Friday, May 23, 2008
My New Blog
It is my last day of work at the Heritage Foundation, and I have finished all of my projects. Hence, three posts in one day and... a new blog! My new blog is called Nun Fun in Dixieland and is located at http://www.nunfunindixieland.blogspot.com/ and is also linked at right. This new blog will chronicle my adventures in Frenchburg, KY, where I will be volunteering for seven weeks this summer with the Glenmary Sisters. I will continue to update this blog, as well.
You know you are a Catholic nerd...
When instead of sharing clothes and hairstyling tips, you and your girlfriends share confessors and encyclicals.
When you and your friend fight over the last remaining copy of "Spirit of the Liturgy" at Barnes and Noble.
When you wonder why the words "paten" and "thurible" are one of the highest vocabulary levels on FreeRice.com... doesn't everybody know those??
When you and your friend fight over the last remaining copy of "Spirit of the Liturgy" at Barnes and Noble.
When you wonder why the words "paten" and "thurible" are one of the highest vocabulary levels on FreeRice.com... doesn't everybody know those??
Catholic Voting
It's getting closer and closer to elections and the debate is raging: are Catholics morally obliged to vote for a particular party/candidate? The best article I have seen that deals with this issue is Bill Donahue's article "Catholic Left Hangs Itself," on InsideCatholic.com. Clearly, it is a very biased article, but it nevertheless brings up a couple of crucial points.
I have always seen a clear distinction between social issues and economic issues, though I do see them as interconnected. Luckily for me, I fall on the conservative side on both counts. Yet social issues have always been more important for me. When I say "social issues," I am referring to issues such as abortion, marriage and the family, etc. By "economic issues," on the other hand, I mean the policies we implement to combat poverty, poor education, substandard housing, etc. I'm not sure that these are the most accurate terms to group these issues, but bear with me. The social issues could also be called "undebatable issues," because, for Catholics, the debate on these issues is closed. The Church does not permit a plurality of opinion about them. It has been made unequivocally clear what a faithful Catholic must believe about these topics.
Economic issues, on the other hand, could be called "debatable issues," because the Church allows for debate. With the exception of condemning Communism, the Church makes no unequivocal statements about economic systems or policy. All faithful Catholics must, certainly, strive to eliminate poverty and sub-standard housing, and improve education, certainly, but the Church permits debate about how best to do so. Liberals think that the best way to do so is to pour more and more money into failing government systems; Conservatives think that the best way to do so is to encourage private businesses and charities (including the Church!). But the Church neither condemns nor approves either opinion. Each side can find Bishops to defend their positions, but there is no consensus.
In his article, Donahue quotes Pope Benedict in an attempt to make just this point. "On May 13," he writes, "Pope Benedict XVI told Italian pro-lifers that 'the Church's Magisterium' has always proclaimed abortion to be 'non-negotiable.' He didn't use that term to refer to the minimum wage, dilapidated housing, or Third World debt."
And so the social, or undebatable, issues must always take precedence when a Catholic decides who to vote for, even when that Catholic thinks the liberal solution to economic issues is preferable. This is because to vote for a politician who stands against the Church on undebatable issues is an act of disobedience to Church teaching, whereas to vote for a politician whom you disagree with on the debatable issues is clearly not.
Another important quote Donahue uses comes from Archbishop Chaput. Chaput writes that Catholic voters may vote for a pro-choice politician when they have a "proportionate reason." He defines a proportionate reason as "the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
This is a powerful quote, and one that should give any Catholic considering voting for a pro-choice candidate pause. What Donahue doesn't tackle, but I think this quote speaks to, is the question of war. One of the most popular arguments of Catholics who vote for pro-choice Democrats is that the Democrats are less bellicose. Although Bush may be pro-life, pro-marriage, etc., he has led us into an unjust war that has led to the deaths of millions of people. This is certainly true, and as Catholics we are called on to pray for the end to all wars. However, it A) has no bearing whatsoever on who we choose to vote for in this election and B) doesn't strike me as a proportional reason, at all.
Now, I am not a utilitarian, but in this case I think it is relevant to look at numbers. McCain, the current Republican nominee, supports a war that has led to the deaths of up to 4,000 coalition troops and about 100,000 Iraqis (some from violence, some from disease, etc.) since it began 5 years ago. Hillary and Obama, on the other hand, support policy that leads to the death of the same number of utterly defenseless unborn children EVERY MONTH. Since we apparently can't have it both ways (and in point of fact neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to stem the violence in Iraq better than can McCain), I think we should heed Archbishop Chaput and consider how we will explain our voting choices in the hereafter.
Conclusion: McCain '08.
I have always seen a clear distinction between social issues and economic issues, though I do see them as interconnected. Luckily for me, I fall on the conservative side on both counts. Yet social issues have always been more important for me. When I say "social issues," I am referring to issues such as abortion, marriage and the family, etc. By "economic issues," on the other hand, I mean the policies we implement to combat poverty, poor education, substandard housing, etc. I'm not sure that these are the most accurate terms to group these issues, but bear with me. The social issues could also be called "undebatable issues," because, for Catholics, the debate on these issues is closed. The Church does not permit a plurality of opinion about them. It has been made unequivocally clear what a faithful Catholic must believe about these topics.
Economic issues, on the other hand, could be called "debatable issues," because the Church allows for debate. With the exception of condemning Communism, the Church makes no unequivocal statements about economic systems or policy. All faithful Catholics must, certainly, strive to eliminate poverty and sub-standard housing, and improve education, certainly, but the Church permits debate about how best to do so. Liberals think that the best way to do so is to pour more and more money into failing government systems; Conservatives think that the best way to do so is to encourage private businesses and charities (including the Church!). But the Church neither condemns nor approves either opinion. Each side can find Bishops to defend their positions, but there is no consensus.
In his article, Donahue quotes Pope Benedict in an attempt to make just this point. "On May 13," he writes, "Pope Benedict XVI told Italian pro-lifers that 'the Church's Magisterium' has always proclaimed abortion to be 'non-negotiable.' He didn't use that term to refer to the minimum wage, dilapidated housing, or Third World debt."
And so the social, or undebatable, issues must always take precedence when a Catholic decides who to vote for, even when that Catholic thinks the liberal solution to economic issues is preferable. This is because to vote for a politician who stands against the Church on undebatable issues is an act of disobedience to Church teaching, whereas to vote for a politician whom you disagree with on the debatable issues is clearly not.
Another important quote Donahue uses comes from Archbishop Chaput. Chaput writes that Catholic voters may vote for a pro-choice politician when they have a "proportionate reason." He defines a proportionate reason as "the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
This is a powerful quote, and one that should give any Catholic considering voting for a pro-choice candidate pause. What Donahue doesn't tackle, but I think this quote speaks to, is the question of war. One of the most popular arguments of Catholics who vote for pro-choice Democrats is that the Democrats are less bellicose. Although Bush may be pro-life, pro-marriage, etc., he has led us into an unjust war that has led to the deaths of millions of people. This is certainly true, and as Catholics we are called on to pray for the end to all wars. However, it A) has no bearing whatsoever on who we choose to vote for in this election and B) doesn't strike me as a proportional reason, at all.
Now, I am not a utilitarian, but in this case I think it is relevant to look at numbers. McCain, the current Republican nominee, supports a war that has led to the deaths of up to 4,000 coalition troops and about 100,000 Iraqis (some from violence, some from disease, etc.) since it began 5 years ago. Hillary and Obama, on the other hand, support policy that leads to the death of the same number of utterly defenseless unborn children EVERY MONTH. Since we apparently can't have it both ways (and in point of fact neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to stem the violence in Iraq better than can McCain), I think we should heed Archbishop Chaput and consider how we will explain our voting choices in the hereafter.
Conclusion: McCain '08.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Feministing.com - always entertaining
So, during one of my regular feministing.com sessions, I came across a couple of interesting things.
First, apparently until the 1940s, pink was pegged as the color for boys because it was seen as more masculine, whereas blue was considered more dainty and delicate, and therefore appropriate for girls. I know more than a couple boys who would welcome a return of this notion, but I just can't seem to get my head around it. Pink is so girly in my mind! It scares me when I start to think there may be something to this "societal construct" business... At any rate, this is just an interesting trivia tidbit, but the feminists, of course, are hopping mad, because it proves that gender stereotypes that exist now were slightly different before 1940 but were still gender stereotypes. Clearly, this is evil incarnate.
My favorite line from this post, though, is when the blogger writes "I went to a friend’s baby shower the other day and literally 95% of the gifts were blue. You can guess what the gender is anticipated to be." Anticipated to be??? Because sonograms are magical machines that predict what the sex of a child will be when it becomes a child at birth. Amazing how the warped logic of pro-choiciness applies even to the case of a pregnant friend who plans to have her baby! Because it can't have a gender before it is really a person, right? So how could an unborn baby really have a gender? Well, let's see now...
Another quaint (in a good way) notion that feminists are really ticked off about today is the notion of men paying for young ladies. There is a cute Dairy Queen ad in which a little girl smiles at a little boy, and he buys her an ice cream. Admittedly, when she tells her mother it is "like shooting fish in a barrel," the ad becomes a bit odd, but overall still a cute ad. Well, the feminists are, of course, infuriated. Here are some of the reasons I encountered in the feministing.com comments section:
1. It supports the evil dynamic whereby a man pays for a woman.
2. It sexualizes a little girl because the dynamic is, apparently, that when a man pays for a woman she is expected to sleep with him.
3. It is somehow related to alcohol insofar as bars as the places where men most often pay for women.
4. It portrays all women as manipulative gold diggers.
My responses:
1. Not evil. Antiquated, maybe, but still very much appreciated!! Only on feministing.com will you find nearly 70 women who aren't flattered when their date pays for them. In the rest of the world, that is, the sane world, a girl is a little peeved when a date doesn't pay for them, not when he does!
2. I think this must be a product of the fact that all feminists can think of, apparently, is sex. Everything, everything, everything seems to be connected to sex! In what strange universe does having a man pay for you = being required to sleep with him? Ironically, it is probably the girls who are least likely to sleep with a man on a first date, or even kiss on the first date, who are most comfortable with the traditional gender roles that give rise to this scenario.
3. Again, I can see no other explanation for this other than that perhaps these women who are commenting spend far too much time in bars! Neither sex nor alcohol came to my mind when viewing this ad.
4. Apparently feministing.com commenters live in a booze-soaked, sex-saturated world where men have no other motive than to get girls into bed and all women who don't burn their bras in defiance of gender norms are money grubbing, manipulative witches. As scary as this world can be sometimes, I thank the Lord I live in an entirely separate universe from these nutjobs.
I will resist the temptation to say, "don't these looney bins have something better to do with their time?" (Along the feminist line of things - fight rape, violence and STDs in productive, not destructive ways or help support poor women by offering job training, material assistance, counseling, etc), but, clearly, I am wasting my own time reading their inane comments about mundane things and writing whole blog entries in response, so I would just be the pot calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, I am continually amazed by the quotidian things these women get so worked up over.
I am probably just brainwashed by the patriarchy to not even notice when my fundamental rights as a woman are being violated by cutesy ads and gender-assigned colors!! That is how insidious patriarchal control is - I don't even notice when it is happening!! Ah!!! Nobody is safe!
First, apparently until the 1940s, pink was pegged as the color for boys because it was seen as more masculine, whereas blue was considered more dainty and delicate, and therefore appropriate for girls. I know more than a couple boys who would welcome a return of this notion, but I just can't seem to get my head around it. Pink is so girly in my mind! It scares me when I start to think there may be something to this "societal construct" business... At any rate, this is just an interesting trivia tidbit, but the feminists, of course, are hopping mad, because it proves that gender stereotypes that exist now were slightly different before 1940 but were still gender stereotypes. Clearly, this is evil incarnate.
My favorite line from this post, though, is when the blogger writes "I went to a friend’s baby shower the other day and literally 95% of the gifts were blue. You can guess what the gender is anticipated to be." Anticipated to be??? Because sonograms are magical machines that predict what the sex of a child will be when it becomes a child at birth. Amazing how the warped logic of pro-choiciness applies even to the case of a pregnant friend who plans to have her baby! Because it can't have a gender before it is really a person, right? So how could an unborn baby really have a gender? Well, let's see now...
Another quaint (in a good way) notion that feminists are really ticked off about today is the notion of men paying for young ladies. There is a cute Dairy Queen ad in which a little girl smiles at a little boy, and he buys her an ice cream. Admittedly, when she tells her mother it is "like shooting fish in a barrel," the ad becomes a bit odd, but overall still a cute ad. Well, the feminists are, of course, infuriated. Here are some of the reasons I encountered in the feministing.com comments section:
1. It supports the evil dynamic whereby a man pays for a woman.
2. It sexualizes a little girl because the dynamic is, apparently, that when a man pays for a woman she is expected to sleep with him.
3. It is somehow related to alcohol insofar as bars as the places where men most often pay for women.
4. It portrays all women as manipulative gold diggers.
My responses:
1. Not evil. Antiquated, maybe, but still very much appreciated!! Only on feministing.com will you find nearly 70 women who aren't flattered when their date pays for them. In the rest of the world, that is, the sane world, a girl is a little peeved when a date doesn't pay for them, not when he does!
2. I think this must be a product of the fact that all feminists can think of, apparently, is sex. Everything, everything, everything seems to be connected to sex! In what strange universe does having a man pay for you = being required to sleep with him? Ironically, it is probably the girls who are least likely to sleep with a man on a first date, or even kiss on the first date, who are most comfortable with the traditional gender roles that give rise to this scenario.
3. Again, I can see no other explanation for this other than that perhaps these women who are commenting spend far too much time in bars! Neither sex nor alcohol came to my mind when viewing this ad.
4. Apparently feministing.com commenters live in a booze-soaked, sex-saturated world where men have no other motive than to get girls into bed and all women who don't burn their bras in defiance of gender norms are money grubbing, manipulative witches. As scary as this world can be sometimes, I thank the Lord I live in an entirely separate universe from these nutjobs.
I will resist the temptation to say, "don't these looney bins have something better to do with their time?" (Along the feminist line of things - fight rape, violence and STDs in productive, not destructive ways or help support poor women by offering job training, material assistance, counseling, etc), but, clearly, I am wasting my own time reading their inane comments about mundane things and writing whole blog entries in response, so I would just be the pot calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, I am continually amazed by the quotidian things these women get so worked up over.
I am probably just brainwashed by the patriarchy to not even notice when my fundamental rights as a woman are being violated by cutesy ads and gender-assigned colors!! That is how insidious patriarchal control is - I don't even notice when it is happening!! Ah!!! Nobody is safe!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
You know you're a liturgical snob when...
So, I have come to the realization that most of my and my friends' 'Catholic nerdiness' is in fact liturgical snobbery. So in that vein, you know you're a liturgical snob when...
Instead of thinking your mom is uncool for being out of touch with pop culture, you think she is uncool because, and I quote, "I mean, she doesn't even know what a pontifical high Mass is!."
Your favorite stories are those about protecting the Eucharist from desecration.
In response to the suggestion that you attend a novus ordo Mass on Pentacost, you reply, "Are you kidding? Pentecost?? You think I am going to miss superb Gregorian chant on PENTECOST!??"
You attempt to find a set of vestments on Ebay because you don't have the proper set and are appalled by the suggestion that the principle celebrant wear a different color, even if all colors involved might be, in strictly technical terms, appropriate.
You picked up on every well-hidden facial suggestion of Benedict's disapproval of the music at the National's Stadium Mass. You call these glances "Pope eyes."
You distinguish people by which campus Mass they attend. As in, "Well, she's very conservative, but she attends the 8 pm," or, "I mean, if he went to Georgetown, he'd probably attend the 8 pm." Such statements are typically followed by a smirk and knowing nod.
Instead of thinking your mom is uncool for being out of touch with pop culture, you think she is uncool because, and I quote, "I mean, she doesn't even know what a pontifical high Mass is!."
Your favorite stories are those about protecting the Eucharist from desecration.
In response to the suggestion that you attend a novus ordo Mass on Pentacost, you reply, "Are you kidding? Pentecost?? You think I am going to miss superb Gregorian chant on PENTECOST!??"
You attempt to find a set of vestments on Ebay because you don't have the proper set and are appalled by the suggestion that the principle celebrant wear a different color, even if all colors involved might be, in strictly technical terms, appropriate.
You picked up on every well-hidden facial suggestion of Benedict's disapproval of the music at the National's Stadium Mass. You call these glances "Pope eyes."
You distinguish people by which campus Mass they attend. As in, "Well, she's very conservative, but she attends the 8 pm," or, "I mean, if he went to Georgetown, he'd probably attend the 8 pm." Such statements are typically followed by a smirk and knowing nod.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)