Why Have Children?

Eric Cohen asks "Why Have Children?" in this chilling article about where we are headed given our anti-child attitude worldwide.

Once today’s childless generations grow old, they will face the prospect of their own mortality without children to care for them, comfort them, and mourn them. As the personal freedom of the past ends in isolation, euthanasia may come to seem the most rational, or perhaps the only plausible, solution to the debilities of old age.

You may wonder why I use such romantic depictions of children. It's because romanticizing family life helps us muddle through it, heroicly, patiently and successfully. Every family must have a vision of themselves as a group or subculture and every family member a view of their role as attractive and meaningful.

G.K. Chesterton understood this and says the following on romance and realism:

Romance is more solid than realism, and that for a very evident reason. The things that men happen to get in this life depend upon quite shifting accidents and conditions. But the things that they desire and dream of are always the same.

So by all means romanticize family life and the raising of children in order to draw adherents to this essential truth and confirm your own commitment to your husband or wife and children.

Fr. Euteneuer Calls it as He Sees it

Fr. Euteneuer: Buffett is 'Dr. Mengele of philanthropists'
Alliance with Gates foundation irks anti-abortion activists

NEW YORK (AP) -- Warren Buffett's new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to which Buffett has pledged the bulk of his $44-billion fortune, devotes the vast majority of its funding to combating disease and poverty in developing countries. Less than 1 percent has gone to Planned Parenthood over the years. And the Gates Foundation does not permit its gifts to Planned Parenthood to be used for abortion services.

"The merger of Gates and Buffett may spell doom for the families of the developing world," said the Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, a Roman Catholic priest who is president of Human Life International.

Referring to Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor, Euteneuer said Buffett "will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents."

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued statements praising Buffett and Gates for their generosity. Gloria Feldt, a former Planned Parenthood president, said she was appalled by the harsh attacks on them.


The foundation founded by Buffett, and now named after his late wife, Susan, came under fire from some anti-abortion groups in the 1990s after it gave $2 million to fund clinical trials of mifepristone, more commonly known as the RU-486 abortion pill. The foundation also has supported various abortion-rights and family-planning groups, and Susan Buffett was eulogized after her death in 2004 as a champion of women's reproductive health.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, wrote a commentary this week holding the Buffetts partially responsible for the approval of RU-486 in 2000.

"Since then, approximately 500,000 American babies have been killed with RU-486," Perkins wrote. "Buffett's billions have the potential to do damage like this on a global scale."

Planned Parenthood, which is the leading provider of abortions in the United States, has received $34 million from the Gates Foundation over the years -- out of a total of $10.5 billion in grants worldwide, according to foundation spokeswoman Jacquelline Fuller. She said the foundation does not fund abortion services, earmarking the grants for other Planned Parenthood programs.

Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul

June 29th Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul

In Spain, Chimps and Apes to Get Same Rights as Humans

Spain proposes legislation granting "rights" to man's closest relative.

SPAIN is not the first country that springs to mind as a land of animal lovers - it is better known for bullfighting and the large number of stray cats and dogs on its streets.

But that image is set for a change. Today, the Spanish parliament will consider a resolution granting higher primates the same rights to life and freedom as humans.

The resolution recognising the rights of apes, chimpanzees and orang-utans has been put forward by Francisco Garrido, a bioethicist and member of the Green Party. It has the support of the socialist PSOE party and seems certain to become law.

The resolution adheres to the ideals of the Great Ape Project, which recognises our closest genetic relatives as part of a "community of equals". If voted through, it will make Spain the first national legislature to give such rights to non-humans.

Under Spanish law, animals, including higher primates, are deemed to be "owned". Under Mr Garrido's resolution, they would come under moral guardianship, meaning apes could effectively be made "wards of the state" if they were under threat or being mistreated.

Any new laws protecting apes in Spain would put pressure on other European countries to follow suit.

The Catholic Church initially opposed the legislation, with Fernando Sebastian, the Archbishop of Pamplona, saying it was ludicrous to grant apes rights not enjoyed by unborn children - a reference to Spanish abortion laws.

However, he has since said his remarks had been taken out of context and that he now supported the resolution.

Yesterday, Greenpeace Spain added its backing to the proposed new law. "

The critics of this initiative are repeating the arguments of 150 years ago against the abolitionist movement that sought an end to slavery or when the suffragette movement wanted the vote for women," a spokesman, Miguel Angel Soto, said.

The Great Ape Project was founded in the United States in 1993 by philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri. They said apes were so close to humans they deserved rights to life, freedom and not to be tortured. "When a loved one dies, they grieve for a long time. They can solve complex puzzles that stump most two-year-old humans," Mr Singer said.

The Spanish parliament's move today will set a precedent for greater legal protection for other animals, including elephants, whales and dolphins, according to Paul Waldau, the director of the Centre for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University in Massachusetts. "It isn't easy for us to see how far that expansion will go, but it's very clear we need to expand beyond humans," he said.

Note the name Peter Singer. Remember him? He is a Princeton professor who advocates allowing parents 21 days (a trial period if you will) to kill their newborns. Especially useful if the child is handicapped or in some other way fails to meet his parents' expectations.

What next? Interspecies marriage? Employment rights for animals? Voting rights? I noticed also that the Church now supports this measure? What an outrage.

And We Have....

...a winner! Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the new Secretary of State for the Vatican.

In addition to being heavily involved in addressing the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, Cardinal Bertone, 71, has been outspoken in his defense of life and family.

In a 2001, prior to the Vatican's recent reiteration of the teaching that men with homosexual inclinations should not be permitted to enter seminary, Cardinal Bertone stated in an interview with the Catholic News Service, "persons with a homosexual inclination should not be admitted to the seminary." He explained that while not sinful, the inclination to homosexuality "evokes moral concern" since it is a strong inclination to actions that "are always in themselves evil."

In 2000 then-Archbishop Bertone spoke out strongly against the complacency of Catholics in affluent countries in defending life and family. Speaking to the Pontifical Academy for Life in February of that year, Bertone said: "Unfortunately, in the great societies of today's world, where numerous unjust laws are enforced, many Catholics do not comply adequately with their duty to oppose these laws. The fundamental reasons are the weakness of faith and Christian commitment, and the poor distribution of tasks between pastors and the laity."

In January 2004, Cardinal Bertone took part in an event called "Dialogue in the Cathedral" at the Basilica of St. John Lateran. There the incoming Secretary of State commented on the breakdown of the family and particularly the absence of fathers saying, "If there is no father, the entire architecture of the family is destined to crumble." During the address he commented on the low birthrates in the West saying, "In Genoa, we have the best hospital for infants, but we have no infants."

Love This!

From monkallover.blogspot.com

Marriage: an ever-fixed mark?

Roman Marriage Relief

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

William Shakespeare Sonnet CXVI

I recently entered into a discussion about the Sacrament of Marriage. The question came up, if a Catholic is divorced should she be encouraged to date and remarry? At first I thought that the person who was advocating dating and remarriage had failed to realize the individual was divorced and had a child. I said that this person, a convert should attempt to reconcile her marriage, raise it to the level of a Sacrament, restore the family for her child and be true to her marriage vows. This is the path of sanctity. I was told that I was mistaken because perhaps, maybe, it was possible after all, that the individual had received a declaration of nullity. It was treated as a mere formality. After all how many Catholics stop to think that they should not divorce, apply for the annulment and remarry? Far too few.

Annulment is viewed as the rubber stamp on their declaration of independence. Independence from their marriage vows and independence from the Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

Annulment has become the loophole expanded to fit a tractor trailer comfortably. The reasons that the Church permits annulment can be found here. Funny, you don't see "immaturity" or "failure of communion of life and love" or "I found someone new" in this list. And why do we always give the benefit of the doubt to the person divorcing his or her spouse and never to the spouse abandoned? Why is the person encouraging restoration of the marriage bond the villain, and the person encouraging the divorcing spouse to date and remarry the "hero"? Because there is something wrong with our thinking. It is Americanist, individualist and not in the least Catholic. Marriage is a path to sanctity not self satisfaction, self fulfillment, wealth, respectability, ease, comfort or peace. It is far too important a societal construct than that. Once, that was recognized. No more.

Bai McFarlane has launched a movement to encourage Catholics to reject no fault divorce and re-establish marriage bonds and not encourages annulment and remarriage. She has been abandoned by her husband, had her children taken from her custody to be put in daycare and public schools (after homeschooling them for ten years, ordered to sell the family home, find a job and pay her husband child support. She is arguing that her marriage was formed not be virtue of the State but is under the jurisdiction of the Church. Therefore the Church is the arbiter of custody and separation. Bai seeks a restoration of her marriage and recognition by the Roman Rota that her marriage is valid. This she hopes will encourage her husband to honor his marriage vows. Her website is here.

Warning- Offensive Images

This post may contain images that disturb you. It may contain images that make you uncomfortable. It may contain images that you find profane.

If so, too darn bad.

Images known as Our Lady of La Leche





The reason that I post these images is because of this story. A woman was kicked out of Victoria Secret's because she wanted to nurse her baby in the dressing room. Now at first I was tempted to think, well what were you thinking of going into a Victoria Secret store anyway??????? But it does illustrate the hypocrisy of a culture that can condemn a woman for feeding her baby and at the same time exploit her. Why do we allow this? And then I learned this:

Massachusetts is one of the few states that doesn’t have laws to protect breast-feeding women. Women who breast-feed in public in Massachusetts can be charged with indecent exposure or lewd and lascivious conduct.

Let them try it.

The Nativity of St. John the Baptist

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Episcopalians Refuse to Assert Saved by Name of Christ

My first thought, when I read this was, "Is this news?" Could you find one Catholic in a hundred who believed that by no other name are we saved? Could you find one Catholic in a hundred who doesn't believe that everyone except maybe Hitler will end up in heaven? But you will find plenty who will argue even that point! Remember the assurances that "the Church cannot say that anyone is in hell"? Our Lady of Fatima, in showing the children the vision of hell, lined with the skulls of bishops would seem to disagree. The Old Testament account of Lazarus and the rich man would seem to disprove that error as well. Throw in common sense and you've got point, match, game.

To affirm that everyone or even most people are saved is the heresy of naturalism, and indifferentism which are condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. To argue the esteemed Syllabus is the equivalent of the nuclear option I've been told by a very knowledgeable source which makes it all the more appealing.

According to the debate not only is it wrong to affirm that Jesus is the only Name by which men will be saved it is also, anti-semitic:

"This type of language was used in 1920s and 1930s to alienate the type of people who were executed. It was called the Holocaust. I understand the intent, but I ask you to allow the discharge to stay," said the Rev. Eugene C. McDowell, a graduate of Yale Divinity School and Canon Theologian for the Diocese of North Carolina.

A few voices of reason were heard and shouted down (figuratively of course):

But the message was clear to the Rev. Donald Perschall, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Centralia, Illinois, as he left the convention hall Tuesday, shocked by the events of the day. "On top of leaving the Anglican Communion, we've decided to leave Jesus Christ behind as well."

and

"If we cannot affirm the unique salvific power of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are no longer a Christian church." Switching to a sarcastic tone, Howell declared, "We have no need for a Creed. Why do again what we did in the past?"

"This clearly shows that we are of a mind that does not affirm Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And we should not be surprised that our church is dying spiritually," said Howell.

Warning- professing the Creed of Catholicism is anti-semitic and believing it much less preaching it must be a hate crime. By the way are they tired of saying that by being Catholic we are anti-Semitic? Because I'm tired of hearing it.

From Syllabus of Errors (Pope Pius IX)

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

Sex Ed Removed from Schools in Philippines after Church Protests

In the Philippines the Catholic Church protects the innocence of children.

In the Philippines under protest from the Catholic Church a pilot sex education program in the public schools has been discontinued by the government.

Just like in the United States.

Oh yeah.

Guess not. In the U.S. we can't even keep sex ed out of the CCD classes.

A Local Tragedy

A Massachusetts State Trooper and father of seven killed while on duty in car accident.

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

A New Co-Conspirator

Another worthy volunteer in the war against heresies. Totus Pius. Their banner- "Because when a pope takes Pius, playtime's over."

The Evils of Tradition Put Forth

An amusing little diatribe which only shows we're winning. The cause of tradition is gaining strength and the progressives/modernists are getting desperate.

From the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Diocese - Catholic Register


Another Perspective
Beware The Bathwater!

06/12/2006

By: Monsignor Timothy P. Stein, Editor

A long out of print book, The Enthusiast, tells the story of Father Ignatius of Llanthony.
Father Ignatius was one of the more colorful, if not controversial figures of the 19th century Anglo - Catholic revival in England. Ignatius (Joseph Leycester Lyne) wanted to restore monastic life in the Church of England. He sought to establish a monastery of Anglican Benedictine monks. What he made, was a mess.
Father Ignatius was without a doubt a man of deep faith, and was a well - known missionary preacher and evangelist. But in working to establish a monastery, he simply played at being a monk. He was more concerned with the external trappings of monasticism than he was with the interior conversion that should be the result of living a religious life. Father Ignatius was more in love with his religious habit than he was with the discipline of religious life. He loved to surround himself with statues, pictures, crucifixes, altars, sacred vessels, and all sorts of pious geegaws. If one candle on an altar was good - - two dozen candles were even better. In fact, two dozen candles were not enough for Father Ignatius; contemporary accounts state that there were no less than 250 candles on the high altar at Llanthony Abbey. Father Ignatius loved what some have irreverently termed “smells and bells.”
The Father Ignatius’s of the world are with us still. They are the ones who charge that the Catholic Church, following the Second Vatican Council, threw out the baby with the bathwater. They have made it their mission to retrieve the bathwater. They would like us to be drowning in it.
Trappings of piety - - external symbols of religiosity - - are all well and good. They have nourished the faith of millions. But they are not an end, in themselves. They are but a means to an end. The bathwater is not more important than the baby.
“Smells and bells” and other assorted paraphernalia are supposed to help us nurture our relationship with Jesus. When they become a stumbling block, and prevent us from seeing Jesus, knowing Jesus, walking with Jesus, or when they obscure the path to Jesus for others, they must be put aside, or at least, reassessed. There were good reasons for throwing out so much of the bathwater. It had become murky. It was no longer serving a good purpose. It was time to take the baby from the bath, and move on.
Beware the bathwater! Hidden in its depths may be a dose of pretty poison - - the temptation to idolatry - - the temptation to worship fleeting forms while ignoring lasting, enduring substance. Don’t mistake devotion to exterior signs for an interior conversion to life in union with Jesus.
Just be sure to keep a tight grip on the baby.

We are never told what horrible things Fr. Ignatius has done? Too many candles? ahhh. The water was murky? And now all things are clear? hmmmm

Traditionalists consider yourselves warned and put on notice. Ignore it and carry on.

Catholics in Kerala Face Dramatic Future Population Decline

Lifesite News has a special report about the population decline that the most Catholic part of India is facing, Kerala in the south. It is not disease or starvation that is causing such a calamitous decline but birth control and abortion practiced by Catholics. How ironic that among the most educated people of India who have strong vocations and a Catholic presence the people will not follow the Church's perennial teaching.

The whole article is worth reading and can be seen here.

The Problem:

In North America and Europe the two and now even one child family has been rapidly becoming the norm. That is not surprising considering the gross materialism, weak or corrupted churches and widespread rejection of Christian beliefs in the West. It has therefore been easy to convince the public to swallow population control propaganda. It is, however, much harder to understand how a still fervent, unified Christian minority in India with a high level of religious practice and thousands of young, faithful priests and sisters to serve them, is now also experiencing a rapidly plummeting, below replacement level birthrate.

Days Numbered:

What is noticeably different about Kerala is the highly visible presence of Christians, especially Catholics, in the state, the exceptional friendliness and courtesy of its people and Kerala’s strong family life culture. However, the still fervent Christians of Kerala are facing a real danger that they will become practically extinct in a few generations because of their two or less child birthrate, certain to later become an even lower rate as is happening elsewhere.
Despite the above, one cannot help note a disturbing contradiction: fervent Christians, but only one or two child families, and most commonly a boy and a girl in each family. Christian couples here, along with the Hindus, now clearly exclude God and their Church from having any role in determining the number or even sex of their children. New life has strict conditions attached to it. They are practicing not only contraception and sterilization but, in order to achieve the one boy, one girl norm among Hindus and Christians, abortion has to be widely practiced.

The Bishops and Priests have preached:

Kerala Hindu templeCatholic Church leaders are alarmed and practically resigned to what they see as the inevitable near disappearance of their flocks in India as a result of this demographic trend. They worry about the rapid rise of Islam because of the far higher Muslim birthrate. Kerala’s priests and bishops do not know what to do. They say they have preached from the pulpits on this but it has not had any effect.

The conclusion of the article is that there are no programs or education from laity and secular organizations combatting the goverment and Planned Parenthood propaganda. I disagree. Human Life International, Priests for Life and the Missionaries of Charity are all present in India. All groups that encourage the use of NFP and the practice of limiting the family size. And if the Church leaders in Kerala say they are preaching against contraception and abortion but no one is listening the solution is not more preaching. Clearly you have a problem of obedience.

A more realistic view is that it has become impossible to see a difference between Catholics and those of no faith who all seem to believe that a smaller family is a positive development. Some conservative Catholics argue that smaller is better and if the correct means are used (i.e. NFP or even strict abstinence) because it is desirable to have fewer children. This seems contradictoray to Catholicism. I think people are seeing a consistent message that fewer children equals a better life, more prosperity, more education, happiness, freedom and individuality.

Catholics with big families know what kind of reception they receive and what impression they make among other Catholics and even the clergy. Until the mindset changes and large families are welcomed rather than called selfish, lacking in self control, harmful to the environment and providentialist, openness to life will not return. Catholics open to life are accused of fostering a "fertility cult", believing they are better than others who have smaller or no families, insensitive to the feelings to those who have not been blessed with children or many children, irresponsible and arrogant or ignorant of NFP which many believe is their duty to adhere to.

The Tawdry Bride

Since the attack on the dignity of women continues apace and is being helped by our total lack of resistance I suppose this is the next logical step.

Brides as porn stars on their special day. Makes me long for the days of Bridezilla.

From the article entitled: "Brides who don't blush" in the Sunday Times:

WEDDING photography, once a restrained art, is becoming a risqué business. A growing number of American brides are marking their big day by commissioning portraits of themselves in raunchy poses and lingerie, writes John Harlow.

The American wedding is changing fast. Traditionalists have already lamented a switch to homemade vows, such as “to stay together so long as we make each other laugh”, and a large-scale abandonment of white since Sarah Jessica Parker, the star of Sex and the City, got married in black.

snip

“She wants to remind her spouse why he married her. It was not just because she looked radiant in white — underneath she was downright dirty and dangerous in a black garter or red-sequinned bra.

“It’s more Las Vegas showgirl than blushing bride.”

Well, then and just in case we believe this is a strange, anomalous event here is another article on the same topic.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The multibillion-dollar wedding industry is offering a revealing new twist on the old bridal portrait. Catering to older and more independent brides -- and reflecting popular culture's turn toward the risque and voyeuristic -- more photographers are setting up in dressing rooms to immortalize unguarded, preceremony moments. Wedding albums and public photographer Web sites alike are filling up with a different view of the bride -- daddy's little girl cavorting in lingerie, adjusting a bra or hiking her gown for a bathroom break.

Established wedding photographers say they're taking racy photos at events of all price levels. At a $250,000 affair at the Chicago Four Seasons, photographer Steven Gross -- he charges $10,000 and up a day -- took nearly 8,000 shots, but one that made it into the bride's wedding album was a close-up of her waist and prominent cleavage. Southern California photographer Brian Kramer's portfolio includes black-and-white photos of darling children, classic portraits -- plus an underwear-clad bride chatting on her cellphone in a suite at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Chris and Mary Jo Prinos of Lancaster, Mass., whose packages start at $3,000, recently captured a bride discussing last-minute details with her officiant while wearing a camisole, sheer boy shorts and a garter belt. (It's not just women: Grooms, too, are caught brushing their teeth or having their necks shaved.)

Brides are revealing themselves at a time when popular culture has pushed the limits of privacy with boundary-blurring reality TV shows and dating sites that let users swap revealing photos. Some of the relaxed vibe had already seeped into wedding culture, of course, as brides started hitting Vegas on raucous bachelorette parties and, more recently, began choosing minimal-coverage gowns from designers like Vera Wang and Monique Lhuillier.
snip

Brides and photographers point out that the pictures almost never depict full nudity, and say they're rarely any more salacious than those in a Victoria's Secret catalog. Still, they may be the wedding-day equivalent of a tattoo -- something that seemed like a good idea at the time but has the potential to haunt later. And in some families, the images can create awkward moments between generations.

Hours before her son's wedding in New York City two years ago, Lisa Brettschneider was a little taken aback by the scene in the suite of her daughter-in-law-to-be at the Mandarin Oriental hotel. A twentysomething male photographer was snapping photos of the bride, Alison, and her 12 bridesmaids in their underwear. At one point, the bride-to-be posed on the bed in a silky robe. "It was like a Playboy shoot," says Mrs. Brettschneider, who lives in Larchmont, N.Y.

When the family got the proofs, Mrs. Brettschneider deemed a few images inappropriate for public consumption, including one of Alison's favorite shots, which showed her G-string and back tattoo. "My in-laws weren't too happy about that," says the bride, now 29, who owns a women's clothing showroom in Manhattan. "But it was such a cool shot." Adds her mother-in-law: "I kept saying, 'You're going to have to show them to your kids one day. She didn't put any of those pictures in my album."

snip

But at the same time, many independent-minded brides are poking fun at so many white bouquets and demure poses. "Being like a virgin is very different than being a virgin," says Julie Albright, a marriage therapist and sociology professor at the University of Southern California. For the many brides who have been living with their fiances for years before taking the leap, mugging for risque shots can be a way of playing up the irony of donning a traditional dress. "The white gown and veil is a kind of performance or drag -- like Madonna in her video for 'Like a Virgin.'"

It all makes posed bride-and-groom portraits seem like a sepia-toned memory. In the early days of cameras, fin-de-siecle couples would pose stiffly in studios. The post-World War II wedding boom created a cottage industry for bridal photographers, and the prevailing style -- staged eye-gazing, the cake-cutting shot -- remained the standard for decades. While Hollywood and royal weddings provided tabloid material, candid shots didn't start taking off until the late 1990s. Many credit Atlanta photographer Denis Reggie with coining the term wedding photojournalism, and his black-and-white images of the 1996 John F. Kennedy Jr.-Carolyn Bessette wedding are often cited as the style's signature shots.

For older women, boudoir shots may also represent something of a declaration of independence. Through the early 1970s, the average age for a college-educated woman's first marriage was about 22. Now it's a shade over 26, according to Claudia Goldin, an economics professor at Harvard who has studied social indicators related to marriage. As a result, she says, today's brides -- and their fiances -- have usually lived away from the parents for some time, they're making many of the decisions about the ceremony and, often, they're footing the bill.

As the mother of five sons I can only redouble my prayers for their vocations to the priesthood and religious life. The women's movement? liberation? Women have never been more demoted to slavery. We're embracing a powerful message that women are only of use when we are "sexy" and that is our only source of power and influence.

St. Margaret of Scotland, June 10th

The Feast of St. Margaret of Scotland. Patron of large families, the death of children, learning, queens, widows and Scotland. You can read more here and here.

And a very Happy Feast Day to my second favorite Sister.

"Medicine Babies"

From Zenit

Swiss Bishops Decry Use of "Medicine Babies"

Call It "Shocking Eugenics"

ZURICH, Switzerland, JUNE 9, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Swiss bishops' conference has called the practice of creating babies solely for medicinal purposes a "shocking" and unacceptable development in eugenics.

In a message of the bioethics commission of the episcopal conference, released Wednesday, the bishops refer to Switzerland's first "medicine baby," born in Geneva in January 2005, as "shocking eugenics, enveloped in good sentiments."

The baby girl was conceived through artificial insemination, and was selected in a Brussels laboratory to become a compatible donor of bone marrow for her 6-year-old brother.

"Although it is not prudent to criticize the subjective intention of the parents who have suffered and rejoiced with the cure of their son, it must be recognized that the technique of 'medicine babies' constitutes a worrying form of eugenics," stated the document.

"For this 'medicine baby' girl to be born, Mrs. Hilde van de Velde's Brussels laboratory deliberately produced 20 to 30 human embryos for the purpose of selecting them," the bishops said. "One of them had the good fortune to survive. But the rest were eliminated and destroyed as vulgar merchandise."

The document explained that the practice is inadmissible for two reasons.

First, because we are faced with "human embryos voluntarily produced and eliminated."

The message of the bishops continued: "A noble end does not justify killing embryos, which are individuals of the human species. Here the embryo is not treated as an end: It is used as an instrument and considered as merchandise.

"This practice is a regression of humanism, which is particularly insidious as it camouflages with the emotion aroused by the sick child and the parents' suffering."

Second, the letter stated, the selection of human beings is an act of eugenics.

"Eugenics is an odious practice, which consists in selecting the children that will be born according to utilitarian criteria that does not respect their intrinsic dignity," the bishops wrote.

"In this case, an exterior demand, medical and technical, decides who deserves to live and who deserves to die," the message said.

The note added: "This embryo deserved to live because it is genetically compatible with the recipient of the bone marrow, while the other numerous embryos were killed for the sole reason of not having the required characteristics."

The Swiss always were on the cutting edge of every pharmaceutical advance. And neutral in war, even the war on abortion it seems.

Sheehan Distraught: Democrats Lose Candidate

Cindy Sheehan is upset that Zarqawi is dead.

The real problem is that now the Democrats won't have a presidential candidate to run in 08.

Iraqi Archbishop: Zarqawi's Death Brings Hope

From the article:

Baghdad, Jun. 08, 2006 (CNA) - Emmanuel III Delly, Patriarch of the Caldean Catholic Church in Iraq, told AsiaNews today that while Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death brings hope for the future, ultimately dialogue and the way of love must conquer the hearts of the Iraqi people. The death of the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq was confirmed by US and Iraqi officials today.

Officials of both governments were overjoyed at killing the most wanted man in Iraq, who was the mastermind of several terrorist attacks and multiple violent murders in Iraq.

President Bush, commenting on the death said, "The ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders. Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda."

However, while the killing does deal a blow to the major terrorist organization in the world, the threat of terror still exists in a very real way in Iraq and abroad and Archbishop Delly hopes that new ways are found to bring peace in his country

“This is a great hope for the end of violence which torments,” the Archbishop said. “but we repeat that the best solution is always in dialogue and not in killing. Killing each other for personal reasons can not bring anything good,” Delly continued, “loving each other and not killing - this is the way to keep in mind.”