Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Tribune posted my reflection on the full-body scanners that are coming soon to an airport near... me. I see it as an unreasonable search without a warrant when done randomly or (God forbid) to one and all.
I do feel frustrated that the first comment on the Trib site was about the sex abuse scandal. Sin will always go the full way as sin, which is just what happened. A brilliant move on the part of the enemy of humankind.
What do you think?

9 comments:

Carmela James said...

Just yesterday an article on the same subject was posted to the National Catholic Register: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/are_full_body_scans_an_affront_to_modesty/
(Maybe you've seen it already...)

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Sister. Our bodies AREN'T just meat puppets that we use for awhile, and this is a very intimate invasion of privacy--about as intimate as you can get, apart from a physical strip-search.

In my opinion, this is yet another way of trying to force immodesty on us. If the price of a conveniently shortened trip is allowing my body to go on display, I think I'd rather not fly.

Catholic said...

Sister, drive, don't go by plane. Go by train or bus. If you want your privacy...then don't go by plane. I do hope that full body scanners do not become common place....the lackadazical person behind the scanner...is the one who relies on a scanner to do his or her job. I am glad you wrote an article, on it. I am sorry for the way, that that newspaper, didn't stay focused on the issue at hand. God is allowing you to suffer that indignity Jesus suffered when He was stripped. Offer it up, if you have to go through it. But, fight it, too. Stick to your human dignity. Sue if you want to...if you think it will help.

Anonymous said...

Sister, as a religious woman I have to say that I don't find the full body scanners to be totally immodest. While I agree with your reasoning, in practice I have a different experience. Last year when traveling for my congregation, I was searched and patted down in full view of everyone in the airport, probably because I was wearing a habit. Travelers took pictures with their cell phones and I was completely mortified. I was denied my right to a private area to be searched in the United States (yes, I did follow up with TSA). I am not trying to contradict you, I am simply interested in your opinion on my experience. I feel that these scans would be lest immodest than the full search that was performed on me in front of a terminal of bystanders. Thank your for your honest and respectful writing. Your sisters have been very helpful to my congregation on a number of occasions. Know of my prayers for you.

Sister Marie

Shana said...

Interesting reflection. Just over a month ago I reflected on some related issues concerning me as a figurative artist (that is working with the human form).
The entry is entitled "Some Reflections on the Human Body In Art, Viewer Reception and Mass Communications".

If you are able I'd like some input on any of the points I brought up from a TOB perspective.

Sacramentality

Sr Anne said...

Sister Marie, I have also had to undergo the indignity of a "pat-down" because of the habit. Secretly, I hope that among those who witness this abuse of authority will raise a bit of ruckus. It is preposterous for the government to subject to screening citizens who in no way represent a security threat when the real fear is that the agency will be accused of profiling.
So, while I hate the frisking and find it extremely humiliating, the thought of my body being completely "unveiled" to some anonymous, and therefore completely "veiled" person, is even more noisome. In part, perhaps, it is because the potential for abuse is so much greater. There may be safeguards and procedures put in place, but once something is rendered electronic, you can't really control where it will end up or how it will be used.

Anonymous said...

re body scanning, as a layperson, I think it is outrageous. Under those circumstances, if I ever fly again it will be with angels wings

A tough old ram said...

"I do feel frustrated that the first comment on the Trib site was about the sex abuse scandal."

As a "sheep"(?), I agree to a point that is it frustrating to always have this thrown into the discussion. Especially by those that have no use for the Church and its message and fail to understand that the % is about the same across faiths and service professions. But I also disagree. Had the "Shepherds" of the flock, actually been Shepherds that would lay down their lives for the flock and not "hired hands" or worse "wolves in sheep's clothing" this cancer may not have grown to the point that it did.
And even now, we seem not to want to offend certain minority groups by not correcting accusers that most of the abusing priests and bishops were not interested "children" as they were interested in teenagers and seminarians. The problem is that while the "shepherds" pat themselves on the back, the lawyers are feasting on what the earlier generations of widows and faithful left to promote the Flock. I wonder if any of the "wolves" or hired hands has opted to forego their pensions or fine wines to show some repentance for the harm they have done to the victims and the Church. I know Archbishop Rembert Weakland hasn't and I suspect nether has Cardinal Law or any of the other "hired hands". I doubt the “Shepherds” will ever again be able to speak with authority like Bishop Sheen did in the ‘60s due to their “situational ethics” and just plain Evil.

Anonymous said...

Sigh, if the shepherds were more Christlike, we would not have this topic be front and center.

The Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict's household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.

Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness, was caught by police on a wiretap allegedly negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Vatican chorister, over the specific physical details of men he wanted brought to him. Transcripts in the possession of the Guardian suggest that numerous men may have been procured for Balducci, at least one of whom was studying for the priesthood.






http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/vatican-gay-sex-scandal

Sr Anne said...

Disgusting. Let's hope at least some of the allegations are just posturing...
For the record, those "Papal Gentlemen" are descendants of Roman aristocracy who "inherit" the title. Remember Fellini's "La Dolce Vita"? It was hailed by the US bishops as a masterpiece, but condemned in Rome! (Its portrayal of aristocratic corruption must have touched a sore spot...)
Paul VI tried to eliminate the honorific post, but that move raised a huge ruckus and (I was told) did a great deal of harm. Those Roman aristocrats must wield a lot of power.
Maybe this event will give Pope Benedict an objective motive for getting rid of a useless and now demonstrably harmful relic.