The Pope and Divorce...

I read a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal titled: THE POPE AND THE DIVORCE QUESTION by Francis X. Rocca (Sept. 26, 2014). 

Recently, the pope made history (of sorts) when he married 20 couples at the Vatican with some of the couples being not perfect Catholic couples. Some already had children, some already lived together…in other words, they had sex before getting married; a church no no.

I think people realize that this pope is trying to bring the Catholic Church in-line with the reality that is our society and in so doing make the church more relevant to the needs of its members instead of having its teachings basically ignored.

To me what the pope is trying to do is desperately needed if the church is to continue to play a role in people’s lives. 

The problem, in many cases, is the teachings or doctrines of the church; they need to be changed or altered and yet no pope is willing to do that since the church will appear to be wishy-washy in its pronouncements but that is how it appears today anyway; no more purgatory, cremation OK, etc.

Pope Paul VI had an opportunity in 1968 to set a historic precedent in changing teachings by following the suggestions of many bishops as well as the Catholic population to allow artificial birth control (contraception) and yet he declined to modernize the church’s views and teachings by issuing his encyclical “Humane Vitae” which reaffirmed the ban on contraception which exists to this very day and makes absolutely no sense in today’s world.

Francis is in the process of canonizing Paul VI and so there is no way he would reverse or alter the teaching of Paul’s encyclical; this pope does appear willing to change the attitude of the church to societal realities but will not reverse age old teachings even when they contradict new scientific evidence and/or overall societal attitudes.

Divorce is a very common reality in our society and in the United States the number is 50% where 50% of all marriages end in divorce. 

For Catholics that want to remain true to their faith a civil divorce does not count in the eyes of the church; you need to get an annulment to be truly unmarried and allowed to remarry; otherwise you are committing adultery with your new spouse and cannot accept or be given communion.

Francis understands the realities of divorce among Catholics and wants communion made available to them as a form of “mercy” but to do that he would have to defy the ban on communion to those living in sin?

Francis did establish a commission tasked with easing the rules of marriage annulment which when granted, deems a marriage was not valid in the first place and therefore can be annulled. The pope has said that half of Catholic marriages are probably invalid since many marry before they attain maturity.

I guess he can water down the rules for annulment to a point where everyone can get one for any reason and in this way get around the scriptural demand that all marriages be forever.

Francis is obviously dancing around this issue but he has to since the Catholic Church has painted itself into a corner on many issues of doctrine. Since the Vatican holds itself to be the messenger of god, interpreting what god wants to communicate to his people, it cannot just say they got god’s message wrong.

 I think they can admit they were wrong on some issues as they have in the past and say that new evidence has shown the error of their ways. Many in the church would never admit that and that is why I think Francis will have a rough road in trying to make the church more human (pastoral).

The pope can after all do whatever he wants; he answers only to god but all popes are very aware of their legacy and the legacies of the popes that came before them and that can influence their actions.

I admire Francis for at least addressing issues that were off the table for previous popes and I hope he can appoint enough like-minded cardinals who will then elect a like-minded pope after his death; history will definitely remember what he started.

Corporal Punishment and the Peterson case...

The National Football League (NFL) has been in our news on a daily basis first with Ray Rice and the beating of his girlfriend to now Adrien Peterson of the Minnesota Vikings and his “whooping” of his four year-old son with a “switch”. 

There are a number of issues that present themselves to us as a society in the Peterson case.

For you who are not familiar with a “switch” it is a very skinny tree branch with the leaves removed. I am familiar with a switch or “ruzga” in Polish because it was used to punish children when I was growing up in the 1950s but I never witnessed a punishment done with a ruzga and never experienced one myself.

I do know how much damage a switch can do on a body since we did play with them and can only imagine what it can do on a small child’s body. Since it is skinny and pliable, it can leave welts, draw blood and bend around legs and butts and in some cases, leave permanent scarring.

Corporal punishment of children has been a debated subject between generations. My generation had no problems with corporal punishment and followed what Pavlov stipulated in his classical conditioning experiments; if you associate pain with a certain behavior, you will be less likely to repeat that behavior.

My generation used the belt to “scare” children but rarely used it; more often a quick slap on the butt with an open hand was the norm.

My son’s and daughter’s generation do not believe in corporal punishment of any kind and use things such as “time outs” instead and we have followed along with the new methods of discipline even though sometimes I have to look away when the new methods don’t have the same results like a swift kick in the butt.

I cannot tell you if one method is better than the other in bringing up children. I do know that my kids have grown up to be what I consider, perfect adults and very responsible members of our society.

I am aware of new data that shows that corporal punishment has a negative effect on a child and even into adulthood.

What I have been describing here are generational differences in methods of child discipline.

What has happened in the Peterson case is the emergence of cultural and geographical differences of child discipline. Peterson who is  black and from the South has had numerous prominent blacks stand up and defend his method of discipline as a classical, tried and true method of Southern blacks, practiced to this very day. Charles Barkley said that if this method is deemed illegal than most if not all black families in the South would have to be arrested.

My grandson Luke is four and I could never imagine him getting a “whooping” with a switch on bare skin no matter what he did and what could he actually do at that age that would deserve such an extreme punishment…but that is just me.

D.L. Hughly, talking on a radio show said that that form of punishment is necessary to teach black children how to behave properly especially in public in order to save their lives as teens and adults since young black males are more often shot by police based on their appearance and behavior.

We have a situation in Detroit where a 17 year-old body slammed a school guard on a cement floor nearly killing him. Because the youth is a stand out quarterback and a Michigan State prospect, he was given a second chance which he said on TV would be all the lesson he needed to be a model citizen. Hours after he was released from jail he was re-arrested for beating up his girlfriend.

The Minnesota Vikings have suspended Peterson from playing football until his legal situation is settled. This is the appropriate way to handle such cases; let the legal process proceed.

The NFL Players Association has sued the NFL on behalf of Ray Rice citing the fact that he was punished twice for the same offense. 

Many are asking what the role of the NFL should be in regards to player’s personal and private life off the field of play. Some are saying we have a legal system that handles criminal behavior and the NFL should first let the law do its work before deciding what to do with the player.

These issues have been with us for a very long time but have remained hidden. Now in the digital age, nothing remains hidden for long but is played out on a stage for all of us to see and to judge…

THE RICE AFFAIR...

We are all familiar now with the Ray Rice affair where a video showed him punching out his then fiancé and now wife Janay Rice in an elevator and then dragging her body out of the elevator. 

Today, this story has become THE story.

This would not have even been a story except for a TV show called TMZ which specializes in digging up stuff on celebrities.

The fact that in today’s world nothing is private with cameras and recorders everywhere is troubling on a number of levels…

No one will condone violence against women in any form and everyone will admit that violence against women is a growing problem that needs to be addressed more forcefully with better protections offered to women in an abusive relationship.

In my experience, when a man hits a woman, he will do it again and again even though he swears it will never happen again. It is best for the female to end the relationship after the first beating even though many women will not or cannot end the relationship and just suffer as battered wives.

That being said, the fact of the matter is that Janay Rice did not file a criminal complaint, in fact she went ahead and married the guy that punched her; they have a child together.

When the Ravens management and the NFL (National Football League) commissioner saw the video of Rice dragging her body out of the elevator they felt compelled to suspend him for two games and when they saw the video of him knocking her out in the elevator, they fired him and the NFL commissioner went ahead and suspended him indefinitely from ever playing football anywhere…really?

Janay Rice came out forcefully against all those do-gooders trying to protect her when she did not ask for protection and in fact ruining her life and that of her husband and daughter since now all those millions he was going to earn as a star running back have vanished; what other job is he suited for.

This whole case has been handled very badly on a number of levels.

First, no criminal charges have been filed so there is no basis for the NFL to punish someone as if a crime has been committed.

My wife disagrees vehemently on this point but as a former business owner with many employees, I told her that I could control behavior at work but could not control behavior outside of work and especially behavior in the privacy of one’s own home unless it had some direct impact on the performance of one’s job like alcoholism or drug use.

Secondly, what ever happened to someone making a bad choice, repenting and being given another chance at straightening their life out; Rice was banned from football based on a video, no trial, no jury judgment, no prior record of abuse, just media pressure.

I realize that the NFL has an image they would like to maintain but to pretend that all football players are boy scouts is unrealistic and plain stupid.

As a society, we are just starting to get used to this new high tech age where nothing is private and everything can be videotaped or voice recorded for instant public distribution and judgment. This is not always a good thing and many good lives could be ruined by a momentary lapse in judgment.

I think the NFL commissioner should only concern himself with player behavior only as it impacts their performance on the field.

I also think that people that are celebrities or semi-celebrities or even people in general should be aware that they are on candid camera…all the time…and should act accordingly.

Miscarriage of justice in Detroit...

The case of the so called “Porch Shooter” in Dearborn, Michigan has been a hotly debated case even on a national level. Most cases involving a white shooter and a black victim garner a lot of attention even though, as in this case, race played absolutely no role.

Watching the judge sentence Theodore Wafer to 15 – 30 years behind bars for second degree murder to me, was a miscarriage of justice; it was based on influential factors that perverted the real meaning of the principle that justice is blind.

He was absolutely guilty but guilty of poor judgment that resulted in death of another human being. The judge cried as she sentenced him saying she realized that he was a good man, not a criminal, certainly not a racist and that he would have lived out his life as a responsible and productive citizen of our society BUT…someone died because of his actions and he must pay the price.

I agree that he must pay the price for his guilt but what price and it is here that I take umbrage at what the system dealt him.

He was, after all, sleeping in his own house and did not look for trouble but trouble came to him in the form of a young woman who was drunk and on drugs and banging loudly on his door. He should have called 911 and waited for the police to come or having a shotgun, he could have waited for the person banging on his door to actually break in and then shot. 

But no, he did not call 911 and decided to open the door and shoot the person banging through the screen door; a very bad choice…he called the shooting an accident.

His defense team made the mistake on using a self-defense argument instead of treating it like a terrible accident so they are somewhat complicit in the jury finding him guilty because they did not buy the self-defense argument.

But be as it may, his crime was not a murder and certainly not a second degree murder and the judge and the jury, in my mind, knew it BUT…

Here is where in this case, justice was not blind. People attached a racial component to this case even though race was never a factor and in so doing they influenced the way that the judge and the jury saw this case.

The whites on the jury knew the country was watching and the last thing they wanted to do was appear racist in any form or fashion and giving a lesser verdict as say manslaughter which would have been more appropriate, would have made them look racist. The judge, a white blond, also feared a lesser sentence of a more appropriate 5-6 years, would have sent a message of racism to the people that elect her.

In the end, facts did not decide this case; our fanatical preoccupation with race decided this case.

It does not take a Solomon to see what real justice should have looked like in this case; it takes people who apply the law and therefore justice as it was meant to be applied.