mean, how valuable is a healthy baby? $10K? $100K? $1 Millon?

I try to think of a world where we live like this and it just makes me sick to my stomack. The one hope I would have is that the value of life, in some sick perverted way, might then be seen. How many people would have an abortion if the resultant child could be worth $100k?

I must go "talk" this over with my favorite "cool on the side" friend in the bathroom.

kencraw on 04.26.04 @ 03:11 PM PST [link]

The Gospel of John movie

I had rented via netflix "The Gospel of John". It was a movie that was supposed to be released straight to DVD, but because of all the controversy surrounding "The Passion" they decided to release to the theatres for a short while first. It was released to DVD a couple weeks ago. I got to seeing the 3 hour movie on Saturday morning at home. Here is my review:

Overall it is worth seeing. It is a 'B' quality movie, which for a Christian movie is something to be proud of. While the acting wasn't compelling, it wasn't distractingly bad either. The sets, camera work, music, and other factors that go into making a movie great, were similarly good enough to be reasonable but not so great as to lift it up above being a 'B' movie.

The movie is a word-for-word re-telling of The Gospel of John using a translation (Good News Bible -from the American Bible Society) that I wasn't particulary happy with. The translation is an odd mixture of modern language and traditional phrasing. In this translation "Amen, Amen" is changed into "I tell you the truth", which isn't a horrible translation to bring to light what "Amen, Amen" means, but there were a few instances where it was distracting and not in the proper context. On the other extreme, there were also instances (I wish I could remember a specific one right now) where their insistence on sticking to a particular phrasing hindered the ability to communicate the point. Some of this can of course is because the translators weren't translating to put it on screen, but I think the movie would have been better served using the NIV (or NAB for us Catholics!).

What I found most interesting was that even though it was straight from scripture is just how much interpretation one can put into a passage on the screen. The clensing of the temple of the moneychangers was horribly done in my opinion. It showed Christ as a maniac without purpose who had just flipped his lid. It was a strong diversion from the Christ of the rest of the Gospel of John (including His dipiction in the movie) that was confident, bold and in control.

What I liked best about the movie was how it showed how controversial Christ's teaching was to the Jewish people. Unlike "The Passion" (which wasn't trying to accomplish this anyway) this movie makes it very apparent that Christ and the Jewish Authorities were in bitter conflict. It even makes it seem that Christ was provoking them to some degree. Although the Pharases were still the villans, they were villans that had a justification for their position. They were a people who's hearts were closed to Christ's message, not a people who were just out to get Him.

Overall it is worth renting. If nothing else it is an opportunity to take in the entire Gospel of John which is particularly valuable if you don't have the discipline to sit down and read the entire Gospel. I recommend taking out your favorite translation of the Bible and following along. It made it all that much more interesting to watch.

kencraw on 04.26.04 @ 11:04 AM PST [link]

Superheros and Celibacy

This article talks about how most superheros are Celibate because of the sacrifice they must make because of their obligations to serve. I think it is a very good point, one that I have held for a long time. The ordained life calls those who take the vows to a life of service and to completely serve, they must make sacrifices of their own lives. When we are married, we are called to serve our families. How do we fully serve both our families and our Church, when they both as for full servatude? I don't think it is fair to ask that of anyone.

But, the thought of superheros being an example of this issue is one that I had never previously considered. I'll keep that in my bag of discussion examples.

kencraw on 04.26.04 @ 08:34 AM PST [link]

Quote of the Day

"For where anti-Catholic bigotry in 1960 came mainly from the Evangelical right, it comes overwhelmingly in 2004 from the pro-abortion left--who certainly aren't going to vote for Bush."

-Joseph Bottum talking about Kerry's Catholicism being irrelevant in "The Weekly Standard" magazine 4/24/2004

kencraw on 04.26.04 @ 08:29 AM PST [link]