In a culture that promotes alternative medicine, natural childbirth, and sometimes-bizarre dietary supplements, it seems strange that natural infertility treatments are not well-known. A natural infertility treatment is not necessarily alternative medicine, but rather a conventional-medicine approach that seeks to cure the underlying cause of infertility, allowing natural conception. It stands in contrast to assisted reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is stick a "band-aid" solution that does nothing about the underlying causes of fertility problems.

Why is assisted reproductive technology the current standard of care for infertility? If you type "fertility treatment" into Wikipedia, you are redirected to "assisted reproductive technology." Wikipedia, being written collaboratively by people around the world, reflects the biases and attitudes of those people. Fertility drugs and IVF are what people think of when they think about infertility treatments.

I think the reason IVF is so popular — despite its astronomical cost and mediocre success rate (only 1 in 3 attempts results in a live birth) — is because it is a "magic pill" approach. It is a silver bullet, a straightforward process left in the hands of doctors. Natural fertility treatments are more complicated because they start with diagnostics, rather than jumping immediately into treatment.

Among the diagnostic steps used in natural fertility treatments for women are ultrasound, laparoscopy, and sonohysterosalpingography (SHSG) to look for structural problems in the reproductive organs, as well as hormone level checks. During her menstrual cycle, a woman's estrogen and progesterone levels can change significantly in as little as 24 hours, so daily or every-other-day tests are best. Any underlying disease or structural abnormality that is uncovered is treated to increase the odds of a naturally conceived pregnancy.

How successful is natural infertility treatment compared to assisted reproductive technology? IVF has a maximum success (pregnancy) rate well under 50% (for 27-year-old women), with an average success rate closer to 35%. Statistics for live birth are even worse, with an average of only about 27% of attempts resulting in live births. That means that an average of 8% of attempts result in a miscarriage or stillbirth (or, if the fetus is imperfect, abortion). The poor success rates reflect, in part, the fact that over 50% of embryos conceived in vitro have chromosomal abnormalities, as reported by Rebecca Taylor of Mary Meets Dolly. Natural fertility technology also has treatments for male infertility.

According to the Pope Paul VI institute, a major proponent of natural infertility treatment, so-called "natural reproductive technology" has higher success rates than IVF for various infertility diagnoses. These results are both statistically significant (i.e. not due to chance) and personally significant (i.e. they're a lot higher). For example, for a diagnosis of endometriosis, IVF has a success (pregnancy) rate of about 21%, while natural reproductive treatment has a success rate of about 57%. It reports a 37% success rate for tubal occlusion compared to IVF's 27%. The whopping 82% success rate reported for natural fertility treatment of anovulation (not producing mature eggs) may be due to straightforward treatment of the most obvious cause of anovulation, hormonal insufficiency (although I am speculating here).

I find it amazing that natural treatments for infertility are not better-known, even though they are more effective than current approaches. That's right: for infertile couples, it is more effective to try to conceive a baby the way nature always has than to inject a sperm into an egg under a microscope, with less chance of complications like chromosomal abnormalities and multiple gestation. Who wouldn't choose that first, if they knew it was available?

Image credit: "Test tube baby" by Brendan Dolan-Gavitt. (CC) Some rights reserved.

Why do people think it's selfish to have lots of kids?

Recently there was a bit of a dust-up in the combox at my sister's blog, Mama Says*, in which one commenter in particular charged that only selfish parents have big families. Having lots of kids (eight, in this case) allegedly is harmful to the older children in the family.

This is a mainstream attitude in modern American culture. Big families are viewed with scorn and derision, the parents accused of being selfish because either (a) they are dividing their love and attention among too many kids, (b) they are contributing to overpopulation, (c) they are using more than their share of natural resources, or (d) all of the above.

As a cradle Catholic, I have known a lot of big families. I even grew up in one, as the oldest of a brood of eight. But I have yet to meet a big family with selfish parents who are focused on fulfilling their own desires at the expense of either their family or our larger society.

I think this attitude stems from the discomfort people feel when they see large families. They cannot imagine themselves having a baseball team's worth of children, so they feel subconsciously threatened when they see one. That statement is not intended to be judgmental; it's human nature, and everyone experiences feelings like that when confronted with behavior that falls outside of social norms.

Why it is not selfish to have a big family

Let me present a picture of a typical big family. This fictional family has two parents and a startling number of kids. They have a strong religious faith, perhaps Catholic or Mormon or Evangelical. The parents at times feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of people underfoot. They know they could easily take steps to prevent themselves from having so many children, but they don't, because they have decided to trust God. They see each kid as a gift and have faith that God will provide for the kids he gave them. This is not a decision made lightly. This is radical, and they know it.

All the members of the family make a lot of sacrifices in order to follow this path. Maybe the kids aren't in as many organized activities, sports, and lessons as most of their peers. Maybe they go to restaurants less often, take fewer vacations, and share bedrooms. Maybe the younger kids rarely see a new article of clothing, being clad instead in hand-me-downs.

But they also have a lot of privileges that their peers will never know. They are never lonely. Their house is the neighborhood social hub for the 18-and-under set. They probably have a groupie or two, lonely children with no siblings whose parents work all day. They have a precocious understanding of the important things in life, like love and sharing. The older ones help their parents and learn child-care skills. They all learn practical life skills by doing chores, such as how to do laundry. They see what it is like to really live according to one's ideals and values.

They never have to hear their parents say that children are burdens, or that they are "so glad" they're done having kids.

And above all, they never, ever feel unloved. Big families like to repeat the saying that "love doesn't divide, it multiplies." It's more than a cute saying, it's literally true: the kids all love each other. Each new baby has a live-in fan club. Each older child has a crowd of younger devotees who think he is the coolest person on the planet.

The truth is, every parent of a crowd has no choice but to give of the deepest part of themselves, every single day. They are practically forced to be unselfish.

Selfish parents could not do this job.

* (cough cough) Which I helped design, by the way (ahem) not that I'm boasting or anything, but I have mad skillz don't I? Nevermind that I didn't do most of the work.

Is it offensive if someone falsely accuses your family of murder?

CNN reports that actor Tom Hanks, star of the Da Vinci Code sequel Angels & Demons, has stated that there is nothing controversial about this film.

"Everybody is looking for some scandal whether a scandal exists or not," Hanks said of the film. "I think a kind of natural reaction is now that somehow because it's the second Robert Langdon mystery that there is some degree of controversy over it. And there is really not."

No cause for controversy? The movie pits the Catholic Church against the Illuminati, who we are to believe (contrary to reality) were a secret society of scientists dedicated uncovering the truths that the Church was vigorously suppressing. The incorrect portrayal of the Illuminati might be controversial to some, but it could possibly be described as artistic license.*

But still, no cause for controversy? What about Hanks' character Robert Langdon's remark that "the Catholic Church ordered a brutal massacre to silence [the Illuminati] forever"? What about this quote from the trailer, in which Langdon declares, "They were dedicated to scientific truth. And the Vatican didn't like that. So the church began to, how did you say it? Oh, hunt them down and kill them."

Making grossly libelous claims about men who are, Catholics believe, God's earthly representatives is cause for controversy. I'm not sure how Mr. Hanks missed that part.

A major religious leader has publicly denounced the film for ridiculing people's faith, spreading lies, creating confusion about the truth, and perpetuating false stereotypes about the Catholic Church. He is not a Catholic leader, nor even a Christian leader; this came from American Hindu statesman Rajan Zed.

Zed, notable for reading the first Hindu prayers in the U.S. Senate, is also a panelist on Newsweek's On Faith. Does Hanks think that thoughtlessly "looking for scandal" because of the name Robert Langdon is a vice that extends to respected, well-informed non-Christian religious leaders like Zed?

What do you think about the controversy around Andgels & Demons? Are Catholics justified in being upset?

*Perhaps before being issued an artistic license, a person should be required to pass a proficiency test in creating art. That may have saved us from films like this.

Last year, I wrote a post to clear up an assortment of depression and anxiety myths. Here are more myths about depression and bipolar disorder (also called manic-depressive illness), including children's depression and postpartum depression.

Myth: I'm not sad all the time, so it can't be depression.

Fact: To be diagnosed with clinical depression, you must have either dysphoria (sad, bad, or depressed mood) or anhedonia (loss of interest in activities or inability to feel pleasure). If experience anhedonia without sadness for two weeks or more, and have other symptoms such as sleep disturbance, fatigue, appetite disturbance, or an obsession with death, you may have depression. See my post "Have you experienced depression?" for a full list of depression symptoms. Or take this free depression screening from the excellent website Psych Central.

Myth: Children don't get depressed.

Fact: Children can and do get depressed, as do adolescents. Childhood depression is a serious illness that should not be ignored. Symptoms are similar to the symptoms of depression in adults, but children are more likely to have physical symptoms (such as stomachaches and headaches). Depressed children may talk about running away from home or attempt to do so; may do poorly in school; and become socially isolated. The American Academy of Childhood and Adolescent Psychiatry has more information on depression in children.

Myth: Only new mothers get postpartum depression.

Fact: The hormone changes that occur in a woman's body after childbirth are widely assumed by the public to be the only cause of postpartum depression. But the stress of a newborn, lack of sleep, and changes in family life and roles can all contribute to postpartum depression. It should be no surprise that these factors can contribute to depression in new fathers and new adoptive parents as well as in women who have given birth.

Myth: Mania, in bipolar disorder, is a feeling of extreme happiness.

Fact: Mania is much more than that — and often much less. More, because it also includes symptoms like hypersexuality, decreased need for sleep, grandiosity, delusions, hallucinations, constant rapid speech, "flight of ideas," and more. Less, because the mood, while high-energy, is not always euphoric. It can be angry, anxious, aggressive, or a mix of all of these. It can be extreme, or it can be milder (hypomania). It can last weeks, or it can last hours for rapid cyclers. Or it can be mixed with depression — a truly terrifying experience for everyone. Kay Redfield Jamison, a psychiatrist and author who suffers from bipolar I disorder, describes mania as "madness."

Image credit: "Self" by The Wandering Angel. (CC) Some rights reserved.

Anxiety disorders are widely misunderstood. Everybody feels anxious at times, but in an anxiety disorder, the feelings take over a person's life. Here are the facts about four common anxiety disorders.

Myth: Being worried all the time is not an actual illness. Everyone is anxious sometimes.

Fact: Everyone is worried sometimes, but it is not normal to be worried almost all the time. People who cannot shake irrational worries, who worry about things out of proportion to their importance, or who have a constant sense of "free-floating" anxiety may suffer from Generalized Anxiety Disorder, a common but very treatable anxiety disorder.

Myth: If you can't stand to step on cracks, are fussy about your things, or wash your hands a lot, you "are OCD" (have obsessive-compulsive disorder).

Fact: Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a debilitating illness that robs people of their time, often hours a day. It profoundly disrupts people's lives, activities, and relationships, and its sufferers might feel like prisoners to their obsessions (intrusive thoughts) and compulsions (actions they must do to get rid of the intrusive thoughts). Many people have quirky little compulsions like avoiding cracks or arranging their food "just so," but this should not be confused with true obsessive-compulsive disorder, which is many times more severe.

Myth: "Social anxiety disorder" is a made-up disorder. Lots of people are shy.

Fact: Shyness is not the same as social anxiety disorder. In this disorder, normal, everyday social situations cause extreme fear and self-consciousness, and sufferers often avoid these situations. The situations that are unbearable for sufferers of this disorder are things like making transactions with cashiers, eating in front of other people, talking to receptionists, and other unavoidable activities of everyday life.

Myth: Panic attacks are not a real illness, like a heart attack is.

Fact: The symptoms of a panic attack are very much like the symptoms of a heart attack and can include chest pains, choking, tingling in the extremities, difficulty breathing, and a sense of impending doom. Onset is sudden and may not have any apparent trigger.

Unlike a heart attack, a panic attack does not cause any long-term physical damage. But panic disorder, a condition in which the sufferer experiences recurrent and severe panic attacks, often does cause long-term damage, both psychological (phobias, depression) and physical (medical complications, substance abuse, suicide). People who suffer recurrent panic attacks should be encouraged to get treatment.

Read more information on panic disorder from the American Psychological Association.

No, don't. Please. Instead, read these articles. I have scoured the WHO and CDC websites and other authoritative sources, applied a generous dose of perspective, and distilled the big picture of the H1N1 swine flu epidemic down to some key essentials.

Bottom line? Wash your hands and don't freak out.

• Is H1N1 Swine Flu Dangerous?
• How is the H1N1 Swine Flu Transmitted?
• What do the WHO and CDC H1N1 Flu Response Mean?

And if you crave more details about the epidemic — which is verging on becoming a pandemic but so far not a very deadly one — here are two more:

• Timeline of the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Outbreak
• Influenza Virus Classification: The Many Varieties of Influenza (with some nifty pictures)

I am keeping these articles up-to-date as new information emerges. As the WHO puts it, "the situation continues to evolve." Fortunately, the evolution is trending towards becoming a big "never mind." Pray that this continues!

Stephen Colbert is a parody of a right-wing talk show host. (Actually, he's more than just a parody; I think he's a complex mix of parody, sincerity, and humor for humor's sake.) Regardless of how serious the "actor" Stephen Colbert is, the "character" Stephen Colbert does a not-too-shabby job refuting Bart Ehrman, author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them).

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

Hat tip to Catholic Answers Forums.

I have not read any of Ehrman's books and am unfamiliar with his arguments, but even in this short he shows apparent ignorance that makes me think his ideas are not much of a threat to the Christian faith. When, in Mark's Gospel, Jesus cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" he is not expressing simple despair, as Ehrman believes. He is quoting Psalm 22. The Jews, including Jesus and all the other Jewish witnesses, would know the whole psalm, which is a prophecy of the crucifixion. Consider verses 20-25:

But you, LORD, do not stay far off;
my strength, come quickly to help me.
Deliver me from the sword,
my forlorn life from the teeth of the dog.
Save me from the lion's mouth,
my poor life from the horns of wild bulls.
Then I will proclaim your name to the assembly;
in the community I will praise you:
"You who fear the LORD, give praise! All descendants of Jacob, give honor;
show reverence, all descendants of Israel!
For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch,
Did not turn away from me,
but heard me when I cried out.

Considering the entirety of this prophetic song, Mark's version of Jesus does not seem so different from Luke's stalwart version of Jesus, after all.

My sister Mile Hi Mama gets a hat tip for pointing out a blog called Taliban Rising. This blog is about heretical, patriarchal ideas being promoted by certain radical members of the traditionalist Catholic movement ("Rad Trads"). As blogger Jeanette points out, these ideas delve into the realm of the distinctly non-Catholic (i.e., heretical) philosophy of religious naturalism. (Before reading further, please be aware, if you are not already, that Leave the lights on is written by a woman.)

In her post "Weaving the Mental Burqa," Jeanette (who writes with more clarity and spirit than I can manage here) quotes a few Rad Trad intellectual leaders, including Dr. Peter Chojnowski and the infamous Bishop Richard Williamson. Bishop Williamson's outrageous comments do not need to be refuted; they fairly refute themselves. Dr. Chojnowski, on the other hand, writes with a style reeking of erudition and opaque scholarship, and I consider his work to be a fair target.

He publishes a blog in which he reprints some of the articles he has written. In the introduction to his recently posted article "Our Lady as Woman and Warrior," he decries "the various writers on the internet who insist on distorting everything I have to say about women." I hope he does not consider this quote from that article to be a distortion:

"On account of the fact that the 'lady,' in all of her various aspects and roles, is commonly accepted to be the model of what all woman, on the natural level, ought to be. Just as the masculine ideal is one of being a 'master'...." (emphasis added)

It certainly sounds like much of this writer's philosophy is based on religious naturalism.

I do not mean to say, as some feminists do, that men and women are exactly the same (clearly they are not), nor that mothers and fathers do not have duties particular to their respective roles in the family (clearly they do). But as Jeanette points out, God's plan for men and women is not ordered primarily toward their sex, but rather toward Christ. Our duties arise not from our gender, but from our specific roles in the service of God.

To quote Dr. Gyula Mago, in the article "Feminism as Antichurch" in the Angelus, "[Woman] is subject to man, but not because he is the end for which she exists." The Angelus is a traditionalist publication; this quote is indicative of the fact that the naturalist heresy is not completely pervasive in the traditionalist movement, only in a small number of Rad Trads.

Contrast this statement with the following from Dr. Chojnowski's article "Flesh of my Flesh":

"It will be my contention that women have their being as women actualized only through their relationship with men. Women need men in order to be truly women. Men, however, do not need women in order to be truly men. ... Every convent has its father confessor and the Eucharistic Bridegroom." (emphasis original)

Though Chojnowski states this is based on Thomistic philosophy, I think St. Thomas Aquinas would shudder to think of his clearly reasoned philosphy invoked for such confused, pop-psych drivel. There are two errors in this quote. The first is the statement that "women have their being actualized by men." Nowhere in Catholic theology does one find this sentiment. The second error is the assertion that the presence of priests in convents somehow "proves" the first. It proves nothing of the sort; what it proves is that women, like men, need Christ. The priest is there to bring Christ in the sacraments to the nuns of the convent, not to "actualize their being," whatever that means.

My experience suggests that women have as much of a civilizing influence on men as men have a stabilizing influence on women. Even these observations are only broad generalities, as individual men and women vary widely in temperament.

Dr. Chojnowski can continue writing to encourage men to find women to actualize into being. (I imagine he does not intend women, being mentally inferior and subordinate to men, to read what he writes. I also imagine he has not ever had a real conversation with an actual woman.) As for me and my blog, we will serve the Lord, not the male sex.

Yes, my last post was an April Fool's joke. Christopher Hitchens did not convert to Christianity in a moment of clarity (does he have any?) and the Answers in Genesis crowd did not adopt an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. It was all wishful thinking on my part. Actually, if I had my wish, Hitchens would have become Catholic, not Evangelical, but I liked the line about him accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. (There is precedent for the conversion of prominent atheists, though...)

President Barack Obama is rescinding the U.S. ban on research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. The narrative that his administration is promoting is that this research is "pro-science," and that the Bush ban on such research was "anti-science" due to ignorance about the potential of stem cells. To strengthen the narrative, the propagandists seek intentionally to confuse the difference between the two major types of stem cells used in research.

Therapies using so-called "adult" stem cells, which can be obtained without significant harm to the donor, show great promise as potential treatments for diseases from heart disease to diabetes. Embryonic stem cells, which are obtained only after killing the human donor, have so far proven to be more problematic, as they have a tendency to form tumors called teratomas.

Julia Dory Ransohoff, a 17-year-old prodigy who has conducted her own stem cell research, has appeared in the news as a finalist for the Intel Science Talent Search. She was invited to meet the President as part of the pro-embryonic stem cell research propaganda effort.

But here's the "lie," which is actually an omission meant to confuse: Ms. Ransohoff's research is not on embryonic stem cells at all. She used adult stem cells from bone marrow. She found that heterologous stem cells to treat heart disease elicit a greater immune response for female donors than for male donors (that's the "sex").

The tactic used by supporters of embryonic stem cell research is to cloud the ethical questions surrounding it by failing to distinguish between embryonic and adult stem cells. There is no serious ethical opposition to the use of adult stem cells. Bioethicists from all sides of the debate agree on that point. Failing to make the distinction is dishonest and dishonorable.

Image: Mouse dendritic cells (a type of immune system cell) derived from bone marrow adult stem cells. Source: National Cancer Institute.

Update: After I published this post, I saw this headline: "Obama moves to separate politics and science." Just as I said, the Obama administration is trying to paint the issue as one of noble science v. extremist politics, rather than as an ethical debate.

The Scientific American headline asks, "Can Babies Be Made to Order?" It is typical of SciAm, as well as of many members of the research community, that the more important question was overlooked: "Should Babies Be Made to Order?"

The article is an interview with Maria Lalioti, an expert in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. In PGD, embryos are created in vitro and then screened for certain genetic traits, which may include traits incompatible with life or merely traits that increase risk for certain diseases.

The embryos that fail the screening are labelled "undesirable." I'm not making that up: Lalioti says the parents decide the fate of "undesirable embryos" whose genes are imperfect. They may be experimented on, or they may be killed. Lalioti's euphemisms, respectively, are "donated to science" and "discarded."

Let us be crystal clear about what PGD does and does not do. PGD does not save lives — it takes them. It kills young, tiny humans before a couple invests significant affection and financial resources on them. It kills them before they are cute enough to inspire sympathy.

PGD is a ghastly "solution" to preventing diseases with a genetic component. It's the solution of Adolf Hitler, who also took undesirable people and discarded them or donated them to science. At least his victims could look their killers in the eye.

The real kicker occurs near the end of the interview, in which Lalioti self-righteously announces that her clinic does not permit sex selection of interviews "for ethical reasons." She derisively adds that some clinics "are making a lot of money" doing just this.

As for the question "Can Babies Be Made to Order?" The answer, according to Lalioti, is probably not. We don't know enough about the genes that influence cosmetic traits like hair and eye color. After all, researching those genes does nothing to teach us how to save lives. PGD does not save lives, either; it takes them.

Correction: When first published, this post incorrectly stated that Dr. Lalioti's clinic "does permit sex selection." This was a typo; it was supposed to read "does not permit sex selection." The error has been corrected and I apologize for any misunderstanding.

During this season of Lent, my parish is using custom-printed booklets for "worship aids" (which we use instead of missalettes). The booklets contain all the hymns for each Sunday, as well as the first two readings. Each Sunday is prefaced by a little meditation written by Father Paul Turner, a priest in Missouri who has created a large body of writing for this purpose.

Some of Fr. Turner's "bulletin inserts" are quite though-provoking and provide good food for meditation. The blurb for this past Sunday is another story. With my mad Google skilz, I found it online, at the top of page 2 of this parish's bulletin (PDF link). The subject is the first reading for March 1, Genesis 9:8-15, the end of the story of Noah's nautical adventure, in which God makes a covenant not to flood the earth again. Fr. Turner's commentary includes this:

So, what did God give up? God gave up global floods. “There shall not be another flood to devastate the earth.” God gave up giving up on people.

As I read these words, the catechist in me cringed. God did not give up giving up on people — because God has never given up on people. Though the Genesis account may make it sound as if God was intent on destroying his creation, our understanding of God makes it clear that nothing could be further from the truth. Old Testament stories like this are included in Scripture because they teach us something about humankind's relationship with God. It was sin that destroyed the earth, and God who saved it (through Noah). The covenant not to flood the earth is a prefigurement of the final covenant, when God sent Christ to save the earth from the flood of our sins.

The second reading for last Sunday is taken from the first Epistle of Peter. I rather think St. Peter had much more astute thoughts on the Noah story. From the reading:

[Christ] also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
who had once been disobedient
while God patiently waited in the days of Noah
during the building of the ark,
in which a few persons, eight in all,
were saved through water.
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. (1 Peter 3:19-21)

The catechist in me was struck with wonder at this interpretation, which seems so obvious, but which had escaped my notice until now: The Great Flood, which symbolically cleansed and "purified" the world, prefigured our water baptism, in which our souls are really cleansed and purified from all original and personal sin. God did not give something up; he gave something to us.

The youngest Leave the lights on blogger, my 14-month-old son, got three shots last week. He and his brother have had every vaccination recommended by pediatricians. I understand that a lot of parents are hesitant about vaccinations because of fears of their safety. Those parents should fear for the safety of their children if they don't vaccinate.

Vaccines are safe

Most of the fears about vaccinations center on the purported link between the mercury-based preservative thimerosal and autism. But study after study — most recently, one conducted in Italy — have shown that thimerosal does not cause autism. In fact, the original study that suggested the thimerosal-autism link was faked. And even if this evidence is not convincing, thimerosal is no longer used in most vaccinations.

Not vaccinating can be deadly

Last month in Minnesota, a seven-month-old baby died of Hib, or Haemophilus influenzae type b. Hib infections are vanishingly rare in the U.S. because of the routine use of the Hib vaccine, which is given at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months (this is one of the shots my son received last month). The child who died, and two of four other kids who were sickened by the Hib outbreak, were unvaccinated "because of their parents' decisions." In other words, the parents decided not to protect their children against deadly infections.

Of the other two children, one was only five months old and so had not completed the primary 3-shot series. The other had an immune deficiency. When vaccination rates are above a certain "threshold," people like these two children are protected by "herd immunity" (a term that originated in animal husbandry). The disease cannot spread because there are not enough vulnerable individuals in the population. When people choose not to be vaccinated, or not to have their children vaccinated, herd immunity suffers, and people like these two babies can be sickened.

The refusal to vaccinate one's children is a source of frustration for health officials. I cannot understand a parent's reluctance to protect their children against deadly diseases that should only be a memory in the twenty-first century.

Once you are baptized or confirmed as a Catholic, there's no way out. You are permanently marked as a Catholic, and you can only leave the Church by dying and going to hell. Even the souls in heaven and purgatory are part of the Church.

Excommunication is a "severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts" (CCC 1463). It is not expulsion from the Church, since indeed the Church cannot bind non-members, nor is it a declaration of spiritual condemnation.

Bishop Williamson and the other bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) were excommunicated for an audacious act of disobedience to the Pope's rightful authority in 1988. Earlier this year, that act was forgiven and the excommunication lifted. The bishops remain suspended, however, from the exercise of the functions of bishops and priests. Bishop Williamson is not allowed to act as a bishop.

One function of bishops is teaching. Bishops are to have a thorough and nuanced understanding of the Church and her teaching so they can instruct their flocks. So my jaw dropped when I read this quote attributed to the Archbishop of Freiburg, Germany, Robert Zollitsch:

"Mr. Williamson is impossible and irresponsible. I don't see a place for him anymore in the Catholic Church."

I can only assume that Archbishop Zollitsch is being quoted out of context by the German news magazine Der Spiegel. Perhaps he means there is no place for Williamson in the Church's heirarchy, that he should not have priestly or episcopal functions restored. But it is a fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith that there is a place for everyone in the Church. That's what the word "catholic" means: universal, applying to all people.

It's often said that the Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. World opinion is that Williamson is a grave sinner (although I leave that judgment to God).

That would mean he is a perfect candidate for membership in the Catholic Church.

It's almost the weekend, so let's talk about TV.

I watch FOX's House regularly. I am losing interest in the program because (besides becoming clichéd and boring) it is not realistic.

The medical cases themselves are full of inaccuracies; one is tempted to uncharitably call them lies. One character is "dying" of Huntington's chorea, which in reality is not a fatal disease at all. A patient died of acute eclampsia a month after giving birth — never mind that eclampsia is cured by delivery of the baby. In one especially infamous episode, a psychiatric condition called "mirror syndrome" was completely invented out of thin air by the writers. (There is a real condition called mirror syndrome which affects pregnant women; this illness was also featured in an episode. Oops.)

Each episode begins with an apparently healthy patient dramatically (and often graphically) collapsing. They are then whisked to Dr. House's hospital, where his team of crack doctors (a bunch who apparently failed medical ethics in school) personally conduct the procedures and tests that are normally done by nurses, radiologists, and other specialists. Dr. House invariably treats the patient more callously than can be imagined, often being deliberately cruel — and clearly delighting in it. At the end, Dr. House (or, less freqeuntly, another doctor, such as the skankily-dressed hospital administrator Dr. Cuddy) has a brilliant flash of insight that tells him the patient's true diagnosis, and treatment after that is quick and easy (unless it is incurable and the patient dies, which happens fairly often).

Scientific American blogger Jordan Lite notes that the cases are often taken from the New England Journal of Medicine's clinical problem-solving column, and that one writer-producer, David Foster, is an M.D. A book has even been written about the show, The Medical Science of House, M.D. But I find the science unrealistic. This is not how medicine is works.

A real mystery disease is usually chronic. A patient with a real "zebra" condition has usually seen many doctors. Once a diagnosis is made, if it is made, treatment is not necessarily quick and easy.

Also, a good doctor is not cruel.

CNN recently featured a story on Dr. William Gahl, who is a real-life diagnostician of rare diseases. Read this story for a realistic picture of how doctors approach medical mysteries. And keep watching House, if you enjoy it. But remember that it's just as fictional with its science as Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica.

CNN recently published an article with the deeply euphemistic title, "Woman in coma to be allowed to die." While technically true, it sounds as if it refers to a person who has begged to be allowed to stop extreme treatment measures in order to be allowed to pass in peace.

This is not true.

In fact, Eluana Englaro, an Italian woman who has been in a vegetative state, not a coma, since 1992, is not under any extreme treatment measures. (See this link for more information about the difference between coma and vegatative state.) She breathes without a ventilator. The nuns treating her are eager to continue to provide care for her for the rest of her natural life.

But Ms. Englaro's own family wants to stop feeding her so she will die of dehydration. This is not a dignified death.

In a letter published in a local newspaper, her caregivers wrote, "We don’t ask anything but the silence and the liberty to love and to devote ourselves to those who are weak, poor and little in return." (Source: Life Site News.)

What a tragic turn of events. Ms. Englaro is not suffering (not that suffering would justify murdering her through deliberate neglect) and not a burden on anybody (not that being a burden would justify it, either). If she is capable of suffering (and I pray she is not), she certainly will suffer in the two to three weeks it takes her to die of dehydration, a miserable, painful, and barbaric way to die.

I am a cradle Catholic, but not a typical cradle Catholic. My mother was deeply suspicious of Vatican II and of the new, vernacular liturgy (the Novus Ordo Missae), so I grew up loosely affiliated with parishes of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (SSPX).

Background on the SSPX

The Society of Saint Pius X is a radical traditionalist group whose leadership was excommunicated in 1988. The story is long and complex, but in a nutshell, the head bishop, Marcel Lefebvre, illicitly consecrated four more bishops, by which action (according to the Vatican) all the bishops involved incurred a canonical latae sententiae excommunication as a result of direct disobedience.

One of Pope Benedict XVI's major missions has been to normalize relations with the SSPX, and the Catholic blogs and news sources have been abuzz with the word that the Pope last week lifted the excommunications on all the bishops of the SSPX.

Bishop Richard Williamson's infamous remarks

Unfortunately, there has been one "black sheep" SSPX bishop doing his best to muck things up. The man who confirmed me, Bishop Richard Williamson, has made many outrageous statements over the years (he once opined that Pope John Paul the Great had a "weak grasp" of Catholicism), and most recently he has publicly denied some aspects of the Holocaust.

The current head of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has made an extraordinary statement in response to Williamson's remarks. According to the blog Creative Minority Report, always a good source for Catholic gossip, Fellay "prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions," and publicly apologized to the Pope and to "all people of good will" for Williamson's statements.

CNN misses the point

CNN, which is among the worse of sources for Catholic gossip, has been silent on this entire issue until Monday. The headline did not refer to the historic end of the twenty-year excommunication, or to the remarkable lengths the Pope is taking to bring lost sheep back into the flock. No, the headline, astonishingly, was about the Jews: "Pope outrages Jews over Holocaust denier."

I wholeheartedly agree with Jewish leaders that Williamson's public opinions about the Holocaust are outrageous. They are outrageous not only to Jewish people, but to all "people of good will." I'm outraged. We're all outraged.

But Williamson was not excommunicated for denying the Holocaust. He was excommunicated for being consecrated a bishop, in open defiance of the will of Pope. The excommunication was an internal, administrative Catholic matter. It had nothing to do with teaching, beliefs, or opinions. And likewise, lifting the excommunication had nothing to do with teaching, beliefs, or opinions.

Bishop Fellay's public censure of Bishop Williamson could not have been expressed more forcefully. With all due respect to Jewish leaders, understandably stunned by Williamson's comments, they should take their cues from this response, not from the contemporaneous but unrelated lifting of the excommunication.

The blog Science and Religion News, whose author Salman Hameed strongly favors science over religion, recently posted about two stories out of the Vatican. The post, entitled "Good Pope, Bad Pope," praised the pontiff for paying "tribute" to Galileo, but criticized him for the bioethics document Dignitas Personae.

"Good Pope": The Galileo Affair

In regard to the Galileo affair, it needs to be pointed out that the popular view — that Galileo was a noble pursuer of scientific truth against a scientifically backwards and rigid Church — is false. Galileo got in trouble for, in the words of Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, being a jerk. Pope Urban VIII was actually sympathetic to Galileo's hypotheses about heliocentrism, despite being concerned that it would be difficult to work out the theological implications (which have since been reconciled with Scripture). He asked Galileo to explain, in Galileo's book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the competing hypotheses of geocentrism and heliocentrism but not to advocate heliocentrism. Instead, the book ridiculed geocentrism and the pope himself, though there is controversy as to whether the apparent insults were deliberate or unintentional. It was the perceived riducule that got Galileo in trouble, not heliocentrism per se.

"Bad Pope": Dignitas Personae

In regard to Dignitas Personae, Hameed warns that in upholding previous teaching on bioethics (which asserts that all humans, including embryos, have certain rights, one of which I explained here), the Catholic Church risks becoming "irrelevant."

In other words, Hameed says that society as a whole will collectively dismiss the Church if she fails to accede to fickle public opinion.

This is the same Church that allowed the Protestant Reformation to become permanently entrenched in England over the indissolubility of marriage (in the Henry VIII affair). The same Church that suffered 400 years of prosecution in the Roman Empire for "irrelevantly" teaching that there is one God, incarnated in Jesus Christ, and denying the existence of the Roman pantheon. The same Church that has unblinkingly held to the "irrelevant" teaching that artificial contraception is an affront against God and against one's own spouse (a teaching consistent with the sublime Theology of the Body of John Paul the Great).

I'm laying my bets one who will be considered more irrelevant by history: the Church or the supporters of indignities against the tiniest humans.

Christmas is Western culture's most important holiday, and it is surrounded by lore passed down traditionally. Here are five facts about Christmas that are not widely known:

The number of magi is unknown.

The Gospel of Matthew records that magi (a word referring to Zoroastrian priests) gave the child Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt 2:11). Because three different gifts are mentioned, tradition (small-t tradition, not Apostolic Tradition) is that there were three givers. Matthew, however, does not specify the number of eastern visitors.

The Star of Bethlehem may not have been a bright object.

It is compatible with the Christian faith to believe that a miracle such as the Star of Bethlehem might have a natural explanation, with the "miracle" being in the nature and timing of the phenomenon. Many possible natural explanations for the Star have been proposed, but not all of them describe an astronomical object. One interpretation is that the "star" was actually the retrograde motion of the planet Jupiter, interpreted by the magi as an astrological sign. (Of course, nothing rules out the possibility that the Star was a purely supernatural phenomenon.)

The Twelve Days of Christmas do not even start until Christmas Day.

Our culture today inexplicably tends to stop celebrating holidays the day after that holiday. Thus the radio stations that play Christmas music throughout December return to regular programming on December 26, and most Christmas trees are taken down before the new year. Traditionally, though, the period before Christmas has long been called Advent, with a distinct season starting Christmas Day. The Twelve Days of Christmas last through January 6, the feast of the Epiphany.

Good King Wenceslaus was not a king.

The subject of the Christmas carol is Wenceslaus I, the Duke of Bohemia and patron saint of the Czech people. He lived in the 10th century and died a martyr's death when he was assassinated. The page mentioned in the song was named Podevin, and while he may have helped St. Wenceslaus with his charitable endeavors, tradition says he was killed after he avenged the murder of his master by killing the chief assassin.

Poinsettias are not poisonous.

These plants, originally from Mexico, are members of the spurge family Euphorbiaceae, many of whose members are toxic. Poinsettias themselves, however, do not contain any particularly dangerous substances, though it is inadvisable to get the sap in your eyes.

I enjoy Scientific American. I really do. So when it published an article on the newly issued document Dignitas Personae from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I hesitated to comment here. It seems I so often criticize SciAm in this blog.

But then the secular pro-life blog Secondhand Smoke (hat tip to Der Wolfanwalt) made scathing remarks about the article, doing much of the job for me (and doing it better than I would have). So I really have no excuse not to make a few additions.

I am thunderstruck that when SciAm decided to interview an expert about a Vatican theological document, it chose a secular commentator, Josephine Johnston. This would be like interviewing an economist rather than a physician about a new recommendation by the FDA or the Surgeon General. And predictably, she makes both herself and SciAm look ridiculous by stating explicitly that she does not understand what she is talking about:

[The document] opposes IVF even if it doesn't involve embryo loss, because the Vatican is committed to conception that involves the conjugal act. This I don't really understand.

She does not understand it because she has no background in Catholic theology. But it stems from theological principles that underlie everything the magisterium has promulgated about sex and reproduction in the past 50 years. Dignitas Personae is completely consistent with Humanae Vitae, the landmark document that reaffirmed the church's opposition to artificial contraception, and John Paul the Great's theology of the body.

Johnston also sounds a little ridiculous at the end of the interview, when she says "I don't know enough about how Catholicism works in practice" and then implies that perhaps the Church should operate as a democracy when it comes to teaching. In theory and practice, Catholicism is not a democracy, but a Kingdom. Truth is objective regardless of fickle public opinion, and even if some members of the Body of Christ dissent, the whole of that Body will always be subject to his truth.