Pontifications

Whether Sarah Palin's family, or Sarah Palin herself, should be a subject of commentary and scrutiny has itself become a much-debated topic. But let us agree that the issues raised by her candidacy, notably the revelation of her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy, may be a "teachable moment," as they say. But what can we learn?

A CNS story on teen pregnancy offers sober stats but focuses on supporting teenage mothers (laudable, of course) rather than prevention, until the end of the piece:

Diane DeLong, the North Star director, said the program gives youths health education with "a strong abstinence message" coupled with extensive youth-development programs that keep the teens busy after school in sports and leadership programs. DeLong said she is tired of the criticism of abstinence programs that assumes teachers just tell youths, "Don't have sex." The programs are much more involved, she said, teaching young people to avoid risky behavior and to realize the consequences of their actions.

In today's New York Times, op-ed columnist and graphics czar Charles Blow has a different take in a column, "Let's Talk About Sex," with an accompanying table that, well, graphically sets out the "crisis" (though some may object to that word for a variety of reasons). Clearly the United States, despite our enthsiastic embrace of faith, is doing poorly in teaching children to avoid early sex or pregnancy--or abortion. As Blow writes:

"...A 2001 Unicef report said that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours."

Blow's solution is less abstinence-only teaching (as studies show it is ineffective) and more frank talk about sex and greater access to contraception. "If there is a shame here, it's a national shame -- a failure of our puritanical society to accept and deal with the facts. Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won't cross the line is not an intelligent strategy."

Doesn't seem as though that is a prescription that will be welcomed a good many parents. Is there a better way? Policy or preaching? And first off, should this be a topic/target of public discussion?

Pope Benedict XVI is quite an animal lover (as we noted here). But he is also quite the esthete, and this sculpture, in a museum in Bolzano, the northern Italian town near where the pontiff vacations, apparently went too far for his tastes.

According to a CNS story, the sculpture set off protests this summer that reached the pope's ears when he visited in July. His Secretary of State (sort of the vice-pope) then sent a letter of support to a local official who was leading the charge to have the frog, er, dissected. The letter reportedly said the pope believes the sculpture "has wounded the religious sentiment of the many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love and our salvation."

Yes, on one level. As the CNS story says, the sculpture "depicts a green frog nailed to the cross, holding a beer stein in one hand and an egg in the other. Its eyes are crossed and its tongue hangs out of its mouth."

But let me play froggy's advocate here--this isn't an Andres Serrano "Piss Christ" or Madonna of the Elephnat Dung or whatever that Brooklyn Museum of Art piece was a few years back.

The sculpture is the work of the German artist Martin Kippenberger, who died in 1997 at the age of 44, a tormented figure himself, it seems:

"Museum officials have defended the work, saying it was intended as a self-portrait showing the torment faced by the artist. The sculpture was made in 1990, and the artist, who was said to consider the frog his alter ego, created other variations on the same theme."

In a more detailed ANSA report, museum officials said they have moved the frog to a less prominent place, but have delined to remove it altogether. They said it is a self-portrait of the artist ''in a state of profound crisis'' and is not an attack on religious feeling.

Sure, not quite the imitation of Christ most might like--certainly not B16--but powerful in its own way, perhaps. Intention is everything. Almost.

I got the news--and that headline (well, the first half)--via RNS, which reported that the beauty contest for religious women that I wrote about the other day has been cancelled.

"My superiors were not happy. The local bishop was not happy, but they did not understand me either," Father Antonio Rungi told Reuters news agency from the town of Mondragone, near Naples. "It was interpreted as more of a physical thing," he said. "Now, no one is saying that nuns can't be beautiful, but I was thinking about something more complete."

And according to CNS, "Father Rungi said he was shutting down the contest and his blog in order to protect himself and the sisters from further misunderstanding. He said it was a shame that he had to cancel the pageant, because he had already received a great number of applicants."

Yes, this may seem like small potatoes to you, given everything else that's gone on. But everybody loved the story (or hated it).

Alas. No contest.

I had thought the terrifying onslaught of Gustav and the efforts by the GOP to dodge the Katrina bullet--or turn it to McCain's benefit--would be the story of the day, but the bombshell news that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant is worth addressing given the stakes, and the nexus of religion and politics. A nd, well, because it's irresistible. (WaPo coverage here and NYTimes here. And a reader sends this photo from a McCain daughter's blog, apparently of Bristol, holding baby Trig, from a People magazine shoot, as evidence that she was obviously pregnant. I'm not so sure.)

The Palin family issued a statement saying the daughter and daddy-to-be, Levi, would marry:

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows that she has our unconditional love and support...Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

Naturally this will introduce some German terms--mainly schadenfreude, I think--into the political lexicon. But it is also offering "Palinistas" and McCainiacs a chance to tout Palin as even more pro-life than ever. I haven't surfed too far, but I was struck by the title of Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Con" post: "Palin's daughter gets pregnant, chooses life." Rod writes:

Will this hurt her politically? I'm thinking not. Nor should it. Unplanned teen pregnancy is not unheard of in this country. Any family could face this crisis, even conservative Christian families. I've known some myself. The question is: how do you deal with it? Bristol Palin is not going to abort her unborn child. She's going to keep the baby and marry the father. Good for her. It shouldn't have happened, but it did happen, and now she's going to do the right thing -- the hard thing. Again: good. Mother and child -- and father -- need support. 

My initial reaction is that Dreher is right--Palin supporters will rally around her, and will forcefully use any efforts to view this development as a chink in the Palin's all-American, super-Christian reputation against the critics. And that might work. As Rod says, and as others have noted, this sort of thing happens to families like the Palins all the time. Sarah Palin and her daughter will be raising kids who will grow up together.

The news is so delicate for the Dems that Obama has weighed in saying:

"Back off these kinds of stories...I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits. And people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor and or her potential perfromance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be a topic of our politics."

Yet so nervous is the Christian right that they're actually giving Obama kudos--Rod calls him "classy," even though Obama's demonstrated class throughout the campaign, as opposed to the other camp. Then again, Obama is also in a political bind, as the GOP was saying his camp started the rumors that led to the revelation. He denied it, and wanted to put distance there, if possible.

I am not running for office, thank heaven, so at the risk of incurring such wrath (but what the heck), I think this story raises raises many other truly serious questions, beyond the obvious hole in the Palins' holier-than-thou presentation. For one, the McCain camp apparently knew of Bristol's pregnancy before the pick was made. So why wasn't this made public right off the bat? Why all the hype about how wonderful the family is--when you know that may blow up in your face? According to campaign officials, the announcement was made after wild rumors began circulating on liberal blogs (not here!) that intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Gov. Palin only claimed to have given birth last April, but the child (Trig, who has Down syndrome) was really Bristol's. So how long were they going to keep this secret? For another, say, two months--until Nov. 5?

The Palins are of course also fortunate to have the means to support their pregant teenage daughter--what will she do as vice-president and potential president do ensure other young single moms have the same option? And how will she address her party's ad nauseam rhetoric about the decline in morals and family values when the very things they blast in the rest of society are in fact happening at home?

But again, I doubt that will have traction. Indeed, it may not even be true in a few hours, in light of the news here that in the hours before her selection was announced a McCain campaign volunteer was surreptiously massaging Palin's Wikipedia entry with more than 30 edits to make her look good. (Lecture for the first day of class this semester writes itself...)

More perilous for Palin (the candidate, not the daughter), I think, are some of the items that blogmeisters at dotCommonweal brought to light, namely, that she actually backed that infamous pork barrel "Bridge to Nowhere" when she ran for governor in 2006, even though she said at her introduction by McCain that she was against it--and McCain cited that as a reason for picking her, so she could clean up Washington. As the USA Today story says:

Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAlister said, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead ... there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design." She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it...I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."

She is good at reevaluation. A dotCommonwealer also dug up her response to a 2006 Eagle Forum election questionnaire:

QUESTION: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

PALIN: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course, as even Wikipedia knows, the pledge wasn't written until 1892, and the phrase "Under God" wasn't added until the 1950s--at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, natch.

Cross-potsed with Progressive Revival

Doug Kmiec, the former Reagan/Bush official and abortion-opposing Catholic who is supporting Barack Obama, has been the topic of much discussion, here at Pontifications and elsewhere.

In today's NYTimes, columnist Peter Steinfels interviews Kmiec. Here's one of many fascinating--and likely controversial--exchanges:

Q. You have been fiercely attacked by some Catholic abortion opponents and in one instance barred from receiving communion. How do you feel about that?

A. To be the subject of an angry homily at Mass last April 18 and excoriated as giving scandal for endorsing Senator Obama and then to be denied communion for that "offense" was the most humiliating experience in my faith life.

To be separated in that public manner from the receipt of the eucharist, and to be effectively shunned or separated from the body of Christ in the sense of that particular congregation, has left, I very much regret to say, a permanent spiritual scar. Thankfully, it has also given me a new appreciation for the significance of the sacrament in my daily worship. And the priest, having been called to order by Cardinal Roger Mahony, sent me an apology, which of course I have accepted.

Read more here.

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post