Friday, January 24, 2014

7 Quick Takes- Tugs

1) So we received approval for HB to go to Catholic School.  It's a ton of paper work.  We first had to get permission from the school board to even register.  This I don't quite understand because they said nothing about that on the internet.  It only discusses calling the school and having the paper work.  Then after scanning everything to them we had to show the actual documents to the school to register.  I'm not sure why this necessary step and why the website doesn't explicitly say the need to contact the board first.

But he's going to Catholic school for free because Ontario allows you to divert your tax dollars.  Something that I wish we could do in the United States.

2) Speaking of, I am totally pro-Catholic school education.  One of the problems I have with public schools in the United States is how they teach their students religion as fact or fudgery instead of faith to be lived.  In Germany for example students take a religious or ethics class but it's taught by a teacher that's received accreditation from their particular faith group.  Or we could go voucher system in the US for example.  But as it stands my faith, in public school, was explained to me by people who did not share my beliefs or understood them.  To make it worse, some of what was taught in history class was screwed making Martin Luther a hero and Muslims not morally culpable for the true reasons behind the Crusades.  And it still continues.

Msg. Pope recently wrote an article about the subject in more detail.  

3) My husband sent me an e-mail concerned about my piece on the Ender's Series.  I actually thought it was a charitable review and reasonable warning.  He was concerned about my telling people who don't want to encounter a Mormon allegory to stay clear.  I wasn't as nice to him in my e-mail response.  But I still stand by the fact that if I wanted to read about Mormonism it would be in a non-fiction book not a science fiction story.  Personally I have a thing against reading stuff that promotes a false faith, which is what Mormonism is to me. 

4) Then he read my piece about Funding Abortion in Canada and the fur flew.  You see my husband is a fence rider about most political issues and this one in particular.  He's a man so it doesn't matter to him.  Or so he says.  Naturally that ruffles me.  It's not he would get an abortion or tell someone else to, it's just that he doesn't care what other people do.  We're still hammering that argument out. 

5) And to make the highlight of my day, I stumbled upon a group from Mississippi which wishes to allow exemptions from vaccinations for ethical or religious reasons.  We partially vaccinate because as a pro-lifer I couldn't inject myself or my children with something made from an aborted baby.  But in Mississippi you can't get an exemption if you want your child to attend a preschool, daycare, public school, or even a private school.  I got into a row with someone over this.  According to the Vatican parents have the rights to weigh the risks of their children or someone else contracting a disease for which there is an unethical vaccine versus using the unethical vaccine.  It's clear at all times a Catholic should choose an ethical version if available.  But you weigh the risks of the others.  Someone said you are "morally at fault" if a pregnant woman contracts rubella.  And that's when I got pissy.  At least in my head.  The Vatican has never made vaccination a moral issue.  You can vaccinate or not vaccinate but since you aren't purposely and willfully spreading disease there's very little moral culpability.  I can't believe a person would stretch a document like that, but I shouldn't be surprised because the press does it all.the.time.

6) I'm trying to think of something else relevant.  Oh, Gimme Shelter is a movie that's coming out that's received a stamp of approval for it's Pro Life message.  I can't wait to see it....when it comes out on video.  It's hard to go to the movies these days.

7) HB's birthday is this upcoming Wednesday.  I'm so thrilled.  He'll be four.  Since we're experiencing Artic Winter here, we're taking him to the children's museum.  I hate being in doors all the time.  I think I'm developing cabin fever.

Thanks to Jen for hosting!

7 comments:

  1. Re number 5: Is it possible that the person with whom you were arguing was thinking of the document here?

    http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.pdf

    On page 7, footnote 15, the document states..."This (infection of a pregnant mother with rubella--my addition for clarity--K.) could occur, causing grave congenital malformations in the foetus, when a pregnant woman enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not been immunized and are carriers of the virus. In this case, the parents who did not accept the vaccination of their own children become responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of foetuses, when they have been discovered to be malformed."

    The document is from the Pontifical Academy for Life, and was commissioned by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, headed at the time by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

    On other vaccines, the PAPV seems to quite agree with your description--i.e., that parents have to weigh the benefits of using an immorally-developed vaccine when there isn't a morally-developed one, or isn't a morally-developed one readily available (i.e., it's not reasonable to expect parents to travel to Japan to get their kids vaccinated). However, in this particular instance (rubella), they and you seem to disagree. Please feel free to expound if I'm wrong. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. A couple of things 1) she said morally at fault. The document says responsible but it doesn't say at fault or morally responsible. If I gave someone a cold I'm still responsible but not morally so. The Vatican is always cautious about word choice. And if felt vaccinations against rubella were always necessary they would have worded it so.

    2) you are resonsible if they " carry the disease". In other words you wouldn't expose a pregnant person or really anyone to it if you knew they had it. Both carrying and being unvaccinated and then exposing a person to it. Its an awful lot of steps which are avoidable in vast number of cases.

    Does that make more sense?

    2)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmmm. I'm not sure if we'll be able to agree on this topic, as it seems to me that "morally responsible" vs "responsible" is linguistic hair-splitting--if responsibility isn't moral, what is it? If I go hunting, take aim at a deer, but don't ascertain what might be behind that deer and miss, then I'd be morally responsible for the death of a person standing behind the deer if I would have seen him by looking before I pulled the trigger. Would I be as guilty as I would be if I had deliberately aimed at him? No--thus the difference between first-degree murder and negligent homicide. I'd still bear some moral responsibility for it, though. If I took my non-vaccinated and non-symptomatic (in a lot of kids, German measles doesn't have particularly obvious symptoms) rubella-infected kid to a playdate where there was a pregnant woman who my kid then infected, if I didn't know the kid had rubella I wouldn't be as responsible as I would be if I knew that he did, but surely I'd still bear some moral responsibility for what happened to that baby?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The document was posed by the Children of God for life. They asked if it was morally illicit to vaccinate with these particular vaccines.

    The Vatican never said a parent should or should not vaccine for any particular vaccine.

    It addressed that moral culpability rested with the manufacturers with respect to aborted fetuses. And that if a parent who weighed the options felt needed to do so they could use the vaccines. They also said they didn't have to.

    To me the footnote is in response to the words of caution and formation of conscience when avoiding vaccines. One is to weigh the risk. That's the point. If one deems it necessary to vaccinate than do so. If one finds they have low risk (in our case we aren't around pregnant people) then again they should assess. Its a word of caution with respect to others. But it doesn't assign not vaccinating as being morally illicit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its important to note that many Catholics don't vaccinate. I don't see confessors speaking from the pulpits as this being a moral issue. All I've seen is telling people to remain home if unwell and if needed to avoid physical contact. This is with anything like the Flu.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yep, I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. ;) I'm quite sure that the document clearly means one thing, while you're equally certain it means another.

    One quick point on your last, though. A lot of Catholics also use contraception, and with the exception of the time I attended the March for Life, I have literally *never* heard a priest speak about abortion being the murder of innocent children. That doesn't mean there aren't church teachings on both that need to be followed, though. I did once hear of a (clearly misinformed) priest preaching that there is no acceptable reason for the use of immorally-developed vaccines, but I grant that he's the exception rather than the rule.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sure. It's fine. There are numerous church documents which are unclear. It's really all a matter of conscience.

    Of course, but in the case of contraception and abortion it's obvious. The Catechism as well as numerous Church documents address these issues. There isn't anything (besides this document) that addresses this particular issue. And this document isn't well known, which probably explains why this priest is misinformed. Although he could be posturing that when weighing the risks since rubella isn't common (in 2003 there were 7 or 9 cases total in the US), there isn't a compelling enough reason to vaccinate. I have heard of that. But since I wasn't there, I'll have to take your word for it.

    I'm surprised no one has mentioned abortion. The vast majority of priests I know discuss this if not have something in the bulletin (like a blurb about 40 days for life or something).

    ReplyDelete

I love to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!