Fatherless: A Modern Tragedy

Fatherless by Brian J. Gail

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


Although 536 pages sounds like a lot to get through, this book was a pretty quick read. While it started out seeming contrived and predictable, it got better the further along I read. Perhaps it was the structure of the book that kept me hooked: several story lines progressing simultaneously with each chapter left me eager for the next installment.

First the bad news: The word "cheesy" comes to mind, but only because I thought the characters were stereotypical post-Vatican II American Catholics. I felt like the author was hitting me over the head with scientific analysis of the action of the birth control pill through conversations that seemed over-the-top unrealistically earnest. There was at least one editorial comment that was left in the book and a few other areas that weren't edited well. I was annoyed that "Coors Light" would be followed by a trademark logo, but "Michelob" was not. I was amused when the characters in the book (including a priest) expressed shock to hear the Pill could act as an abortifacient and was complicit in the rise of breast cancer. I thought everyone already knew that, but perhaps not. (The story takes place sometime in the late 80's, I believe. Perhaps the actions of the Pill weren't as well known then). If the author's purpose was to inform an uneducated Catholic population of the dangers of hormonal contraceptives and the secularization of our culture, then he succeeded admirably. Getting those folks to read this book might be difficult. Having them understand it as based in fact might be even more difficult.

Now the good news: I'm still thinking about the story several days after finishing the book. There was something deep in the book that the cheese and stereotypes couldn't completely mask. And the story, which was rather depressing yet left the reader with a glimmer of hope, is a true story of the Catholic Church in America and the Western world. Our culture has produced a lot of messed up families, marriages and lives. But Our Lord promised he wouldn't leave us as orphans and he hasn't. The Church has been immensely blessed in these dark days, with two great pontiffs: Blessed John Paul the Great and our current pope, Benedict XVI. We have every reason to hope in the future.

I must admit, I'm "hooked," and will read his next book, in The American Tragedy in Trilogy: Motherless. I wonder if there will be any stereotypical homeschoolers in it?





View all my reviews

We need a conscience clause!

At Mass this morning, our priest read a letter from the US bishops, commenting on the proposed health care bill, which was voted on late last night by the US House of Representatives.

One of the bishops' objections, our pastor pointed out, had been addressed by last night's vote. The Stupak Amendment rejected federal funding for abortions. However, there are still many objectionable elements in the current health care bill. One of these is the lack of a conscience clause for Catholics and other health care workers who object to participating in actions which are opposed to their personal beliefs and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

President Barack Obama promised America, in his commencement speech to Notre Dame, that his administration would promote a rigorous conscience clause for health care workers. There is nothing in the current bill which would allow health care workers to recuse themselves from medical procedures which violate their consciences. The consensus of the current political climate seems to be: no objection allowed.

The US bishops have declared that access to health care is now a human "right." What happened to it being a "work of mercy"? It is now a basic human right. The popular culture has long declared contraception to be "health care." Does this mean that Catholic taxpayers will be required to fund contraceptive drugs and devices, many which act as abortifacients? How have we slouched this far to Gomorrah that we now view contraception as a "basic human right?"

The US bishops have also declared that all "immigrants" are entitled to comprehensive health care. By using the term "immigrants," do the bishops really mean "illegal immigrants"? I can only assume they do, since many American citizens are immigrants, but no one would question their right to anything granted to citizens by birth.

Rather than guilt-trip American Catholic taxpayers into funding health care for illegals, why don't the bishops start a Catholic welfare organization which would fund health care for all persons, regardless of immigration status? It is the work of the Church to help the poor, but it is not necessarily the work of the state to do that.

Furthermore, why promote benefits for illegal immigrants who have already violated US law? Why not instead promote easing of the restrictions for US citizenship, so that more people would have access to the benefits of legal citizenship?