MONTGOMERY, Ala. – For generations, children with signs of head lice were summarily sent home by the school nurse to their everlasting shame. Now schools have become less nitpicky.
With the backing of some major health organizations, a majority of schools across the country are allowing youngsters to stay in class if they have nits — that is, lice eggs — but no crawling lice in their hair
Archive for February, 2009
Zippy posted this and I am reposting it in its whole for my records so I can access it when I get into yet another NFP/ABC-are-morally-equivalent discussion. His words follow:
We will remain forever confused about the morality of acts as long as we fail to acknowledge the difference between doing this particular thing, and not doing some thing. Something done is a concrete behavior chosen, a potentiality actualized: a real part of the world. Something not done is an abstraction, a potentiality not realized: it is not something real. “I did X” stated by a corporal human being expresses a fundamentally different kind of (de)ontological truth than “I did not do X”. The latter can be evil in the presence of a positive duty to act; but it is always a mistake to confuse a positive concrete act with refraining to act. It is for this reason that the negative moral precepts prohibiting certain concrete behaviors or specific acts apply always and everywhere, whereas positive duties to act always fall under a prudential judgment. As Pope John Paul II tells us in Veritatis Splendour:
The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.
On the other hand, the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbour does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore, what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are kinds of behaviour which can never, in any situation, be a proper response — a response which is in conformity with the dignity of the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.
Now, anyone who has followed my writing for long enough knows that I have my doubts about the rather loose attitude many Catholics seem to take with respect to NFP; at the same time, I acknowledge that the Magisterium affirms some reasonable moral latitude for its licit use.
The question of why NFP can in some circumstances be morally licit, while contracepted sexual acts can never be morally licit, can be understood by apprehending the difference between the negative prohibitions against certain concrete behaviors, on the one hand, and positive obligations to act, on the other. I don’t think it can be understood without reference to this key distinction, which JPII emphasizes in the encyclical. Once this key distinction is understood and embraced, however, the difference becomes clear.
A contracepted sexual act combines in one and the same behavior the pursuit of physical sexual satisfaction and a rejection of children. As an actual chosen behavior this is not merely an intention or disposition; this is an actual concrete real act in the world, an act which cannot be chosen without expressing hatred of children. Thus it violates a negative prohibition of the moral law: it is simply not possible for human beings with human nature to choose this kind of behavior with a good will, no matter what protests are made to the contrary. If that behavior is knowingly chosen it is done with an evil will, because that is the nature of the behavior and of the human being who knowingly chooses it.
Abstinence, though, is not a concrete real act or chosen behavior: it is the absence of a behavior, a potentiality which the acting subject chooses not to realize. In order for abstinence to be evil, therefore, there must be a particular positive duty to act at a particular place and time. But when it comes to the marital act, there is no positive duty for a couple to engage in it at particular places and times, where if they choose not to engage in it that choice not to do so is evil. If the couple decides not to get it on on the kitchen floor right here and now, that decision does not inherently by its very nature express hatred of children; else every moment the couple was not engaged in the marital act would be an expression of hatred of children. So while it is indeed possible, because of circumstances or intentions, for abstinence to be morally wrong, there is significant moral latitude in deciding not to act; whereas a contractepted sexual act, choosing to act in a particular way which by its nature expresses a hatred of children, is always morally wrong.
Kathy Shaidle posted on bookstores caving to Muslim demands to put the Koran on the top shelf above “commonplace things”. Someone called ALLAHPUNDIT asks: Can you think of anyone with a media megaphone who might take noisy exception to British libraries putting sacred texts above “commonplace things” like Darwin and Newton? Speak up, man.
As a high school DRE, I was always interested in what junior and senior student’s college plans were. Guided by some articles I found, I collected recruitment material from those schools that retained a solid Catholic identity (as opposed to this).
According to this article, those schools also happen to be more affordable:
Manassas, Va., Feb 18, 2009 / 06:15 am (CNA).- In an effort to assist parents and students who are weighing various college options, the Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education has commissioned a study to find the “best buys” at Catholic colleges and universities. The study found that the most faithful colleges are also some of the most affordable for students.
Link to the study here: http://www.catholichighered.org/TheNewmanGuide/tabid/356/Default.aspx
American Papist posts on Doug Kmiec’s latest fogbound rationales. I channeled Mark Shea and Zippy and contributed some comments, but then I realized I missed a detail in Kmiec’s words (My emphasis):
The president’s rationale was motivated by Third World conditions, and we need to ask ourselves how we in opposition would formulate an answer for the millions of non-Catholics who were at risk of fatal illness in developing countries for lack of non-abortifacient, contraceptive services that were swept within the previous policy.
And there is that same darn thing I keep running into. I’ve heard it from conservatives. I’ve heard it from middle-of-the-roaders. And I’ve heard it from moobat lefty RCIA directors–that as long as a contraceptive is non-abortifacient, it is ok to use. That ain’t the teaching. The teaching does not stand of fall on abortifacient properties. Perhaps this explains the bewildering Catholic support for the “reducing abortions” marketing scam as Obama rolls back every pro-life success he encounters. Kmiec and others need to either demonstrate that they know the correct teaching and affirm it (in which case they have lots of splainin’ to do to make their craptacular proposals make a lick of sense), or they need to confess they dissent on Church teaching (in which case their proposals make a little more sense but add the feature of being DEAD WRONG.)
In the U.S. Marine hymn we hear:
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean
Note that it is “AND” to keep our honor clean, not “OR”.
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
I don’t want it to one day dawn on me like it does on these guys:
HT to Mark Shea for articles and video which he posted a long time ago in a galaxy…
At Zippy’s blog a commentor, Marion, identifies herself as a worker in a crisis pregnancy center and says:
It is such a mess. The very idea that chemical contraceptives are The Answer to addressing what goes on in our young peoples’ lives is such a non-starter. To make that argument would be a lot like arguing that the way to deal with the widespread incidence of depression in our population is to provide members of the public with handguns.
From Six Fragates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy:
Madison retired to the solitude of his office and composed a 200-page treatise attacking the legality of the Essex decision, entitled simply An Examination of British Doctrine. Copies were delivered to each member of the House and Senate. Drawing upon centuries of precedent, the Examination left no doubt that England had acted in flagrant contravention of settled principles of international law. It was exhaustively researched, tightly reasoned, masterfully argued–and otherwise irrelevant. The most cogent retort was offered by Virginia congressman John Randolf, who acknowledged Madison’s lawyerly erudition but dismissed the effort as “a shilling pamphlet against eight hundred ships of war.”
Next installment: Jefferson: Grade-A Jerk
Putatively pro-life liberals are setting things up such that standing down on the legal initiatives is treated as a prerequisite for unity on non-legal initiatives, and non-legal initiatives are inextricably tied to validating and supporting the legal status quo. The objective purpose or formal cause (independent of intentions) is not unity on all things pro-life, but silencing and neutralizing the legal initiative. A true unity would be a both/and proposition, not “stand down on the intolerant legal issues as a means to the end of ‘working together’ on social programs.”
The whole thing is just another gambit of Hell, and those who embrace it are, whatever their subjective intentions, fighting on the side of Hell.–Zippy.