Thursday, November 25, 2010

The Economy: Why They Failed

This is a summary of our economic state from the NY Review of Books that reports the strange convergence of billions in bonuses to the financial sector while the rest of the our country continues to suffer (the real unemployment rate is now 17% and this includes those have stopped looking for work). The very people that brought forth this crisis and then gained political protection through a government bailout are engaging in the same activity that led to our current crisis.

The Economy: Why They Failed by John Cassidy | The New York Review of Books

In another note, our large financial industries no longer think that the US is a democracy, we have evolved into something they call a "plutonomy"; this means rule by the super wealthy. Please read this leaked Citigroup report to investors. Ironically, our economy seems to be set up so that the earnings on this investment is controlled by the few wealthy elite, but the risk is passed off to the American public. Those who gain nothing from the investment are forced to pay when it fails. Perhaps this Citigroup report is correct... It is something that requires serious thought.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn: A Summary and Review

David Blankenhorn is one of the foremost experts on marriage in the United States. Blankenhorn is a sociologist by trade, and founder and President of the Institute for American Values, an organization devoted to strengthening families and civil society in the U.S. and the world. Blankenhorn is a self-professed liberal but also an outspoken opponent of same-sex "marriage." The Future of Marriage is one of the most important books written to date on the contemporary threats traditional marriage faces in Western Civilization. This book is not written from a Catholic perspective. It is not even written from a particularly Christian perspective. Instead, Blankenhorn writes purely from a sociological standpoint, and offers a cogent defense of marriage in terms even secularists can not ignore.

Blankenhorn's main thesis is that marriage in America today is in danger of becoming "deinstitutionalized." Deinstitutionalization refers to the process of abolishing a practice that has been considered a norm, or reducing the importance, central meaning, and significance of a social institution. Marriage is such a public, social institution. In fact, marriage's public nature is its most important feature. The purpose of marriage, according to Blankenhorn is to ensure, insofar as possible, that the man and woman who make the child through sexual intercourse are there for the child, as social parents, and are there for each other. Marriage brings together biologically unrelated persons to produce the next generation, create fatherhood as a social role for men (which makes civilized society possible), and radically expands the reach and possibility of kinship ties. It brings together the two sexes in such a way that each child is born with two parents, a mother and a father, who are legally and jointly responsible for the child. Civil marriage is a societal endorsement of that monogamous, sexual relationship that exists to bring children into the world and ensure that the children know their parents, and are raised by their parents.

What the institution of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. (In modern society) marriage regulates sex in a wholly non-coercive manner (sex outside of marriage is no longer a crime). Marriage exists to solve a problem that arises between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity or procreative power? Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman (even in polygamous marriage) for the same reason that there are two sexes: it takes one of each to produce a child. That doesn't mean marriage is worthwhile only insofar as it yields children, but it means that the institution is oriented toward child-rearing. A healthy marriage culture encourages adults to arrange their lives so that as many children as possible are raised and nurtured by their parents in a common household.

Same-sex marriage is one part of the larger threat to the institution. The other threats to marriage include no-fault or otherwise easy divorce, the proliferation of unwed child-birthing and cohabitation, contraception, and the Western tendency to think of all things in radically private, individualistic terms. Ideas, movements, or technologies that separate marriage from its procreative and public purpose greatly weaken marriage. We could probably deinstitutionalize marriage without adopting gay marriage, but gay marriage clearly presupposes and in some respects requires deinstitutionalization.

Gay marriage proponents always begin from the premise that marriage is a private contract between consenting adults for the purpose of love and companionship. Unfortunately, most modern Americans view marriage in these private contractual terms as well. Therein lies the most fundamental problem says Blankenhorn. If one accepts this more contemporary view of marriage as a private relationship between two adults for the purpose of love and companionship, ignoring marriage's public function as a societal sanction of a sexual relationship for the purpose of creating and raising children, then same-sex marriage makes perfect sense. And if same-sex "marriage" is legalized, marriage will most certainly continue down this path of deinstitutionalization in which marriage becomes solely and decisively a private contractual arrangement, the form of which is limited only to the imagination of consenting adults. Polygamy could not logically be prohibited, nor could a multitude of different "family" arrangements. A new conception of marriage based on nothing more than "love and companionship" would eviscerate the traditional collective understanding of marriage and change its meaning and objectives forever. Why then, couldn't elderly brothers who take care of each other, or friends who share a house and bills, or boyfriends/girlfriends be marriages? Why shouldn't their relationships be recognized as well? Under the traditional view of marriage, however valuable those relationships are, they are not oriented towards procreation and children, so we do not treat them the same way. Society and governments have traditionally favored the uniquely procreative relationship of 1 man-1 woman, and set it apart with certain rights, privileges (and penalties for breaking this covenant) to ensure the propagation of society and help to ensure that children are brought into this world under the best possible circumstances. But if marriage is reduced to a private arrangement for the purpose of love, companionship, and intimacy, is no longer about creating and raising children, and is open to coupling arrangements that cannot generate new life, society's interest in encouraging, endorsing, and preserving marriage evaporates. Thus, there is a significant danger that over time, it becomes pointless for the state to confer any special marital status at all.

Blankenhorn observes that in the short term, if same-sex marriage becomes legally sanctioned, the legal framework of our society governing families and parenthood will have to be re-written to accommodate this revolution. If this is to happen, our culture and our laws may no longer favor one type of marriage over another--to do so would be akin to discrimination. In fact, criticizing gay "marriage" becomes hate speech. More importantly, our government will have a duty to give equal treatment to all "forms" of marriage, including the resulting changes to what constitutes parenthood. Same-sex marriage necessarily would require us to give greater legal protections to gay couples raising children by essentially creating a completely new definition of what a "parent" is. So a woman in a gay relationship with another woman is automatically the parent of that mother's child. Why? Because she and the mother say that she is. She is not just a caregiver, not just the mother's lover and partner. She is the child's parent. This novel conception of parentage is necessary if we are to put gay "marriage" on equal footing with traditional marriage and accord its participants the same rights and privileges. This threat is not mere alarmist hyperbole. After Canada legalized same-sex "marriage", Canadian law erased the term "natural" parent from its books and replaced it with the term "legal" parent.

This legal accommodation of gay marriage and the rights of gay parents would require us in both law and culture to deny the double origin of the child. It would would require us to withdraw marriage's greatest promise to the child--the promise that, insofar as society can make it possible, the child will be loved and raised by the mother and father who made him. In a gay marriage culture, when one says, "every child deserves a mother and a father," one will be saying something that is not only controversial, but that also conflicts with the law. To accept same-sex marriage, society will have to disregard the notion that a mother and a father is the right of each child and create a legal regime in which natural and heterosexual parents cannot be favored over "legal" parents. Children will no longer have the right to know and be raised by their mother and father (to the extent it is possible). The rights of children will be withdrawn in favor of the rights of (gay) adults. Children become rights of the gay couple, not individuals that possess their own infinite value and rights. The mantra of the gay marriage movement of "we, as consenting adults, have the right to get married and have children" necessarily conflicts with the rights of children to know and be raised by their parents. Thus, if government gets out of the business of marriage (as so many wish it would), then the government essentially declares that it is no longer interested in the welfare of children.

If marriage is weakened, as it would be if government no longer fostered, encouraged, or even recognized traditional marriage, those that are the most vulnerable and the most dependent upon marriage would suffer the most: children. But when marriage as a social institution weakens, government ironically has to get more involved, not less. The government ends up performing many of the functions previously provided by the parents, and courts end up acting as referees to decide issues such as custody, etc. Moreover, marriage exists to make sure that tomorrow exists. It is the best institution ever devised to provide for the generation and care of children (the future of society). So if the government cannot have an interest in marriage and ensuring that society continues, then the government can have no interest in anything.

Finally, many proponents of gay marriage conceptualize marriage in terms of "civil rights." This argument has an element of self-delusion about it, because at the same time, those who propose it deny that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these false assurances. Our tolerance for racism is quite limited: the government, while it generally respects the relevant constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are strong. If our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will have to undergo change that would be as dramatic as it would be extensive. Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus. Criticism of gay marriage, will be equivalent to hate speech. Religious organizations that choose not to give benefits to the "spouse" of a gay employee would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit and hefty federal fine, etc., etc., etc.

Changing a public meaning is a public event; the meaning changes for everyone. Changing the definition of marriage would forever change the way we all think about marriage, and will result in deinstitutionalization. And this point cannot be overstated. Re-defining marriage would make the countervailing norms and the public purpose of marriage themselves incoherent, which affects everyone. In fact, as Blankenhorn points out with statistical data, the countries with same sex marriage were also the ones where support for marriage as an institution is weakest--where people tended to accept single parenthood and divorce, for example. Countries with marriage-like civil unions showed more support for marriage; those with only regional recognition of gay marriage showed more support still, and those without either gay marriage or civil unions were most supportive of all of traditional marriage. Same sex marriage may not be the main cause of weak support for marriage, but the two clearly go together. Same sex marriage is not a sign of a strong marriage culture, and adopting same-sex marriage would permanently and fundamentally alter this institution in ways that we have yet to even imagine. Blankenhorn's book is a sobering caution against this social experimentation.

Overall, Blankenhorn offers a robust defense of traditional marriage. Although the book is not a theological work, the topic of Christian teaching does come up occasionally. I noticed a few instances where the author misstated Church teaching and took a few Church fathers' writings out of context; these are fairly inconsequential parts of the book that are not really necessary to his main thesis. In addition, Blankenhorn struck me as a bit naive in overlooking the threat that civil unions would pose to marriage. But I think this position derives from the author's desire to offer a sort of compromise with the gay marriage movement, rather than an oversight. This also, is a very minor criticism of an otherwise excellent book. The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn is a must read for anyone who is serious about the gay marriage debate.

Benedict XVI's comment on condoms

If you followed yesterday's media frenzy about the Pope's statement on condoms on the occasion of the publication of the book Liturgy of the World, you have probably been mislead about the true nature of those comments. The Catholic World Report proposes an excerpt of the interview in which the Pope addresses the issue which I post below:

An excerpt from Light of the World, Peter Seewald’s book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI
From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa youstated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Sunday, November 21, 2010


Le terre islamiche grondano di sangue cristiano. Ma il mondo se ne frega. Altri sei cristiani ammazzati in Iraq, con 33 feriti, dopo la carneficina del 31 ottobre nella chiesa di Bagdad, dove le vittime sono state cinquanta. Ma non solo. Domenica sera in Pakistan una madre di due figli, Asia Bibi, operaia agricola di 37 anni, è stata condannata a morte da un tribunale del Punjab, semplicemente perché cristiana: la famigerata “legge sulla blasfemia” infatti in quel Paese manda a morte chiunque sia accusato da musulmani di aver offeso Maometto.

Secondo l’agenzia Asianews, tutto risale a “una discussione molto animata avvenuta nel giugno 2009 a Ittanwali. Alcune delle donne che lavoravano con Asia Bibi cercavano di convincerla a rinunciare al cristianesimo e a convertirsi all’islam.
Durante la discussione, Bibi ha risposto parlando di come Gesù sia morto sulla croce per i peccati dell’umanità, e ha chiesto alle altre donne che cosa avesse fatto Maometto per loro. Le musulmane si sono offese, e dopo aver picchiato Bibi l’hanno chiusa in una stanza. Secondo quanto raccolto da ‘Release International’ una piccola folla si è radunata e ha cominciato a insultare lei e i bambini. L’organizzazione caritativa, che sostiene i cristiani perseguitati, ha detto che su pressione dei leader musulmani locali è stata sporta denuncia per blasfemia contro la donna”.
La condanna a morte per “blasfemia” era purtroppo già stata comminata a dei cristiani maschi. Per una donna invece è la prima volta. Tuttavia nessuno si solleverà per salvare una donna cristiana. I cristiani sono carne da macello. Come ai tempi di san Paolo sono “la spazzatura del mondo”. Il mondo intero si è indignato e si è sollevato per salvare Sakineh, la donna condannata a morte in Iran per presunta complicità nell’omicidio del marito e per adulterio.

Bernard Henri Lévy ha (meritoriamente) scatenato la protesta dell’intero Occidente: si sono uniti a lui giornali, tv, governi, ministri, Unione europea, sindaci, intellettuali, montagne di premi Nobel, di Saviani e di Carlebruni. Perfino noi. E poi migliaia di firme, di foto esposte. Bene. Niente di simile sarà fatto per la povera Bibi, che ha la sola colpa di essere cristiana. Il mondo non fa una piega quando si tratta di cristiani.

Anche altre recenti notizie di stupri e uccisioni di ragazze cristiane in Pakistan sono scivolate allegramente via dai mass media occidentali. Senza drammi. Ma l’esempio supremo dell’indifferenza dell’Occidente per i massacri dei cristiani lo ha dato ieri il presidente americano Obama. L’ineffabile Obama ha appena visitato l’Indonesia dove aveva vissuto qualche anno da bambino. E se n’è uscito con queste mirabolanti dichiarazioni riportate dai media del mondo intero: “L’Indonesia è un modello”.

Ecco qualche perla di Obama: “Una figura paterna mi insegnò qui da bambino che l’Islam è tolleranza, non l’ho dimenticato”. Poi il presidente americano “esalta l’Indonesia ‘laica, pluralista, tollerante, la più grande democrazia in una nazione a maggioranza islamica’ ”. Ed ecco un’altra perla: “Lo spirito della tolleranza, sancito nella vostra Costituzione, è uno dei caratteri fondanti e affascinanti di questa nazione”.

Ma davvero? L’Indonesia, con i suoi 212 milioni di abitanti, è il paese musulmano più popoloso del mondo ed è una potenza economica. Il 75 per cento della popolazione è musulmano, i cristiani sono il 13,1 per cento, cioè 27 milioni e 800 mila persone. E’ vero che la Costituzione, sulla carta, riconosce il pluralismo religioso e una buona percentuale di musulmani effettivamente è favorevole a una convivenza pacifica con i cristiani. Ma concretamente cosa è accaduto? Sia sotto il regime di Suharto che sotto il successivo i cristiani hanno subito massacri e persecuzioni inenarrabili.

A Timor Est – un’isola abitata da cristiani – il regime indonesiano, che la occupò contro la deliberazione dell’Onu, ha perpetrato un vero e proprio genocidio. Secondo monsignor Carlos Belo, premio Nobel per la pace, sono state 200 mila le vittime e 250 mila i profughi su una popolazione totale di 800 mila abitanti. Dal 1995 al 2000 sono state distrutte 150 chiese. I massacri sono continuati anche dopo che la comunità internazionale, nel 1999, ha imposto l’indipendenza di Timor Est.
In quello stesso anno stragi di cristiani sono stati perpetrate anche in un’altra zona cristiana dell’Indonesia: l’arcipelago delle Molucche. In tre anni di scontri si sono avute circa 13.500 vittime e 500 mila profughi. Più di 6 mila cristiani delle Molucche sono stati costretti a convertirsi all’Islam (con il solito corredo di stupri e infibulazioni forzate). Altri 93 cristiani dell’isola di Keswi sono morti perché si rifiutavano di convertirsi.

Le cronache parlano di episodi orrendi come quello in cui sei bambini cristiani sono stati uccisi ad Ambon, in un campo di catechismo: “inseguiti, sventrati, evirati e decapitati dagli islamisti che fendevano le bibbie con la spada”. In altri casi gli attacchi degli islamisti avevano “l’ausilio di truppe militari regolari… come nell’isola di Haruku il 23 gennaio 2000, quando sono rimasti uccisi 18 cristiani” (dal Rapporto 2001 sulla libertà religiosa nel mondo).

A Natale del 2000 i fondamentalisti hanno fatto una serie di attentati colpendo la cattedrale di Giakarta e altre dieci città, con 17 morti e circa 100 feriti. Nel 2001 l’agenzia Fides dava notizia di nuovi attacchi di guerriglieri islamici contro i cristiani nell’isola di Sulawesi e anche a Makassar con scene di caccia all’uomo. Poi altre chiese bruciate e molte vittime. Un gruppo di cristiani indonesiani firmarono un appello drammatico: “Preghiamo per i cristiani di Indonesia. Preghiamo per la loro fede durante gli attacchi e per quanti subiscono la tentazione di nascondere la loro identità di fedeli a Cristo. Preghiamo per il mondo perché prenda provvedimenti contro la persecuzione, dovunque essa si verifichi”.

Invece il mondo se ne frega delle stragi di cristiani e Obama va in Indonesia a esaltare questo Paese come esempio di Islam buono. Figuriamoci com’è quello cattivo. Nel paese indicato da Obama come modello di tolleranza, il 19 ottobre 2005, tre studentesse cristiane, Yusriani di 15 anni, Theresia di 16 anni e Alvita di 19 anni, furono assalite mentre si recavano a scuola (in un liceo cattolico di Poso) da un gruppo di fondamentalisti islamici. I fanatici le immobilizzarono e poi, con un machete, le sgozzarono. Quindi tagliarono loro la testa a causa della loro fede in Gesù. La testa di una di loro è stata poi lasciata davanti alla chiesa cristiana di Kasiguncu.

Più di recente si è avuto il triste episodio della condanna a morte di tre contadini cattolici, Fabianus Tibo, Domingus da Silva e Marinus Riwu, colpevoli di essersi difesi nel 2000 dagli attacchi degli islamisti a Poso. Monsignor Joseph Suwatan, vescovo di Manado, andò a confortarli in prigione a Palu in veste di “inviato speciale del Vaticano”, perché – spiegò – Benedetto XVI vuole condividere il dolore ed esprimere la sua solidarietà per l’ingiustizia legale subita dai tre cattolici durante il loro processo.

Un’ultima notizia dal “paese modello” di Obama. Nel settembre 2009 il parlamento di Aceh ha approvato all’unanimità l’introduzione della legge islamica. Ecco il titolo del Corriere della sera del 15 settembre: “Sharia in Indonesia, lapidazione per gli adulteri”. Con buona pace delle Sakineh che ne faranno le spese. Di cui in realtà non frega niente a nessuno in Occidente. In particolare però non frega niente della tragedia dei cristiani, veri agnelli sacrificali.

Non frega niente all’Onu, alla Ue, ai premi Nobel, ai giornali progressisti, alle carlebruni e ai saviani (che non hanno lanciato appelli né fatto monologhi televisivi su questo genocidio censurato). E tanto meno frega a Obama.

Antonio Socci
Da “Libero” 11 novembre 2010