With Faith and Hope

McCain

2009-07-06T16:04:00.000-07:00

Oof, just found another article from election times. Here's my argument about Catholics and the vote.

Most Catholics who plan on voting for Barack Obama have already asked themselves, “Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate?” and answered with a resounding yes. I will briefly offer a couple of arguments to refute this position before turning to the issues which typically draw Catholics to Obama’s camp, such as education, the environment, the economy and the Iraq war.

Although we have no candidate firmly against the death penalty or embryonic stem cell research, we can tell which candidate’s stance better reflects the Catholic view of human dignity by looking at the issue of abortion. McCain has in every case voted against abortion. Obama, on the other hand, has consistently voted against protecting unborn children and even voted four times against legislation that would stop the heinous practice of leaving infants who survive abortion to slowly die of starvation in the side rooms of hospitals in Illinois. When his record was called to the nation’s attention by abortion survivor Gianna Jessen, he responded by attacking her and calling her a liar. He has even gone so far as to call pregnancy a “punishment,” (this in stark contrast to Palin, who has called daughter Bristol’s baby “a blessing.”)

But this we have all heard before. Let’s return to our question. Archbishop Chaput of Denver offers a guideline for Catholics who would like to vote for pro-choice candidates. He writes that Catholics may indeed vote for a pro-choice candidate if they have a “proportionate reason.” By this he means: "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." In the next four years, nearly 5 million children will die from abortion. I cannot conceive of any reason that would spare me from guilt when I face those 5 million and say, “I voted for a man who worked tirelessly to preserve and expand the laws that led to your deaths.”

Despite what Nancy Pelosi thinks, the Church has condemned abortion from its earliest days (see Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective by Fr. John Connery, S.J.’s if you are in any doubt). Recently, Pope Benedict XVI called abortion “non-negotiable.” The same cannot be said about environmental stewardship, education, health care and U.S. foreign policy. The solutions to these problems are hazy, and Cardinals and Bishops alike fall on different sides of the debates.

Since they are up for debate, let’s tackle them one by one. The Iraq War is probably the issue that Catholics are most likely to see as a “proportionate reason” to vote for Obama. But is it? In five years, the Iraq war has left 4,154 U.S. citizens dead . This is less than the number killed by abortion in just two days. Indeed, the number of children killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade (48 million) is over 40 times the number of Americans killed in every war we have ever fought in combined.

Nevertheless, this is 4,154 citizens dead in five years is 4,154 too many. So who is more equipped to craft policies to stem the flow of deaths in Iraq? As Catholics, we are called to care for not only for U.S. citizens, but for all people. Although Obama’s plan to pull out of the war may save American lives, it will not save Iraqis. McCain, who spent over two decades in the military, is better prepared to make foreign policy that will ultimately provide Iraqis with greater stability and safety.

Another issue of great importance to many Catholics is environment and energy policy. Both Obama and McCain believe combating global warming is a top priority, both have worked on legislation to protect the environment and both support cap-and-trade systems. Both also have used the term “good stewardship,” a term also used repeatedly by the Church. McCain has even said that we have “a biblical obligation to care for the planet.”

Time and time again, McCain has made it clear that he will, unlike Bush, pursue conservative fiscal policies, cutting spending and fighting government corruption. If Obama is elected, however, he will preside over the biggest expansion of federal government we have seen in decades, bringing the country closer and closer to a socialized economy. To succumb to socialization, and to not make fighting corruption a top priority would do an injustice to the man who worked tirelessly for most of his life to fight against such corrupt governments, the late Pope John Paul II.

Lastly, let’s look at education. Pope Benedict XVI tells us that Catholic
education “is integral to the mission of the Church to proclaim the Good News.” But in the past eight years, Catholic schools have been closing across the nation at an ever-increasing rate. Schools in inner cities are hit the hardest. Obama’s plan to improve education leaves no room for private schools, including Catholic schools, to succeed. McCain’s plan, on the other hand, includes strong support for a voucher system. According to McCain, “public education should be defined as one in which our public support for a child's education follows that child into the school the parent chooses.” Under Obama, this “integral mission of the Church” will continue to flounder, but under McCain it will have another chance to thrive.

McCain’s plans for the Iraq war, for the environment and energy and for education better reflect the teaching and goals of the Catholic Church as found in the works and writings of our current and former Popes. But even if you, as a Catholic, disagree, the abortion issue is different than all other issues. Why? There is a reason why the Founding Fathers put the right to life first before all others in the Declaration of Independence: all other rights flow from it. Having a good education, a clean environment, and a healthy economy only matter to those who have been born. If we continue to kill over twenty percent of our citizens before they are able to enjoy the blessings of this country, none of our other efforts will matter.

The Trid: Why You Should Love It

2009-07-06T15:59:00.000-07:00

Finally, below is my article for the Georgetown Academy on the Tridentine Rite Mass. The theme of the entire issue was "secularization." Just because I couldn't resist defending Sarah Palin, bashing Obama and promoting a controversial liturgy all in one day. Up next: my defense of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

*Note: This article has been edited since its original printing in the Academy.

The Tridentine Rite Mass, or as we younger traddies affectionately call it, the Trid, is unabashedly, unequivocally Catholic. What with the Latin and the kneeling, the incense and the chanting, one could close her eyes and imagine herself standing right alongside St. Teresa of Avila, or St. Ignatius of Loyola, both of whom attended Mass in this form. (I, of course, never actually do this).

So what is the Tridentine Rite Mass, exactly? In a nutshell (we’re condensing 2,000 years of liturgical history here), it is the form of the Roman Rite that was instituted at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century, hence – Tridentine. It was not invented at this time; on the contrary, it was slowly developed in a continuous and organic fashion since the earliest days of the Church. Some of the oldest extant liturgical books evince a Rite nearly identical to that which the Council of Trent enshrined.

The Mass was said according to this fashion for over four-hundred years after the Council of Trent and until the Second Vatican Council, which ordered a liturgical renewal, including the unprecedented construction of a new liturgy by a liturgical committee. After this new liturgy was promulgated in 1970, the Tridentine Rite could only be used with the permission of the local bishop.

But then, just over one year ago, Pope Benedict XVI issued a document stating that any priest could say the Tridentine Rite without asking permission from his Bishop. Traddies partied in the streets. (For us, of course, this means somberly chanting a litany to the Blessed Virgin in the streets, but you know, tomato, tomahto). This democratization of the Trid led to a huge revival and just a year later, parishes that offer the Trid are packed with people, many of whom are in their twenties and thirties.

So what does all this talk about liturgy have to do with secularism? It took me a few Oxford English Dictionary searches to really nail it. The key lies in the definition, not of secularism, but “secularization”: “1. The conversion of an ecclesiastical or religious institution or its property to secular possession and use…2. The giving of a secular or non-sacred character or direction to.” Bingo. The transition from the Tridentine liturgy to the 1970 liturgy has been marked by overwhelming secularization.

Ok, I’ll admit it: attending Mass in a language one doesn’t speak means paying attention requires some real effort. And so, in reaction to the lay faithful who would sit in Mass, completely ignoring the celebration, perhaps praying their Rosary, the Second Vatican Council rightly required “active participation” of all the faithful. Unfortunately, as dear old Bennie points out, this very good impulse was “misunderstood to mean something external…as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action.” Hence: parish liturgical committees! Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist even when sufficient priests are present! The individual layperson making decisions that in the past were made organically over thousands of years! In other words, the liturgy was, in many ways, handed over to secular possession.

This almost obsessive control over the liturgy by the laity led to a far deeper and more fundamental problem: the Mass very often became a showcase for human creativity. One of the most egregious examples of the ill-effects of this kind of secularization of the liturgy was the Mass celebrated at last year’s Northern California Call to Action Conference. Instead of an orderly line of priests and servers, a rambunctious group of gigantic puppets processed in to look on as a modern dancer clad in a leotard leapt about the church, Gospel in hand. The worst part of it all: various parishes and organizations found this so inspiring that they held puppet masses of their own! While the "young adult" liturgies common in DC are a far cry from such ridiculous nonsense, the secular music and total lack of solemnity can lead one to wonder if she has somehow stumbled into a Disney film entitled, “Catholic Mass: The Musical!”

The Tridentine Rite falls prey to none of these problems but, today, do encourage appropriate active participation – Latin to English translations are offered to the faithful when they attend, the readings from Scripture are typically read in English, and all are expected to sing the responses to the Priest. Boys and young men can act as servers, and there are often opportunities to join choirs.

The Trid also avoids the problems entailed by the second definition of secularization, for not only is it unabashedly Catholic, but it is also unabashedly sacred. This focus on the sacred is immediately apparent from the direction of the priest who, leading his congregation, stands with them facing the altar. The center of attention is never, therefore, the priest, but the Lord himself, who in the sacrifice of the Mass is truly present upon the altar. Ideally, both priest and people face east toward the rising sun, which represents Christ.

This stands in stark contrast to the formations typically found in celebrations by the 1970 rite, in which the priest typically faces toward the congregation and therefore becomes their focus. Instead of leading them toward God, he commands his people’s attention. Often, pews or seats are arranged so that the people in the congregation face one another, sometimes even in a circle. Rather than opening themselves up the Christ, the rising sun, the people are, as Pope Benedict says, closed in on themselves, gazing at one another.

The Tridentine Rite also gives its attention to the sacred through the use of music that finds its root not in artistic autonomy, but in the Word and in prayer. The masterful use of silence, an opportunity to encounter the Lord in prayer, as an indispensable part of the liturgical action found in the Trid stands opposed to the artificially inserted periods of silence (often skipped) in the 1970 liturgy.

All one has to do to understand the unequivocal focus on the sacred of the Trid is to look around at the children, who, invariably, are present. At nearly any other Mass or church service, children squirm and whisper to their parents throughout the celebration, but at a Trid, they gaze wide and steady-eyed at the priest, solemnly chanting in his brocaded, elaborate vestments, their little hands clasped fast together in prayer. The hush of the many children during Mass says something profound: unlike at a watered-down Mass with secular music, they get it. They get that they are participating in something entirely out of the ordinary, entirely separate from their everyday lives, something that ought to inspire their awe.

FOCA

2009-07-06T15:53:00.000-07:00

Note: This article is obviously obsolete, and I ought to write a new one about the (disastrous!) real results of Obama's presidency on the "reproductive choice" ie "massacre of innocents" front. Nevertheless, it was a good article.

As a rather amusing aside, when this article was originally printed in the Georgetown Federalist, the editor removed my formatting in the first part, thus making it appear that the bits about Obama were in the actual text of the Book of Revelation.

A Call to Action: Being Pro-Life Under Obama

“The locusts…have tails like scorpions, and stings, and their power of hurting men for five months lies in their tails…The first woe has passed; behold two woes are still to come. Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I head a voice… saying behold: the one whom they call Obama will succeed to the presidency and in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death will fly from them…

It is tempting for pro-lifers to see an Obama presidency as a catastrophe, and easy to succumb to Apocalyptic visions of women forced to be sterilized, doctors of faith forced to choose between killing the unborn and ceasing to practice medicine, and the Catholic Church’s pro-life efforts steamrollered by Planned Parenthood’s radical agenda. But, can it really be all that bad? In the words of Sarah Palin, “you betcha!”

Make no mistake, the Obama presidency is a death knoll for much of what Pro-lifers have worked to establish over the past thirty-five years. Obama, who has, according to Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards, been communicating with the radical pro-choice organization almost daily since the election, has promised make signing the Freedom of Choice Act the first thing he will do as President.

The Freedom of Choice Act would encourage freedom like Orwell’s Ministry of Peace encouraged peace. FOCA would force all Americans to fund abortions through taxes, wipe all existing restraints on abortion from the books and deny Americans the freedom to craft laws to regulate abortion in any way. This means no more parental consent laws, no more requirement that abortionists be licensed physicians, no more freedom of conscience for doctors and nurses who do not wish to participate in abortions, no more telling women about the potential risks of abortion, no more partial-birth abortion bans, no more protection for infants born alive after abortion attempts, no more funding for Pregnancy Aid Centers that provide free counseling and enormous amounts of material assistance to pregnant and parenting mothers and, possibly, no more Catholic health care. No other industry in the country has this blanket exemption from regulation.

Why should every citizen be upset about this? Because the Catholic Church runs almost 600 hospitals and over 400 clinics, which together served nearly 90 million Americans, many of them in poverty, in 2007 alone. And the U.S. bishops, who have called FOCA “an attack on the free exercise of…religion,” are already talking about the possibility of shutting down these hospitals, or at least their Obstetrics departments, if Obama signs FOCA into law. According to their statement, “[FOCA] would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country.” A threat to Catholic health care is a threat to all health care. One cannot fail to see the irony: the man who made health care one of the key talking points of his campaign may very well wreak havock on the industry.

In addition to FOCA we have the re-funding of the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance to fear. The Government’s current policy is to not fund abortions overseas, including, of course, forced abortions. This includes restricting funding to UNFPA, which has participated in forced abortions and forced sterilizations, most notably as part of China’s one-child policy. But Obama’s buddy Planned Parenthood wants to refund UNFPA, and he is likely to comply.

These are some of the most drastic potential problems that pro-lifers will face in the next four years, but this list is by no means exhaustive. So, should pro-lifers throw in the towel now? Absolutely not. Rather, we need to get smarter, and take advantage of the allies we have in power. Democrats for Life, who are working to change their party from within, celebrated victory in five of their races on election night. Feminists for Life, possibly the most liberal-friendly pro-life organization out there, may be able to make headway in the coming years as well, most importantly with their Elizabeth Cady Stanton Act. The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Act would ensure that pregnant and parenting students have the resources they need to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their children.

And so the fight goes on. Pro-lifers must not see this as a time to despair, but as a call to action. Those on the front lines of the battle to defend the sanctity of human life against the encroaching culture of death will need our help more than ever before.

Sarah Palin Article

2009-07-06T15:48:00.000-07:00

So, I haven't posted anything in quite some time. I'll post a few of the articles I wrote for Georgetown University publications to start off with, and try to be more regular after that (just for you multitude of fans!)

First, here is my stirring defense of Sarah Palin. To clarify: I do not like this woman all that much. I hope she doesn't run for President. Nevertheless, just as I always find myself defending President Bush Jr., I found myself having to defend Palin. So here it is, folks:

Note to Feminists: Sarah Palin Is A Woman (And Women Love Her)
Caitlin Barr ‘09

Sarah Palin is not a feminist. Indeed, despite the lipstick and the skirt suits, she is not even a woman. At least this is what many angry feminists would have you believe. In practically the same breath, mainstream feminists accuse the media of sexism directed against Sarah Palin and claim that Palin is not a woman. This is simply baffling.

The National Organization for Women was the first to respond to McCain’s shrewd choice of Palin as his running mate: female voters, according to their press release, “will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.” The shape of feminism’s response to Palin begins to be defined here. Palin may be a female, but she doesn’t speak for women and certainly isn’t a feminist.

This sentiment was echoed in stronger language by Feministing.org’s Jessica Valenti, who spoke at Georgetown University last spring. Jessica wrote on her blog, “even more interesting is that the reporters touting this Palin-as-feminist nonsense are people who pretty much know jack shit about feminism.” With this brief statement, Jessica, a twenty-something young woman who has held brief stints at such illustrious organizations as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Ms. Magazine and now devotes her time to running a blog, dismissed out of hand her fellow female journalists working at, among others, the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Despite Jessica’s claims to authority, she’s just a little bit out of her league.

But dear old Jessica Valenti wasn’t, for once, the most radical feminist out there. A commenter on her website wrote, “What defines a woman is not what is between her legs, but what is between her ears.” I see. Modern feminism not only knows better than any woman with any conservative leanings what gender she is, but also better than biology.
Sadly, this commenter was not the only woman who denied Palin her womanhood.

Apparently, these days, femininity and traditional values actually make you less of a woman. Wendy Doniger, Professor at University of Chicago’s well-respected Divinity school, wrote for the Washington Post: “[Palin’s] greatest hypocrisy is in the pretense that she is a woman.” Doniger goes on to make a limp, yet resentful argument about how sex is just like religion and how Palin should stop imposing her views on the subjects on everyone else (when liberals like Obama do it, though, its just fine.)

A vicious article on Salon.com opens with the claim that “Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain't no woman.” The article goes on to lament Republican misogyny while simultaneously describing Palin as a “Republican blow-up doll,” a “hyperconservative, f***able, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a 'sexy librarian' costume,” and a “power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty.” But how could this be sexism? After all, Sarah’s not even a woman. The mainstream feminists have truly lost it.

Luckily, the fear that these mainstream feminists’ vitriol is surely based in is warranted. A recent Lifetime Network poll shows that McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate has helped him overwhelmingly amongst women voters. When asked who has a “better understanding of women and what is most important to them,” 44% of women answered McCain/ Palin and 42% answered Obama/Biden. This stands in stark contrast to Lifetime’s July poll, which found only 18% of women responding McCain to the same question. Most women have not lost their minds and can see Palin for what she is: a strong, fearless and impressive woman who stands up for what she believes is best for women and for all Americans and will not sacrifice her values for any contrived notion of who she should be.

I have only a layman’s understanding of feminism; I have never taken a class on it and have read only a little feminist literature. Nevertheless, it has always been my understanding that the movement was intended to allow women to define their own identities and futures outside of external pressures. Instead of advancing women’s freedom to define themselves, mainstream feminism has become just another pressure telling women what they can or cannot do. Instead of being told that we must submit to our husbands, cook, clean, and raise children, young women are now told that we must support liberal economic policies, advocate for abortion and birth control, and even vote against a female candidate in order to properly be considered women. This leaves all women – even career-oriented, intelligent, successful women, who hold traditional or conservative views – in the dust.

So what does make Sarah Palin a woman and even a feminist? The fact that she has five children, a husband, and can walk so well in heels proves that she is indeed, a woman. But Palin is also a feminist, a new, less bitter and more prudent kind of feminist. Sarah is a member of Feminists for Life, a wonderful organization that tackles the abortion issue from a pro-life and uniquely feminist standpoint and has done more than any other group to get young pregnant mothers the help they need, particularly on college campuses. Palin is also living proof of what a feminist can do if she sets her mind to it: namely, rise to a position of great political power without sacrificing family or femininity.

Article for the Georgetown Academy

2008-09-07T01:25:00.001-07:00

Keep Your Clothes On! (And Other Helpful Advice)

When you, readers, think about chastity, the word “scary” might not be the first thing you think of, but “scary” is exactly what chastity is. Perhaps images of early Puritans, Victorian nuns with rulers and the more modern (but no less alien) “Purity Balls” spring more readily to mind. Okay, I concede that all of these things are scary, but not in the sense I mean. Perhaps the word “daunting” is more apt. Indeed, the virtue of chastity daunted even the great Saint Augustine who famously said, “Oh Lord, grant me chastity, but do not grant it yet.”

Perhaps it is this fear that also causes anger. Merely hearing the story of Saint Maria Gorretti, a young girl who died to defend her chastity against a would-be rapist, was enough to send many of my classmates in Father McManus’ class on martyrdom into fits of wrath. Father later told me that more essays were written denouncing Saint Maria’s canonization than on any other topic. A swift glance at any feministing.com or feministe.us/blog post about chastity defenders Dawn Eden, Mirriam Grossman or Wendy Shalit confirms the phenomenon.

Rather than mount a litany of arguments in defense of chastity, I will make just one and move on to more practical considerations. My argument may appeal only to Christians – so be it. We are told that “the tree is known by its fruit,” (Matthew 12:33 NIV). In other words, vice produces ill effects and virtue good. Ever since chastity was swept decidedly out of fashion by the tides of “sexual liberation” in the 1960s and 70s (if it was not already a bit out of vogue even earlier), we have watched unplanned pregnancies soar and witnessed an STI epidemic of truly astonishing proportions. As even those who support abortion and contraception acknowledge that these two products of “liberation” cause unprecedented emotional and physical strain for those who suffer from them, I think it is clear that these are bad fruits indeed. I am not – a la John Hagee – suggesting that STIs are God’s punishment for sin, I am merely pointing out that the most evident results of dismissing chastity as an ideal are undue stress and disease.

Nowadays, chastity is becoming less an outmoded ideal and increasingly a practical necessity. Upon discovering she was pregnant a little over a year after testing positive for HPV, one of my most liberal (and “liberated”) friends exclaimed, “I have become that nut job who goes around shaking my finger and saying, ‘It only takes once! Keep your skirt on!’”

And now, as promised, I will move on to more practical questions such as, “What exactly is this terrifying thing that has daunted even Saints and now inspires rage in modern feminists?” Before I attempt to shed light on what chastity might be, I will tell you a few things that it is not.

Chastity is not celibacy, nor Puritanism, nor fear of sex. Rather, it is sex as it is meant to be: sex that is directed toward much more than gratifying our immediate physical desires. As anyone who has kissed both somebody they cared nothing for and somebody they loved will acknowledge, sexual acts (even kissing!) are far more pleasing when physical pleasure is not, in fact, the principal goal. Ironically, when the primary purpose of sex is to physically symbolize love that has already been given, pleasure becomes more complete. How much more must this be true when the gift of love has been given irrevocably in marriage? Sex belongs in marriage because it is the physical symbol of marriage just as a handshake is the physical symbol of greeting and laughter is the physical symbol of joy. Just as faked laughter deceives, sex outside of marriage is, in the words of author Dawn Eden, “lying with your body.” Sex is the most intimate physical gift that can be given, and if it is not given alongside the emotional and practical union of two lives that is found in marriage, it is misplaced and deceptive.

Chastity is also decidedly not maintaining technical “virginity” while engaging in oral and anal sex, as many of today’s “virginity pledgers” apparently think it is. Finally, chastity is not easy. I will be the first to admit (after St. Augustine, of course) that chastity is really, really difficult. So, if chastity is not Puritanism, not promiscuity sans traditional sex and not an easy fix, what is it?

I will answer by way of a few guidelines from which you may choose at your own discretion. Dawn Eden introduced me to my first “chastity rule,” which she had, in turn, learned from a young Jesuit. This Jesuit offered that the line between the chaste and the unchaste is the line between affection and arousal. Intend, he advised, always to display affection and never to arouse.

The next rule I encountered I found in Lauren F. Winner’s book, “Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity.” A minister had once advised her that she do with her boyfriend in private only what she would be willing to do with him in a public space. She referred to a space on her campus called the rotunda. For the Hoya, I suggest Healy Lawn. This rule, of course, presents obvious problems for both the intensely private person and the exhibitionist.

A priest at St. Peter’s Catholic Church on Capitol Hill offered the next two rules to me. The first was, “Keep your clothes on,” (a rule that unfortunately lends itself to abuse by any couple with an ounce of creativity) and the second was, “Don’t touch anything on your boyfriend/girlfriend that you don’t have yourself.”

Perhaps you, reader, will find one of the aforementioned rules amenable. If so, I advise you to quit reading here, for what follows may, even at this Catholic University, shock you. I am about to advise you to have faith in the Lord. As some one who has tried each of these rules and found in every case either the rule or myself sorely lacking, I am forced to recommend a different tactic. This tactic, namely, to put oneself into God’s hands, is scary. Instead of employing a manmade rule that requires our own weak resolve to hold steady in the face of immediate and sometimes overwhelming temptation, I urge you to take a blind and wild leap and leave the matter in the hands of one far more adept than yourself.

Todd Phillips, a preacher at nearby McLean Bible Church, argued in a sermon that to ask for a clearly defined rule is very nearly the opposite of what we should be doing. To seek some line over which we should not cross is to ask how close we can get to fire without being singed. To venture nearer and nearer to sin is to dance with the Devil and in such a dance, as the saying goes, you will not lead. You should, then, run as far in the other direction as you are able, and to do so may require such extraordinary strength that it cannot be found in our own weak bodies. You may find each step away from sin, in this case sexual sin, harder to take than the last, but if you take that first great leap into the care of the Holy Spirit, you will prevail. With each step, I think, you will find that the burden on your conscience and on your heart, which may at present appear to you as nothing more than the nagging fear of an STI or an unexpected pregnancy, will lighten. As with all things, chastity can be achieved not by (human) strength, but by His Spirit (Zech. 4:6).

"They've replaced the Body of Christ with a plant!"

2008-08-27T19:00:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, I was at Mass with a good friend of mine in Lexington, KY. About halfway through the Mass, my friend turned to me with an incredulous look on his face and says, "Look, they've replaced the Body of Christ with a plant!" Confused, I laughed quietly and resumed singing. "No, no look!" he says, "they replaced the Body of Christ!" Sure enough, as I looked to the still-standing high altar, I saw a large plant awkwardly filling the spot from which the tabernacle had been removed. My feeble mind has, of yet, failed to grasp the purpose behind moving the tabernacle, and therefore Christ Himself, away from the altar and off to the side of the Church (I mean, for goodness' sake, why in the world would we want to look at the place Christ reposes while worshipping!?), and I was left particularly dumbfounded by the replacement of Christ with an ugly fake plant, most likely purchased at the world-famous Catholic goods store we all know as Walmart. I tried to imagine the conversation: "So, we need to move the Tabernacle away from the middle of the altar. People are focusing way too much on Christ; let's move it to the side of the Church." "Wow, what an excellent idea! But what will we use to fill this unsightly space? Perhaps we should use a tree, to show people how we venerate Mother Earth..." Hmmm.

I soon realized that the whole plant fiasco was not unique to this particular Church, but was actually quite a la mode. Another Church, this one in Owingsville, KY, had one-upped the Lexington Church and replaced the whole high altar with trees. "Ha! We'll show them! We won't have any problems with an awkward space on our altar... we'll just demolish the whole thing!" Brilliant. Why celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass at all when you can gaze at faux foliage?

I decided to do some serious research into the origins of this phenomenon. I turned to Wikipedia. When I searched for "high altar plant," I was directed to the article on altars. From this article I learned that the practice of putting plants on altars comes from as far back as the 17th century. I was impressed. Maybe my original skepticism about plants instead of tabernacles and altars was misplaced. After all, neo-druids have been placing plants on their altars for centuries!

Replacing Christ with dusty, potted plants is an excellent idea; it's right up there ordaining females, clapping during the Mass and eschewing the posture of kneeling. Why isn't this practice more widely encouraged?

Stop Drop and Roll Won't Work in Hell!

2008-08-12T15:59:00.001-07:00

The title is taken from a sign somewhere in Central Appalachia. I did not personally see it, but a friend did.

This post is to thank people for speaking simple truths. I am always amazed when in a everyday conversation (especially one with a stranger), my interlocutor says something that is simply true, but often not mentioned. I think people should do this more, especially me! I have begun to collect these statements. Here are a couple:

I travelled with Sister Kathy to the Glenmary Sisters' motherhouse in Owensboro, KY. Before going into the house, a neighbor came up to greet us. Sister Kathy asked, "how have you been?" The woman replied, "Oh all right, you know. There've been those ups and downs and I've struggled a bit, but you have to remember, Jesus loves you and He is with you every step of the way, don't you think?" Just like that. How many people respond to "how are you?" by recalling that Jesus is always with us? Precious few, I think.

What strikes me about all of these moments is that the person never seems quite sure of him or herself. Often, he or she sounds like he is offering up a highly controversial idea and looking for approval. This humility even in stating basic facts is what really moves me.

Another such moment came on the Fourth of July. As I lay in the grass watching the fireworks, Cody, a seven-year old boy who was in my Bible class, turned to me and said, "Hey Caity? Did you know that you are my sister in Christ?" "Yes, Cody," I replied.

I write about this because I had another similar experience today. The man ringing up my groceries at Whole Foods was telling me about a bag they sold. The bags are sold to support the UN World Food program. He said, "True happiness comes from giving. To receive is nothing, but to give to others is what we are meant for." Wow. Perhaps he was just trying to sell me the bag, but I was nevertheless struck by his candor.

These simple statements cut through quotidian remarks to a deeper level of human conversation. I urge everyone to start saying things like the above more often.

Catholic Pick-Up Lines

2008-08-12T15:54:00.001-07:00

In the same vein as all of my Catholic nerdisms, here are some pick-up lines I came across on beliefnet.

Top Ten Conservative Catholic Pickup Lines

10. May I offer you a light for that votive candle?

9. Hi there. My buddy and I were wondering if you would settle a dispute we're having. Do you think the word should be pronounced HOMEschooling, or homeSCHOOLing?

8. Sorry, but I couldn't help notice how cute you look in that ankle-length, shapeless, plaid jumper.

7. What's a nice girl like you doing at a First Saturday Rosary Cenacle like this?

6. You don't like the culture of death either? Wow! We have so much in common!

5. Let's get out of here. I know a much cozier little Catholic bookstore downtown.

4. I bet I can guess your confirmation name.

3. You've got stunning scapular-brown eyes.

2. Did you feel what I felt when we reached into the holy water font at the same time?

1. Confess here often?

I also found a couple more elsewhere... enjoy!

May I sit down? I was admiring your Chest-erton. Have you also read Orthodoxy?

I have a vocation to the married life. Can you help me out?

My Guardian Angel thinks you're cute.

My Sacred Heart statue started beating faster when I saw you.

Ah, so you're what happened to my missing rib.

I would like to study the Theology of your body.

Hi. I need somebody to do a Novena with. (Nine dates guaranteed!)

Can I carry your missal for you?

Come to my parish on Sunday. You can see me in a tunicle. *wink*

You know you are a Catholic nerd when...

2008-07-29T08:40:00.000-07:00

... of the nine books you read during the summer, 7 are written by Catholics, about Catholic things. The other two are written by C.S. Lewis.

... you actually enjoy watching three hour long movies about Saints.

... your best ideas come to you while praying.

... when your team is losing in kickball, you suggest praying to St. Rita (hey, baseball is close enough, right?)

... when you visit the bookstore, the only section you go to is Religion.

... you think that many problems would be solved if people would just read more of Pope Benedict's writings.

... you are spending your summer with nuns. Crazy.

... there are five crucifixes in your room when you aren't there, six when you are (one on your necklace).

... you wear the medals of six saints on a daily basis.

You know you are a Catholic nerd when...

2008-06-08T10:01:00.000-07:00

... you sleep on the floor for two nights because you are keeping vestments on your bed.

... you affectionately refer to your favorite Pope as "my Benny."

... owning "Spirit of the Liturgy" has become a veritable fad amongst you and your compatriots.

... you consider driving all the way to Baltimore to go to a Solemn High Mass (on the day of your brother's graduation).

... your summer plans include doing yoga while listening to Hildegard von Bingen.

... you and your friend easily spend almost $200 in about 15 minutes at the Catholic bookstore.

... you get invited to Solemn High Masses on facebook.

... you won't put on your seat belt because, "Well, she just received Holy Communion, there is probably no better time to die!"

... your daydreams include the conversations that Saints have in heaven. (Saint Anthony to Saint Cassian of Tangiers: "Hey, this is no fair. Do you know how many Catholics lose things!? All of them, every single one. And do you know how many are stenographers??")

... you have stopped checking the Catechism to answer questions because more often than not when you ask your friends you get the answer not only directly from Catechism, but also from various Church fathers and other prominent theologians.

My New Blog

2008-05-23T10:13:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-05-23T08:02:00.000-07:00

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??

Catholic Voting

2008-05-23T07:24:00.001-07:00

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.

Feministing.com - always entertaining

2008-05-12T08:27:00.000-07:00

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!

You know you're a liturgical snob when...

2008-05-07T22:21:00.000-07:00

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.

More on MOTHER GAIA

2008-04-24T10:56:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the best article that I have read in honor of this year’s Earth Day is Jack Cashill’s article, “Feminism is Bad for the Environment,” on Worldnetdaily.com. He notes how recent trends such as the increase of women in the workforce, and the commute that this entails (both for the mothers themselves and for their nannies!) means that there are more vehicles on the road. I found this article while perusing Feminsting.com, a very amusing hobby. He also pointed out the toll that increased divorce rates take on the environment – double the homes, double the impact. I have read about this before. Finally, Cashill, the author of “What’s the Matter with California?” examined the radically ‘green’ town of San Mateo, where everything is eco-friendly, and a person with median income can afford only 13% of the homes (contrasted with the average, where a person of median income can afford 87% of homes in his community). He noted that in San Mateo, not only is everything INCREDIBLY expensive because of the environmental policies and programs, but the very wealthy of San Mateo bring in many, many low-income workers to do everything from care for their children to paint their nails. Because of the insane property values, these workers have very long commutes and, therefore, release a whole lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Rich environmentalists? Bad for the environment. Read the article, it’s very witty.

Jessica’s other brilliant post on the environment took a Family Research Council quote entirely out of context and made it look stupid. Well, actually, what the oh-so-clever Jessica did was remove the citation which backed up FRC’s claim, but left the claim more or less intact. Very cute. If you read the entire email, as Jessica prevented her dear readers from doing, you can see that the claim FRC makes, namely that environmentalism is intimately linked with sex education and population control, and therefore the pro-life movement is backed up by reference to a quote on the Sierra Club’s website - "Talk to your decision-makers and demand an increase of funding for voluntary family planning programs and access to comprehensive sex education for young people,” and a paper from Optimum Population Trust that argued children are “bad for the planet.”

The comments on Feministing.com never cease to amaze me. But today, there were two that really caught my eye. One astute reader realized that FRC was, in fact, correct, and provided links to two terrifying articles about two young women who decided not to have babies to save the earth. One had her husband sterilized, the other was sterilized herself at age 27 following an abortion. I suppose I’d rather see women sterilized than murdering their infants, but the whole mentality over flowers over babies is truly disturbing.

Luckily, Cardinal Pell and Bishop Crepaldi agree with me. and These brave men have provided a voice of reason for the Church in an age when environmental fervor has become a new religion. They stress the fact that people MUST, for the Christian, come before the Earth while nevertheless acknowledging that we are called to be stewards of God’s earth. It is interesting to me that it takes a Cardinal and a Bishop to call for objectivity in science and urge scientists to challenge what has become dogma, because the science community will not do it for itself.

Web addresses of all referenced sites (because I STILL can't figure out how to make my links work...):

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61758

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU08D17

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26342

http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/pell_jan08.html

Mother Earth versus single, low-income mother of five

2008-04-20T21:31:00.000-07:00

My Heart Leaps Up

My heart leaps us when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

This William Wordsworth poem has always struck a chord in me, and I am proud to say that I still get jumping-up-and-down excited every time I see a rainbow, or even thunder and lightning. I grew up gardening, climbing mountains and kayaking. Gardening and clambering up tress in my own back yard, and exploring the lakes and mountains of Maine, Vermont, Alaska and Washington in the summer. No family vacation was complete without an excursion into the wilds of nature. Although I am not my chaco-wearing, granola-eating, backpacking mother, my love of wilderness runs deep. Nature has ever been a source of inspiration, peace and joy for me.

I first experienced profound Christian devotion in the heartbreakingly beautiful mountains of rural Appalachia. Each spring, I look with wonder at the tree blossoms and flower gardens that adorn Washington, DC, and especially Georgetown University's campus. The concept that God lovingly made each leaf and flower is amazing. To look at each one is like gazing with admiration on the brush strokes of a most beloved painter who captures light and color in just the right way, but is even more startling when we consider that all of created earth is utterly unnecessary.

Just the other day, I was sitting outside of a nearby café saying a rosary and contemplating a deep purple and gold pansy. I was conscious of the little pansy's perfection because it in no way imaged man's own sin. All around us are objects created by man, which image sin. Any object created by man can be used properly, and yet still be used for ill. A book is intended to convey information; it cares not whether the information it conveys is beneficial or harmful to its reader, and in either case it functions as a book. The possibility for evil is built into a book, indeed, into all objects made by imperfect human hands. But nature can only be used for good, unless it is misused. A tree fulfills its function by placing its roots in the ground, growing and producing leaves, flowers or fruit (depending on what type it is). For a tree to be used for evil, say when it is made into a battering ram or another weapon of war, its natural function must be interrupted by man. This is striking, I think.

If I wax overly sentimental about nature, it is only to show that although I am by no means a "hippy dippy," I have an ingrained proclivity towards nature for its own sake. And so I have, thus far, been skeptical about conservative arguments against environmentalism. But about two weeks ago, I heard Alexandra “Sandy” Liddy Bourne from the Heartland Institute speak about global warming and the energy crisis. Her passion for these issues shone through her very convincing talk.

Sandy first gave the typical talk questioning global warming science, and then moved into a discussion of the economy. But then Sandy talked about the effects that proposed environmental protection legislation would have on individual low-income Americans, and already was having on the poor throughout the world. If pending legislation goes through, gas prices will rise to the point where low-income Americans are paying 18 to 20 percent of what they make on fuel in order to even make it to their jobs. This is unconscionable. Sandy spoke from personal experience: she had grown up, along with four siblings, the child of a single mother in the DC area, and so she knew just how devastating such a cost would be to a poor family. Sandy also talked about how the use of corn for ethanol has already driven up the price of corn around the world. Though this barely affects Americans themselves, many people in developing nations rely on corn as a staple food, and are less and less able to afford it. The focus on the poor, and on the individual, was something I had not heard before, but it makes sense that legislation crafted by wealthy Americans such as Al Gore to pursue this pet project would fail to take into account the lives of impoverished individuals.

Many times, I have heard about the toll that environmental policies may take on the economy, but when I (who have never taken so much as an intro to economics class) hear the word ‘economy,’ I have only a vague and nebulous idea of the subject in my head. Typically, I think of dollar signs and am unable to grasp any nuance. When faced with the choice of a dollar sign or a flower, I am inclined to choose the flower. But when faced with the choice between a low-income single mothers in America’s inner cities and hungry children in Latin America or the flower, my choice is obvious.

Sandy also noted that we don’t even have a full and accurate census on all of the land we own and what resources it contains. We focus on land such as ANWR, but do not even talk about the other places, which are less rare in terms of ecology, that could be opened up for drilling. Another interesting fact I gleaned from the talk was that Hurricane Katrina hit many, many oil rigs and yet none spilled. Modern technology has served to eliminate many of the threats that we continue to harp on when discussing environmental policy. Essentially, Sandy advocated that our policies be based on a measured and rational assessment of the facts, instead of on emotion. Sounds reasonable, no?

All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Earth, our mother, Who feeds us in her sovereignty and produces Various fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
- St. Francis of Assissi Canticle of Brother Sun/ Canticle of Creatures

Papal address to US video

2008-04-10T22:24:00.000-07:00

You know you are a Catholic nerd when you watch this video three times in one day. I love Pope Benedict.

http://www.uspapalvisit.org/stories/vmessage.htm

COME TO THIS EVENT!!

2008-04-09T11:01:00.001-07:00

"There Was a Man!
On Learning to Be Free"

A lecture in conjunction with the conferral of the

First Annual Rev. James V. Schall, S.J.
Award for Teaching and Humane Letters

Upon

Ralph M. McInerny
Michael P. Grace Professor of Medieval Studies
University of Notre Dame

Thursday, April 10, 2008
6:00-7:45 p.m.
Georgetown University Conference Center
Georgetown University
3800 Reservoir Road, NW 20057

RSVP requested: tocquevilleforum@georgetown.edu
Parking Information

Things I like/ don't like:

2008-04-01T16:38:00.000-07:00

A summary of my day:

Things I like:

Good confessors

Cherry tree blossoms blowing in the wind

Running into the guy who protests outside Planned Parenthood on his way to Mass

Free vegetarian food in the break room

Beautiful muslim girls from Saudi Arabia who love GU Right to Life

Things I don't like:

Learning about how Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) have even shadier pasts than I ever imagined. (See below for more detail)

DC weather (45 degrees and raining when I leave in the morning; 70 degrees and sunny by the time I leave work).

So, my current project at work is to research the history of abstinence education in the U.S. In the process, I am learning a lot about the history of sex education in the U.S. It is amazing how hush hush the whole thing is and how hard it is to find the facts. At any rate, here are some of the scary things I found:

1. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, created a journal in which she wrote some gems including, "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and others. She even wrote a whole book, called the Pivot of Civilization, developing these ideas, and included a postscript entitled "Breeding Out The Unfit," in her book, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know.

2. SIECUS was co-founded by Mary Calderone, former Director of Planned Parenthood's National Medical Committee. Another founding board member was Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the Kinsey Reports (which, have come under fire for their poor research methods and the failure to report known pedophiles to the authorities, among other things).

3. SIECUS advocates showing pornography as a de-sensitizing technique. SIECUS advocates for sex education programs for children as young as five years old!!

4. Although abstinence education opponents claim that comprehensive sex education gets no funding, Planned Parenthood sex education programs have been funded under Title X since 1970. Title X was renewed in 1978 and continues to provide funding. In the 2001 fiscal year, congress released data showing that pro-promiscuity groups (including PP, SIECUS, Youth Advocacy, and the Guttmacher Institute) received federal funding to the tune of $170 million. The majority of that went to PP. The Heritage Foundation estimates that for every single federal dollar spent on abstinence education, twelve are spent on
promoting contraceptives. That's hardly a lack of funding.

This stuff scares me. These people are crazy. I wish this were an April Fool's day joke.

Abstinence Education WOO!!

2008-03-31T19:50:00.000-07:00

A link to Miss Molly Redden's (class of 2011, Georgetown University) article on how abstinence education "screws" (her language, not mine!) students.

http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2008-03-27/voices/promoting-abstinence-while-screwing-students

AND... my response:

Molly Redden’s recent article on abstinence education is a prime example of how many use emotion and personal feeling, rather than logic, to make their case when it comes to premarital sex. I did not personally attend Miss Redden’s high school (incidentally, my high school did not teach abstinence) and so I cannot vouch for the truth of what her educators taught her. I do however, spend all of my time at my Heritage Foundation internship collecting the research on family and marriage from peer reviewed journals. The research is decidedly not on Miss Redden’s side.

Virtually all studies on the subject find that premarital sex unequivocally increases chances for divorce. In fact, the probability of divorce actually increases with the number of sexual partners that one has had. (Georgetown offers its students free access to the Journal of Family and Marriage and other related journals through Jstor, so feel free to fact-check me on this one).

Redden also makes much of the fact that lecturers told her that condoms are ineffective at preventing pregnancy. She is correct that this is empirically false (perfect condom use will result in pregnancy 3% of the time; typical use will result in pregnancy 14% of the time – these statistics are required to be displayed on condom packaging), yet neglects the far more troubling fact that condoms are significantly less efficacious at preventing STDs. The data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is that condoms are when used with perfect accuracy are 85% effective against AIDs. No clinical study has of yet been able to prove that condoms effectively prevent other STDs, but to give condoms the benefits of the doubt, lets say that they are also 85% effective when used with perfect accuracy (read: in laboratory conditions virtually impossible to replicate). Given that STDs are currently the most common diseases in America next to the cold and the flu and are particularly rampant amongst college-age Americans, a 15% failure rate should not make anyone feel safe, especially considering that the STDs out there can lead to unsightly and uncomfortable rashes at the least and permanent damage to the reproductive system or even death in the worst cases.

Redden also claims that “insinuating to a high school student that he or she won’t be mentally sophisticated until marriage is cruel.” Yet when we consider that the median age for marriage is 26.9 for men and 25.3 for women and a 2005 NIH study found that the decision-making capacity of the brain is not fully developed until age 25, this is less a cruel lie than, well, a fact. In high school and college we readily assent to having, indeed rely upon, advisors to help us navigate everything from class schedules to where to apply to school to how to deal with frustrating landlords. We accept without argument advisors in so many areas of our lives, why can we not accept them in the arguably more important field of sex and romance?

Miss Redden’s overall argument eventually boils down to: “Abstinence education is wrong because it made me feel bad.” But this is not a solid argument by any standards of logic. Many things we learn, and which nevertheless have great value, make us ‘feel bad.’ Learning about slavery, the Holocaust, the Vietnam War and genocide in Sudan are a few examples that quickly spring to mind, yet no student in her right mind would suggest that these subjects should be nixed from curricula simply because they leave us feeling profoundly unsettled and pessimistic about humanity. Abstinence educators may tell students things they don’t want to hear, but this does not make them liars any more than teaching students about the Cambodian killing fields would.

You know you're a Catholic nerd...

2008-03-31T18:43:00.000-07:00

... when your desk decorations include almost as many pictures of popes and Saints as of friends.

... when you decide that spending 7 weeks living with 2 nuns in the middle of nowhere Kentucky sounds like "a lot of fun."

... when the only stuffed animal you have at school is an Augustinian Canon teddy bear.

... when you play Catholic charades.

... when you procrastinate by searching for downloadable Gregorian chant and listening to Theogical debates online.

... when you spend a 10 hour drive listening to homilies on your I-Pod.

... when your friend not only knows what Quietism is, but actually accuses other friends of it.

... when you think every song you hear is secretly about Jesus, even tacky pop songs.

I'm Famous...

2008-03-28T08:51:00.001-07:00

My guest post on Dawn Eden's blog:

http://dawneden.blogspot.com/2008/03/guest-post-georgetown-pays-for.html

You know you are a Catholic nerd when...

2008-03-22T09:41:00.000-07:00

You become addicted to the computer game Alchemy and are told by two different people that, as a Catholic, you shouldn't practice Alchemy.
'
Despite having a half day at work for Good Friday, you still have to leave an extra hour early so that you can make it to the 'best' Good Friday Mass in the DC area, which happens to be about 45 minutes away.

You are watching the Passion of the Christ and are distressed by the fact that Jesus falls six times because you and your father are trying to do the Stations in your heads.

The toes of your shoes are always dusty from kneeling during Mass.

You say, "Oh yea! That's just like something Jose Maria Escriva said," and your friend responds, "That's just what I was thinking!!"

Your most convincing argument to get somebody to do something is, "That could be a corporal act of mercy!"

You attend not one, but two Tridentine Rite Masses on Easter Sunday right in a row.

Your mother compares your church-going habits to the concert-going habits of groupies (AKA you will travel whatever distance it takes to find the 'best' Mass you can - Silver Spring, Baltimore, New Jersey...)

You consider showing up at the doors of "really awesome" priests with freshly baked pies.

Newman Distilled

2008-03-17T10:41:00.000-07:00

Ever wanted to read Cardinal Newman's sermons and didn't have the time? Well here are three sermons in just three paragraphs - composed by yours truly.

Sermon VII: The Cross of Christ the Measure of the World
Newman’s thesis in this sermon is that the Crucifixion – the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross – is not only the central tenet of Christianity, but the way in which we Christians make sense of our experience in the world. The world, Newman asserts, is “a maze and a perplexity.” The Cross, however, makes the inharmonious and perplexing world consistent. Yet the Cross also seems to present a problem. At first blush, the world seems made for us to enjoy: man “has the capacity of enjoyment, and the world supplies the means.” The doctrine of the Cross, “a sad and sorrowful sight,” mars this pleasant vision of the world. Newman reminds us that this superficial view of the world, no matter how pleasant, is yet untrue. Despite the world’s gay appearance, “evil and misery lie concealed within.” The Cross simply reminds us of the truth. It teaches us to grieve for our sins because if we fail to heed the warning of the Cross, we will find ourselves grieving nonetheless when we are punished for those sins. The Cross, then, reveals the veiled and hidden truth of the world: that while the world is at first pleasing, the pleasure it affords is ephemeral and leads only to misery. Just as the doctrine of the Cross is a hidden truth, the Christian is called to have a hidden interior life, and not make a Pharisaical display of his piety. Finally, Newman reminds us that though the doctrine of the Cross is sorrowful, Christianity is not a sorrowful religion. It is through the sorrow of the Cross that we are comforted and redeemed, and only those who first know sorrow and misery can know true joy.

Sermon XI: The Nature of Faith in Relation to Reason
This sermon asks the question whether the exercise of Reason precedes Faith. Newman contends that it does. Further, he shows that Faith is not the only exercise of Reason that seems unreasonable and yet is not. To prove his basic thesis, Newman offers several examples. He demonstrates that when we make an act of Faith, it is an “acceptance of things as real … upon previous grounds.” Thus Faith is an exercise of Reason insofar as Reason is the faculty whereby the mind moves from the known, or the perceived, to the unknown. Newman argues his second thesis by pointing out that though the vast majority of men in the world are, though they make use of their reason, by necessity incorrect (because the truth is one and opinions are many), this does not mean that their reason itself is at fault, for if it were, each man would reason uniquely, but in reality men form “schools” of thought. Faith, too, though based on insufficient evidence, is not based on weak or imperfect reasoning. Furthermore, every argument is at its roots based on something taken for granted. We assume that our senses do not deceive us (though they often do); we assume our reason does not lead us astray, though we believe the reason of other men has led them astray. “We must assume something to prove anything.” Next Newman asks why this is the case. Why, he wonders, is our evidence for faith deficient? His answer is that by giving us defective evidence, God “is trying our love of its matter.” The greater the height of the knowledge to which we proceed, the more obscure are our means of getting there. Our knowledge of the physical world is by means of the senses, which are quite certain; our knowledge of higher things through the Reason, which is more prone to uncertainty. Our knowledge of God, who is the Most High, is by the most obscure means: it is by Faith.

Sermon VIII: Truth Hidden When Not Sought After
This Sermon is primarily about the difference between the gifts that allow us to excel in this world, and the gifts that allow us to know God and about the necessity for us to earnestly strive to know God. Newman commences by reminding us that, based on 2 Tm 4:4, there is …religious truth, and therefore …religious error, “religious truth is one,” and that when professed Christians forget this, they turn from the one Truth and believe in “fables.” From this Newman gleans that “the multitude of men…are wrong even in the greater matters of religion.” Yet it is not only the ignorant and weak-minded that turn from the Truth, but also men of ability. This is because spiritual excellence differs in kind from ability. Newman proceeds to claim, “earnestness is necessary for gaining religious Truth,” or, in other words, God reveals Himself only to those who seek him with fervor. Yet most men do not acknowledge this; they rather think, “Religious Truth is simple and easily acquired.” Newman draws these two points – that our religious opinions are dissonant and that we are negligent in seeking God – together. Our negligence, he claims, is the reason for our differing opinions. If we all strove with great zeal to know God, our opinions would begin to grow nearer and nearer together.

You know you're a Catholic nerd when...

2008-02-26T16:16:00.000-08:00

"Your hottest outfit is your cassock." - Chiara

You are leaving for Scotland in less than 24 hours and you have not packed, have not checked the weather, have exchanged no money and have only a vague idea where your passport is but...you DO know where every single Tridentine Rite Mass in all of the UK is and have telephone numbers for several FSSP priests. True story.

Regret does not a rape victim make...

2008-02-25T14:51:00.000-08:00

http://feministing.com/archives/008670.html#comments
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-mac_donald24feb24,0,7810608,full.story

More to come on this later. For now, read the article and the comments on feministing.com. The article is excellent.

The comments on feministing on the other hand, make me want to scream, cry and pray for a really long time...probably in that order.
How did feminism get so warped?
How did feminists move from the vision of empowering women to this?
To encouraging women to behave in ways harmful to their physical, mental and spiritual health? (Dressing immodestly, drinking to excess, engaging in promiscuous behavior?)
To making women once again, the victim because of their anatomy?
To demonizing all men?
To praising women when they act in a certain way, but condemning men when they act in the same way?
To delegitimizing the experience of women who suffer from the heinous crime of rape?

The list goes on. When will we realize that we cannot encourage women to engage in sinful behavior and then blame men when the women are hurt by their sins?? When will we acknowledge that women are hurting because what they are doing is wrong and is harmful to themselves?

Jennifer Roback Morse explained that in today's culture, our only criterion for sex to be "good" is that it is consensual. So when women end up feeling hurt and confused after a sexual experience, when they have an experience that, in their judgment was "bad," they assume it must not have been consensual. If we admitted that promiscuous and unchaste sex is damaging, women would be able to understand why their experiences leave them in so much pain. Not because they were non-consensual, but because by their very nature they are harmful.

I am not a "rape apologist" as the girls who comment on feministing love to call it. Rather, I am trying to support, respect and give validation to all those women who truly have been raped, especially those whom I have known personally. I refuse to let their horrific experiences be lumped in with girls who get too drunk to function, DECIDE to have sex with a boy and then cry rape in the morning.

On Fasting (what makes it worth something...)

2008-02-07T19:47:00.000-08:00

POST FROM A FRIEND:

Not to knock physical penance, as i am sure that that has its time and place. But just a reminder that there is more to Lent than giving up chocolate. A Challenge? Yes. Easy? No. Worth it? Most def.

Isaiah 53:

2 They seek me day after day, and desire to know my ways, Like a nation that has done what is just and not abandoned the law of their God; They ask me to declare what is due them, pleased to gain access to God.
"Why do we fast, and you do not see it? afflict ourselves, and you take no note of it?" Lo, on your fast day you carry out your own pursuits, and drive all your laborers.
Yes, your fast ends in quarreling and fighting, striking with wicked claw. Would that today you might fast so as to make your voice heard on high!
Is this the manner of fasting I wish, of keeping a day of penance: That a man bow his head like a reed, and lie in sackcloth and ashes? Do you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD?
This, rather, is the fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; Setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke;
Sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless; Clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own.
Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your wound shall quickly be healed; Your vindication shall go before you, and the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer, you shall cry for help, and he will say: Here I am! If you remove from your midst oppression, false accusation and malicious speech;
If you bestow your bread on the hungry and satisfy the afflicted; Then light shall rise for you in the darkness, and the gloom shall become for you like midday;
Then the LORD will guide you always and give you plenty even on the parched land. He will renew your strength, and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring whose water never fails.
...
If you hold back your foot on the sabbath from following your own pursuits on my holy day; If you call the sabbath a delight, and the LORD'S holy day honorable; If you honor it by not following your ways, seeking your own interests, or speaking with malice--
Then you shall delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will nourish you with the heritage of Jacob, your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

RESPONSE:

I think that this reinforces the idea of the tripod. Certainly fasting and abstinence from certain foods is worthless when not done in conjunction with prayer and almsgiving.

The question is - why do we fast? Penance is well and good, but there are other ways in which fasting brings us closer to God. Personally, I have a few reasons. Everything in life, especially food, comes relatively easily to me, and I take my eating habits for granted. Fasting reminds me that I can do without. Fasting for me includes not just the dietary restrictions, but, for example, no unnecessary shopping as well. Another reason is that by depriving oneself, and by struggling a little, we are forced to rely more heavily than usual on God, or rather, we are reminded that we rely on Him 100%.

I don't know if you read the Pope's Lenten Address for this year, but I think your post is fitting. He concentrated on the almsgiving aspect of Lent. In a literal sense, fasting allows us to free up some money to give towards helping the poor and increased prayer can also include increased prayer for others.

PS some more on Biblical fasting and how it can bring us closer to the Lord: http://www.new-life.net/fasting.htm

You might be a Catholic nerd if...

2008-02-06T17:54:00.000-08:00

... you are distressed because the hymn you have stuck in your head is not liturgically appropriate.

More Hildegard

2008-02-05T18:30:00.000-08:00

Therefore I compare them to stupid craftsmen who are building a large building, yet do not follow the wisdom of previous craftsmen who are well-trained in the use of their tools and knowledgeable about how to plan and raise a building; but they carelessly and foolishly trust in themselves, wanting to excel others in wisdom, and build their buildings such that they will be shaken by storms and thrown down by the winds. For they will not be built on rock, but on sand.

And thus do those who trust to themselves in their pride and seek to seem wiser than the early Fathers; they do not want to walk according to their covenant, but lay down shaky laws for themselves at their own will, and thus, leaning not on Christ but on their own unstable conduct, they are often stirred up to sin by the temptations of the Devil. Scivias, Book 2, Vision 5

I desire the faithful person to be humble and content with what his predecessors instituted for him. Scivias, Book 2, Vision 5

And one who despairs of his sins and believes that their great weight makes it impossible for him to be saved is faithless; he shall not attain to life, for he contradicts the One Who gives life to all. But is any of these is led by penitence and truly seeks Me, he shall find Me, for I reject no one who comes to me with a sincere heart. Scivias, Book 2, Vision 5

I mean, when you bump into someone in front of the tilapia fish...

2008-02-05T18:11:00.000-08:00

... you know there's something greater behind it all.

AKA Lenten plans:

So Lent begins tomorrow. Very exciting. A friend of mine and I have decided to follow the Black Fast for Lent for a number of reasons. My only modification? "Crust of bread" definitely means "luna bar." : ) In addition, no shopping.

NEW ADVENT: The Black Fast

This form of fasting, the most rigorous in the history of church legislation, was marked by austerity regarding the quantity and quality of food permitted on fasting days as well as the time wherein such food might be legitimately taken.
In the first place more than one meal was strictly prohibited. At this meal flesh meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and milk were interdicted (Gregory I, Decretals IV, cap. vi; Trullan Synod, Canon 56). Besides these restrictions abstinence from wine, specially during Lent, was enjoined (Thomassin, Traité des jeûnes de l'Eglise, II, vii). Furthermore, during Holy Week the fare consisted of bread, salt, herbs, and water (Laymann, Theologia Moralis, Tr. VIII; De observatione jejuniorum, i). Finally, this meal was not allowed until sunset. St. Ambrose (De Elia et jejunio, sermo vii, in Psalm CXVIII), St. Chrysostom (Homil. iv in Genesim), St. Basil (Oratio i, De jejunio) furnish unequivocal testimony concerning the three characteristics of the black fast. The keynote of their teaching is sounded by St. Bernard (Sermo. iii, no. 1, De Quadragesima), when he says "hitherto we have fasted only until none" (3 p.m.) "whereas, now" (during Lent) "kinds and princes, clergy and laity, rich and poor will fast until evening". It is quite certain that the days of Lent (Muller, Theologia Moralis, II, Lib. II, Tr. ii, sect. 165, no. 11) as well as those preceding ordination were marked by the black fast. This regime continued until the tenth century when the custom of taking the only meal of the day at three o'clock was introduced (Thomassin, loc. cit.). In the fourteenth century the hour of taking this meal was changed to noon-day (Muller, loc. cit.). Shortly afterwards the practice of taking a collation in the evening began to gain ground (Thomassin, op. cit., II, xi). Finally, the custom of taking a crust of bread and some coffee in the morning was introduced in the early part of the nineteenth century. During the past fifty years, owing to ever changing circumstances of time and place, the Church has gradually relaxed the severity of penitential requirements, so that now little more than a vestige of former rigour obtains.

As for prayer, I'm thinking Mass every day, Confession and Adoration once a week. Plus of course all those manifold daily prayer sessions when my stomach is grumbling because vegan food is, well, not so amazing.

As for almsgiving, I'm still working this one out. I'm hoping that my volunteer activities for this semester pan out and that I will soon be baby sitting infants or tutoring young children or both. But as for something special...I don't know. Giving the money I save fasting to the poor seems to easy, and there isn't much caritas in it... many prayers tonight will hopefully put me on the right track for tomorrow! : )

2008-01-30T16:55:00.001-08:00

So, my class on Medieval Women Mystics was GREAT today. Here are some of the highlights:

Student (in response to another student's suggestion that Hildegard of Bingen was a prophet): "I don't think Hildegard could be considered a prophet, because if you look at the Old Testament, all of the prophets were leaders. I think that a prophet really has to lead people."
Professor (looks at student incredulously): "Ah, she was an Abbess. It was a big deal. She corresponded with Bernard of Clairvaux and FOUR POPES."
Student: "Yea, but..."

Student: "...I regard the Quran as a mystical text."
Professor: "I think that is a hard argument to make. You would encounter, ah, many difficulties with that one..."

Student: "Hildegard's metaphors for explaining the Trinity were, well, dumb."
Professor: "Really? Have YOU ever tried explaining the doctrine of the Trinity to 12th century, illiterate peasants!?"
Me: falls off of chair laughing.

Student: "Well, why do we have to assume that she didn't just know this stuff. I mean, she grew up next to a monastery. She probably made all of this stuff about visions up."
(Sometimes people forget they are in a theology class...)

Something from Hildegard of Bingen

2008-01-28T11:26:00.002-08:00

"Therefore the whirlwinds tell me lies in many voices, which rise up within me, saying, 'Who are you? and what are you doing? and what are these battles you are fighting? You are indeed unhappy, for you do not know whether your work is good or bad. Where will you go? and who wills save you? and what are these errors that are driving you to madness? Are you doing what delight you? Are you escaping what distresses you? Oh, what will you do when you know this are ignorant of that? For what delights you is not lawful for you, and what distresses you God's precept compels you to do. And how do you know whether these things are so? It would be better for you if you did not exist!' And after these whirlwinds have risen up thus within me, I begin to tread another path that is hard for my flesh to bear, for I begin to practice righteousness. But then I doubt as to whether or not the Holy Spirit has given this to me, and I say, 'This is useless.' And I wish to fly above the clouds. How? I wish to fly above the faculties and start things I cannot finish. But when I try to do these things, I only stir up great sadness in myself, so that I do no works, either on the heights of sanctity or on the plains of good will; but I bear within me the disquietude of doubt, desperation, sadness, and oppression in all things. And when the Devil's persuasion disturbs me, then, oh, how great a calamity overtakes me! For I am overcome in my unhappiness by all the evils that are or can be in blame, malediction, mortification of the body and soul and shameful words against the purity, healing and loftiness that are in God. And then wickedness suggests to me that all the felicity and all the good which is in Man as well as God will be to me harmful and oppressive, offering me death rather than life. Ach! How unhappy is this struggle, which forces me from labor to labor, from sorrow to sorrow, from discord to discord, depriving me of all happiness."

Book 1, Vision 4, Scivias

A Poem

2008-01-27T13:12:00.000-08:00

Andrea introduced me to this poem today, and I am glad she did. Reading it, I had one of those rare and wonderful moments in which the words I read express what I feel better than I ever could myself. This is also the effect that reading C.S. Lewis and Chesterton has on me (which I think must mean that my unexpressed thoughts and feelings are really quite cliche, after all). Well, here is the poem:

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
But on earth indifference is the least
We have to dread from man or beast.

How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.

Admirer as I think I am
Of stars that do not give a damn,
I cannot, now I see them, say
I missed one terribly all day.

Were all stars to disappear or die,
I should learn to look at an empty sky
And feel its total dark sublime,
Though this might take me a little time.

Auden

Time and Tide Waits for Nun...

2008-01-27T11:59:00.000-08:00

Apologies for the terrible pun.

Last night, I had a surprising and vivid dream. I had entered a convent, but had not taken my vows. The convent was situated in a beautiful area. It was in the countryside and was surrounded by rolling hills. The weather was always warm and pleasant, the grass was fresh and fragrant and flowers were always blooming. I went out to explore the town nearby. I was sitting at a table talking to a man I had just met. He asked me what I was doing in the town and I replied, "Well, I'm staying with the nuns. I only arrived here recently." He said, "Well I can see you're a nun." I then realized that I was wearing a habit, which surprised me. Time passed, and I got used to living in the convent, but I kept telling people I met that I had just arrived. Mother Superior continued to urge me to take my vows, but I kept putting it off - I couldn't decide if I really wanted to be a nun or not. Finally, my friend Lauren showed up. She was a cloistered nun (Sister Servant of the Holy Ghost of Perpetual Adoration, I think, judging by her pink habit) but had left the convent to come talk to me. She told me that I was being ridiculous and I needed to take my vows. I told her I had only just gotten there and I would do so soon. She said, "Caitlin, you've been here for over two years." I was amazed. I woke up before I was able to take my vows.

Now, I may be a superstitious person, but I don't think that dreams are visions of the future, or signs or anything like that. But I do think that we tend to dream about the things that are occupying our subconscious or deeply bothering us. For this reason, I was surprised by my dream. I have thought about becoming a nun before, in passing, but since I am not even a Catholic yet (Feb. 4!), it seems incredibly premature.

On the one hand, I am happiest on my mission trips, doing service work and the prospect of being able to devote my whole life and being to serving God through serving others sounds wonderful. On the other hand, I sometimes have deep-seated longings to someday have a family, and the thought of not having children saddens me. In some ways, I am better able to imagine life as a nun, because I already know the feelings of fulfillment that accompany prayer, worship and service work, but do not know what it is like to be married or have children (though having children is easier to imagine than being married because I have baby-sat for so many children).

In Nikos Kazantzakis' book, "St. Francis," Francis talks about having conflicting callings. He says that when he feels multiple callings within himself, he knows that the one that God truly wants him to follow is the one that is more difficult. God does not want him to take the easy way out. I'm not sure if I buy this 100%; I think that sometimes I know I am doing God's will because He gives me feelings of joy and peace, and even makes difficult tasks seem easy and pleasant. For example, when I am doing service work, I am very happy (despite lack of sleep, sleeping on the floor, etc.) and feel that I can take on anything, no matter how difficult it seems. But, I sometimes think about what Kazantzakis had St. Francis say and use it as a sort of exercise.

Unfortunately, it brings me to no conclusion. Both paths seem difficult, and both paths seem like taking the easy way out. On the one hand, getting married and having a family seems almost selfish. It seems like a choice that that is based on the goals of comfort and personal satisfaction. This, I know, is not true, but these are the ways in which family life seems easy. On the other hand, marriage is scary and hard to imagine. It seems like something impossible, something I don't deserve. In this way, the path of getting married and having children seems like the more difficult path by far.

Religious life, too, seems both easy and unbearably difficult. It seems easy because I already can imagine it, can imagine the happiness it would bring and because I wouldn't have to go through all the trials associated with marriage and raising children. It also seems easy because after making the initial decision to become a nun, my life would be completely in God's hands. Certainly I would struggle with temptation and sin as I do now, but I would not have to make the kinds of big decisions like where to live, what to do on a daily basis, whom to marry, how to raise my children, etc. On the other hand, religious life seems incredibly difficult. Devoting every second to God through service for three and a half months is one thing; the rest of my life is quite another. It would take extraordinary grace to be able to keep such a life up for 60, 70 years without becoming utterly exhausted and crushed.

Luckily, I don't think I have to make any kind of decision for at least a number of years. I should set my concerns aside and be open to whatever God has in store for me. For now, I will do those things that are, to me, quite obviously God's will (going back to Appalachia to serve the poor this summer) and pray for greater understanding of what His will is on a daily basis. Until one calling becomes so deafening that the other is drowned out, I don't think I can really make any plans. I suppose neither calling will ever be truly put to rest until the other is fulfilled. That is, religious life will always be a potential path until the day of my wedding and, conversely, marriage will always be a potential path until the day I do take vows as a nun. But until one of these happens, I have to be open to whatever God puts in my heart.

"When love beckons you, follow him,
though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden."

- The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran

"And I will lead the blind in a way that they know not,
in paths that they have not known I will guide them.
I will turn the darkness before them into light,
the rough places into level ground."

- Isaiah 42:16

"Homeward Bound"

2008-01-23T15:52:00.001-08:00

See: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10659

I recently came across a truly appalling article entitled “Homeward Bound.” The woman who wrote this article is Linda Hirshman, a “feminist philosopher.” She undertook a study of upper-class married women to look at how feminism had impacted their lives. She looked at all of the brides who had announced their weddings in Sunday Styles over the course of three weekends in the mid-nineties. She tracked about 80% of them down and discovered that, of thse 80%, 90% had babies, 85% of those with babies were not working full time. A good half of the women she tracked down were not working at all, but caring for their children.* The women she interviewed, she notes, were happy. Yet despite their happiness and apparent fulfillment, Hirshman claims that what they were doing, that is, staying home with their children, “is bad for them, is certainly bad for society and is widely imitated.” Wow.

So let me break down Ms. Hirshman’s claims really quickly.
1. Feminism has failed because women are choosing to stay at home with their children.
2. Having a “good job” is a fundamental part of human flourishing.
3. The marker of a good job is how well it pays.

1. Hirshman’s conception of feminism may very well have failed. And there also may be a very good reason for this failure: it was wrong.**

2. “Here's the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government.” If “the family” means vacuuming, running the dishes and doing the laundry, then perhaps Hirshman is right. But raising children – especially lots of them – is anything but repetitious. The family is not only a necessary part of life, but the fundamental part of life. Without the family, public spheres like the market or the government would not even be able to function as they do. It is in the family that children learn the fundamentals of life and how to interact in society. It is their experience in the family that is one of the most important predictors of how successful they will be later in life. Further, activities like cooking and caring for children are valuable and enjoyable in their own right, not merely as means to another end. We do not just have children because we are obliged to keep society going; we have them because we want to share a life with them and experience the joy that only family can bring. Family life, far from being something separate from human flourishing, is actually the most basic element of human flourishing.

Hirshman also seems to think that it is only in a traditionally male career that women can wield “real social power.” Yet from time immemorial powerful men have been most influenced by women, usually their wives or their mothers. Women who raise their children are the most important influence on those children, and the values that they teach their children will shape them for life. It is a wonderful thing that today we have female voices in the business world and in the political world, but if gaining a greater voice in those spheres comes only at the expense of having an impact where it is actually most important, in the family, it isn’t worth it.

3. “The best way to treat work seriously is to find the money. Money is the marker of success in a market economy,” Hirshman claims. At first blush, her statement doesn’t seem entirely off-base. There is a lot of truth to it. Yet Hirshman goes on to blame women for choosing jobs that are more kind-hearted and less money-driven. “Yet somewhere along the way the women made decisions in the direction of less money. Part of the problem was idealism; idealism on the career trail usually leads to volunteer work, or indentured servitude in social-service jobs, which is nice but doesn't get you to money.” Since when did we start deriding people for choosing noble jobs that they personally find fulfilling? Since when did the amount of money one makes determine one’s value as a person? Hirshman’s argument is so twisted I hardly know where to begin to untangle it.

Hirshman seems to be arguing against tradition simply for the sake of overthrowing tradition. There seems to be an assumption, though Hirshman offers no evidence to back it up, that tradition is inherently bad. “But elite women aren't resisting tradition. None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women's work.” So, what is the problem here? Hirshman doesn’t consider that there may be a good basis for the tradition that women stay home and care for their children. After all, they have no choice but to intimately care for their children for the first nine months of the child’s life, and, after that, they should breastfeed their children.*** Children have distinct relationships with each of their parents and these relationships are not interchangeable. Children bond differently with their mothers than with their fathers. This is easy to see during pregnancy and breastfeeding, but remains true throughout the child’s life.

Some of Hirshman’s more choice pieces of advice include telling women not to clean the house, because even if their house is dirty, at least they won’t be cleaning it (as some one who prefers order to filth and even enjoys cleaning from time to time, I’m baffled) and “Have a baby. Just don’t have two.” I want at least six children and don’t really understand how not having children (that I want) so that I can work more would be good for my well-being and, assuming my future husband also wants a lot of children, for his. Or maybe Hirshman doesn’t want wives to consider their husbands’ well-being and wishes at all…because that would make for a GREAT relationship. Another great piece of advice is that women should “marry down,” or marry a man with far less money than they have. So that they can march off to work leaving their infant with a bottle of formula and a poor, starving artist of a father. Wow.

She also derides one woman for making apple pie with her children and another for taking her daughter to museums and dance lessons. These should, however, be commended. Taking the time to provide small children with productive activities and interacting with them, instead of leaving them to watch TV with a baby sitter, is actually incredibly beneficial for the children.

If Linda Hirshman had her way, women would be just like men – they would have the same jobs, make the same amount of money, etc. They would also live in filthy, unkempt houses, leave their children with babysitters instead of spending time with them, and generally be bad wives and mothers all around. Let’s hope that women retain their capacity for independent thought and follow what makes them happy, even if that means having 13 children, instead of taking Hirshman’s destructive advice.

*This statement, of course, is not entirely true. Being a mother is, of course, a LOT of work. My father once retorted to somebody who asked him, incredulously, if his mother really never worked in her life, “Like hell she didn’t work. She raised nine children! She worked harder than anyone else I’ve known.”

** See my last post on why (Hirshman’s type of) feminism is based on a mistaken idea of equality for explanation.

*** I don’t want to tackle the task of proving the merits of breastfeeding. Suffice it to say, there are incredible benefits, both physical and psychological, that a baby incurs from breastfeeding.

Proof of the Devil

2008-01-23T11:08:00.000-08:00

About a month or so ago, I was perusing Father James V. Schall, S.J.’s articles on Ignatius Insight and decided to re-read his article on abortion. The article began with a poster that Fr. Schall had seen on a MetroBus here in D.C. The poster read, “Did you know that abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy?” or something of the like. Fr. Schall took this poster to be a pro-choice poster, reminding women of their “right” to procure an abortion at any time they would like to in their pregnancy. In fact, it is a poster put out by the USCCB as part of their campaign to improve knowledge about what Roe v. Wade really allows. When I told Fr. Schall this, he cited it as proof of the devil.

I am inclined to agree, and since that conversation with Schall have kept this claim in the back of my mind. All around me, I see people sincerely trying to do good, but in fact causing destruction and harm. Sometimes, their beliefs about what the good actually is are correct, and the goals they seek to achieve are good ones, as in the case of the US Bishops and their poster. Other times, they are mistaken about what constitutes good and evil and the goals they pursue are in fact evil.

Perhaps I have too much faith in the honesty of human beings, but I believe that most people do pursue what they believe to be good. Although I am as staunch a pro-lifer as you can find, I do believe that pro-choicers sincerely believe what they preach – that access to abortion is fundamentally good and necessary for women. It is precisely here that the devil dwells, and it is this phenomenon that gives him so much power. It would be far easier to dissuade humans from evil if they did not so stubbornly insist on believing the evils they commit to, in fact, be good.

I have been thinking about this whole phenomenon a lot recently, particularly as it relates to feminism. Feminism, or what that word has come to mean, I think, is the ultimate proof of the devil. In seeking to empower women, feminists actually degrade them, and actually move them further from the equality they deserve.

Feminism is based on a mistaken idea of what equality is. Equality is not homogeneity. Equality is recognizing the equivalent value of the distinctive roles that men and women play in society. Women will never achieve equality by acting like men and trying to achieve the standards of success that have been defined for and by males because, put simply, women just aren’t as good at being men as men are. The opposite, of course, is also true, and trying to make men more like women in certain ways also undermines the unique dignity of each sex. Feminism, based on a mistaken idea, condemns the noble goal of recognizing that women are as valuable to society as men are to failure, and thus the devil achieves his purpose.

Works like the Vagina Monologues and Linda Hirshman’s influential article “Homeward Bound” (post to follow) drive this point home. The Vagina Monologues seek to empower women and end violence against women and instead degrade and objectify them; Linda Hirshman also seeks to empower women and instead subordinates them to men by denying the value of uniquely female abilities and roles. Women (and men) need to take a step back and begin to base feminism not on the idea that men and women should be the same, but on recognition of the truth that men and women are incredibly different, yet equally valuable.

More on the Vagina Monologues

2008-01-20T10:37:00.000-08:00

From Rev. Shanley, of Providence College, on why his school would not perform Eve Ensler's play. A beautiful statement on how the play is in complete contradiction with the Church's teaching on female sexuality and dignity.

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/LoveResponsibilityProject/CampaigntoStoptheVMonologues/FatherShanleyStatementontheMonologues/tabid/90/Default.aspx

Critique of "The Vagina Monologues"

2008-01-07T19:42:00.000-08:00

So, I finally made the effort to read “The Vagina Monologues” in their entirety. I expected to not agree with them, but after reading the script and seeing several of the monologues on YouTube, I wonder if I am missing something. Is this really supposed to be funny? And how, exactly, to they combat violence against women? Either there is something I don’t get, or our culture is even more sick and twisted than I realized. My primary concerns with the Monologues are four:

1.It promotes the view that a woman cannot be comfortable with her body unless she is willing to flaunt and talk about her individual body parts and talk about intimate and private topics pertaining to her own sexuality.
2.It degrades and objectifies women insofar as it equates them with their sexual organ and their happiness with sexual pleasure. Further, it degrades sex itself by equating good sex with sex that physically pleases the female.
3.Rather than fighting the existence of rape and sexual assault, The Vagina Monologues demonizes all men while simultaneously glorifying rape of women by women.
4.The Monologues are overwhelmingly one-sided, that is, pro-sex. Even the women who have been raped revel in their practice of pre-marital sex.

1) Eve Ensler began asking women about their sexual organs because she believed that order for women to truly be liberated and empowered, they needed to be comfortable talking about their bodies and, specifically, the parts of their bodies that made them uncomfortable. Ensler says, “women's empowerment is deeply connected to their sexuality.” Even if we concede this point to Ms. Ensler, why does a woman need to strut around on stage talking about her physical sexuality or, at least, listen to another woman do so to be comfortable with her sexuality? To me, the mark of a healthy sexuality is modesty. It is the girls who flaunt their bodies and their sexual conquests who are usually the most insecure and/or damaged. Do women need to talk about their vaginas? Yes, with their doctors. They do not need to describe their sexual organ in a graphic and obscene manner to large audiences.

2) The monologue by the lawyer-turned lesbian prostitute opens, “I love vaginas. I love women. And I don’t see them as separate.” Wow. Haven’t feminists been fighting for years and years for women to be respected for their intellect and personality? So, why is it wrong to believe that women’s only value lies in their physical beauty but OK to equate women with a single part of their body? Another character in the play says (to the girl he is having a one-night stand with), “I have to look…It’s who you are…I have to look.” He is, of course, talking about looking at her vagina. This line is not quite as distressing as the lesbian prostitute’s claim, but it nevertheless supports the same premise. Women essentially are their sexual organ. If my value had to be judged by a single one of my organs, I would rather choose my heart, or my brain.

Not only does the play equate women with their sexual organ, but it also equates female happiness with sexual pleasure. And sexual pleasure, apparently, should come before other needs and considerations. One woman says that her vagina would say, “use me,” and “stop thinking so much and have a good time.” The latter quote seems to be the hallmark of the modern pro-sex portion of the feminist movement. Stop thinking and just have sex. Right. Because women probably don’t need their brains anyhow.

The character who delivers the monologue called “The Angry Vagina” rants, "They hate, hate, hate, hate, hate to see a woman having pleasure. Particularly sexual pleasure. I say make a nice pair of white cotton underpants with a french tickler built in." She then describes how this would make women so much happier and their lives so much better because they would be released from the patriarchal and oppressive culture that invented thongs, tampons and speculums. (And about that, I'm sorry, but tampons and Gynecologists are not tools used to oppress women. What degrades women is the culture that makes a play like this OK, a culture that sees women and sex as inseparable, a culture that objectifies women, equates them with their sexual organ and calls it empowerment. That is degrading. Talking about something private and personal and making a joke out of it, that is degrading. Women will always be degraded until they are respected for truly being women and for fulfilling the roles that God by nature intended them to fulfill.) Anyhow, I really don’t think women can be liberated by masturbation. To suggest that they can is actually absurd. Women are not made truly happy by meaningless, disconnected sexual pleasure and it takes a heck of a lot more to make all humans, male and female, really happy than an orgasm.

The feminists have now one-upped the patriarchal society they sought to overthrow. Whereas women have traditionally been reduced to the status of inferior humans by equating their happiness with being a useful possession of their husband’s, The Vagina Monologues reduces women to the status of animals by equating their happiness with the satisfaction of their sexual urges.

When women who are trying to become liberated and empowered instead make themselves co-conspirators in their own degradation, there is some serious evil at work. The twisting of Ensler’s (admittedly good) intentions into something so sickening as this play is surely the work of the Devil himself.

3) One of The Monologues central claims to fame is the fact that it combats violence against women. The problem is, this is not so much a fact as a completely unfounded assertion. The play in fact suggests that heterosexual sex is inherently unhealthy by portraying all but one of the male characters as brutal rapists or otherwise unsavory characters (even the father who tries to save his daughter from rape is portrayed negatively). On the other hand, lesbian relationships are glorified, even when they are profoundly unhealthy.

The lesbian prostitute, er, “sex worker,” says that she “dominates” women, sometimes using ropes, whips or handcuffs. There are two things seriously wrong with this. First of all, prostitution, or sex work, is profoundly degrading, dehumanizing and damaging. It should not be lauded. I think that the attempt by modern feminists to ‘normalize’ prostitution is an attempt to humanize and thus help the prostitute herself, a noble goal indeed. Yet this is another trick of the Devil. When a person is deeply hurt and damaged, it does not help to tell her that she is not, in fact, hurt. It does not help her to support the behavior that continues to deepen her wound. When Jesus encountered prostitutes and adulteresses, he did not save them by telling them they had done no wrong. Rather, out of love for them, he forgave them their sins and bid them to sin no more. To normalize and even praise prostitution is not loving, but cruel and degrading.

Not only does the monologue by the prostitute, which is called “The Moaner,” praise prostitution, but also sado-masochism. How can a practice that physically puts women in bondage and causes them physical pain possibly be liberating?

What is even more disturbing than “The Moaner” is the monologue in which a women describes the memory of her rape by an older woman and calls it her “salvation.” Basically, a 16 year old girl meets a 24 year old woman. The 24 year old seduces her, getting her drunk and then engaging in intense sexual activity with her. In the original script, this woman says, “If it was rape, it was good rape.” How can a play that purports to fight all violence against women admit that rape can be good? Rape, and all forms of unhealthy sex, can never be good, but can only be damaging and hurtful.

4) Although Ensler claims to have interviewed hundreds of women, she selected only a few to include in her play. None of the interviews she selected are from the point of view of a girl who practiced chastity. This is not surprising, but it is nonetheless lamentable. Ensler is trying to tackle female sexuality, but she does not even attempt to engage the question of whether or not premarital sex is OK. Indeed, none of her monologues even talk about the loss of virginity.

In the one monologue in which a rape is described in graphic and horrifying detail, the rape is juxtaposed with the experiences that the same woman had of premarital sexual encounters, which are described as blissful. I am not trying to demonize Ensler’s point of view in the debate about premarital sex, I am only saying that a fair and balanced look at sexuality needs to engage both points of view.

One other thing that I found deeply disturbing was the fact that because Ensler’s play focuses only on the physical aspects of female sexuality, it makes it seem as if the most important consequences of sex and even rape are physical. The emotions connected to sexuality are never discussed. According to the play, sex is good when it produces pleasure and bad when it causes physical harm. This oversimplification leads to an impossibly warped moral code.

To those who would tell me that I am taking this all too seriously and that the play is just in good fun, I would respond, “impossible.” The play cannot claim to be a comedy and simultaneously claim to deal seriously with the mystery of human sexuality and the tragedies of rape and sexual violence. The two claims are not compatible.

And finally, does nobody else find this stuff simply bizarre? I mean, forget offensive, it is just weird. Almost cultlike. Ensler’s book has been described as the “bible” for the modern woman and Ensler herself used religious language when she said in an interview that vaginas deserve “awe” and “reverence.” Another one of Ensler’s more off the wall claims is, “A patriarchal culture is waging war on vaginas. You wouldn't come up with something like thong underwear if you started with a great love and appreciation of your vagina.” Even if the thong didn’t originate as a male article of clothing and even if the man credited with inventing the thong for women wasn’t a gay activist (hardly the typical representative of a traditional, patriarchical society), Ensler’s quote is downright weird. Far from being the visionary that modern feminists think she is, I have a suspicion that Eve Ensler may be patently insane.

"Nerdisms"

2008-01-07T16:17:00.000-08:00

... when you go to purchase the books for your "Medieval Women Mystics" class and you already own two of the titles. (Julian of Norwich and Saint Angela de Foligno, in case you are wondering).

...when your best Christmas presents consist of an a New Testament with 8 translations, a movie about a saint, a book about the virtue of chastity and interlinear Septuagint.

On McGovern’s Article About Bush’s Impeachment

2008-01-06T13:34:00.000-08:00

George McGovern's article can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308_2.html

First of all, I would like to say that I never wanted to be an apologist for the Bush regime. I don’t think Bush is a particularly good president, and I disagree with many of the actions he has taken since being in office. However, I find that I am often thrust into this position by the obstinate exaggeration I find in attacks against him.

George McGovern recently wrote an article called, “Why I Believe Bush Must Go.” The article argues for Bush’s impeachment based on a number of examples of alleged contempt for the law on the part of our president. Mcovern cites Bush’s “questionable” election, the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, the most recent report on Iran’s nuclear development programs, the fact that Bush has less international support than did his father, and Bush’s alleged violation of FISA law.

McGovern opens his article by suggestion that Bush’s claim to the presidency is illegitimate. The primary argument against the legitimacy of the 2000 elections is the fact that Gore won the popular vote, but did not win the Electoral College. The 2000 elections were the third time in U.S. history that this phenomenon has occurred. Although the election may seem unfair to Bush’s opponents, it was nevertheless legal. McGovern argues that the election was so “questionable” that it warranted a congressional investigation. Yet Congress certified the result of the electoral vote.

McGovern has a number of arguments about why Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was illegal. While I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that Bush did not seriously bungle the occupation of Iraq, I think it would be equally difficult to legitimately argue that he acted illegally. McGovern’s first argument is that Bush never procured a declaration of war from Congress. True, Congress never issued an official declaration of war. But in October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, which authorized the military to use the strategy that it in fact used in Iraq. Thus, what become known as the “Iraq War” was indeed sanctioned by Congress. Congress has approved the occupation or Iraq insofar as Congress holds the power of the purse and has had to approve budgetary allocations for the effort.

McGovern’s second argument is one that, although it was long ago discredited, continues to pop up amongst those who spend their time demonizing the administration. He claims that Bush “repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public” about Hussein’s possession of nuclear weapons. Most importantly, Bush did not ‘lie to’ or ‘deceive’ anyone; rather, he was acting on the basis of the best and most credible intelligence that was available to him. Even if no weapons of mass destruction had been found after the 2003 invasion, the distinction between lying and being mistaken remains an important one. But the fact of the matter is, weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion. Although no evidence of an ongoing program was found, hundreds of WMDs that Hussein had supposedly destroyed were found in Iraq.*

McGovern also harps on the massive number of deaths that the Iraqi population has sustained since the U.S. invasion. The carnage that has occurred in Iraq is tragic and completely unjustifiable. Yet the high death toll is not solely Bush’s fault. McGovern cites over 600,000 Iraqi deaths. Yet the study he cites includes both violent and non-violent deaths. That means that his figure includes those killed by coalition forces, those killed by Iraqi insurgency and those killed by general increased violence and lawlessness, decreased standards of healthcare, etc. Deaths of Iraqis, while tragic, do not constitute illegal behavior on the part of the President. I personally don’t think that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but impeaching the President will do nothing to stem the incredible violence in Iraq. (Troop surges apparently will).

Finally, McGovern calls the argument that the Iraqi government was connected with the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks a “blatant lie.” The connection was certainly exaggerated by the administration, but it was not a blatant lie. Hussein’s connection to various terrorist groups is well documented and, in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers, very public knowledge. Hussein’s connection to terrorism and even to some of the men involved in the 9/11 attacks is documented in Stephen Hayes’ book, The Connection.**

McGovern laments the fact that “habeus corpus” was not extended to the prisoner’s in Guantanamo Bay. He seems to have forgotten that the right of habeus corpus as found in the Constitution does not apply to prisoners of war who are not even U.S. citizens. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on Guantanamo Bay, and these cases, not impeachment, are necessary to ensure legality.

McGovern cites Bush’s recent behavior with regards to the report stating that Iran has stopped “weaponizing.” He claims that Bush received the report in August and has since then been lying to the American public. But to say that Iran still has a nuclear program and is capable of creating nuclear weapons is not a lie. What Iran has stopped doing, that is, weaponizing, is the easy part. The enrichment of uranium is the hard part, and Iran still refuses to stop enriching. Many countries do not enrich their own uranium, but receive enriched uranium from other, less dangerous countries. Because Iran enriches its own uranium, and has the capacity to enrich it to be weapons-grade, it could begin the weaponizing process at any time and have nuclear weapons within a negligible amount of time.

McGovern compares the international support that the first Bush had during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with the lack of international support for the second Bush. Today, the international community won’t even support a resolution to intervene in Darfur. Intervention in Darfur is at least as obviously necessary as was the intervention expelling Iraq from Kuwait. So we must question the necessity of support from an international community so crippled that it cannot even agree to intervene to put an end to genocide.

Finally, McGovern ends with what is perhaps the most popular argument for Bush’s impeachment, his alleged violation of FISA law. Opponents of the regime, including McGovern, claim that Bush’s order for extensive wiretapping violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Yet five FISA judges testified before Congress that Bush’s actions did not, in fact, violate any law.

What is most disturbing about McGovern’s article is not his negligent bending of facts, but his portrayal of the Bush administration as something approaching Orwellian standards. McGovern and others repeatedly use the phrase, “climate of fear” and McGovern describes the U.S. situation as “a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness.” This language represents a monstrous exaggeration. This tendency to exaggerate is prevalent in arguments against the current administration from all sources. A friend of mine with whom I was recently having a political debate described his life as “inhumanely degraded by the insidious grip of a fear mongering government.” Let’s be quite clear, this is a kid who attends a top university and has a very comfortable life. The situation being described here is Burma, is Sudan, is Stalin’s Russia. It is not the United States. Whatever the U.S.’ flaws, our government has not yet become a brutal dictatorship. To suggest that it has shows astounding ingratitude. I’m not sure if this point of view is a product of ignorance or of boredom. Have we become so bored with our own comfortable democracy that we need to find excitement by deluding ourselves into thinking we live in the world of Orwell’s 1984?

*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
**Hayes’ articles on the subject can be found here: http://www.husseinandterror.com/hayes.htm

More "nerdisms"

2007-12-23T17:02:00.000-08:00

You know you are a Catholic nerd when...

Your biggest pet peeve is innapropriate liturgy.

When you serve mass, you also like to play the role of "Eucharistic policemen."

And some from the hilarious Lauren Funk:

when you are out shopping with your roommate and you both dive into a discussion on the true necessity of clothing within the context of the universal call to poverty

your friends start spontaneously singing Church hymns..in Latin....Fluently

you have applied the mysterious of the rosary to particular life situations multiple times...and your friends agree

you look forward to your 4am adoration shift

where are we all on a Friday evening? The chapel, thats where!

whenever your friends ask for advice, you response is normally "let God's will be done" and"be open to the Holy Spirit"

you have compared your sufferings with that of Christ and suddenly your final doesn't seem so bad..and everyone else in your class wonders what made you so happy

Christ and Socrates: Martyrs to Truth

2007-12-19T12:04:00.000-08:00

This is an essay that I recently wrote for a theology class on martyrdom and thought was decent.

The death of Jesus Christ is for Christians the pre-eminent example of martyrdom. Christ’s status transcends that of all other martyrs because he is the unique archetype after which all other Christian martyrdoms are modeled. Yet Christ’s martyrdom, at least one aspect of his martyrdom, has a historical model in the death of Socrates. The similarities between the two men’s deaths are remarkable. It is difficult to identify either man as a martyr for a single cause. Both abide by the positive law of their respective polities, both acknowledge their obedience to God, both die with assurance of eternal reward and, most importantly, both see themselves as witnesses to Truth. It is in his witness to the Truth that Socrates’ death becomes the prototype for the death of Christ.

Christ and Socrates both die according to the positive law of the state, and both not only accept, but defend the state’s authority to condemn them. Jesus’ quintessential explanation of the role of the state is found in Mt. 22:21. He says, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Here Jesus accepts the authority of the Roman government, and commands his followers to do the same. Jesus’ extends his basic understanding of the nature of political authority to his own trial, and even expands upon this understanding. When speaking with Pontius Pilate, Jesus asserts that Pilate’s political authority comes directly from God. Pilate asks Jesus, “do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” to which Jesus responds, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.” Because the power of earthly rulers comes from God, to disobey the authority of the state is one and the same as disobeying the Father.

Socrates likewise explains the necessity of obedience to the positive law. He refuses to escape his penalty, which is to drink poisonous hemlock. He had the utmost respect for his own city of Athens and thinks that no city can exist “where sentence given has no force but is made null by private persons and destroyed.” The good citizen agrees to “abide by whatever judgments the state may make.” One of Socrates’ primary arguments is that though the state may wrong us, we ought not retaliate by breaking the law, which Socrates sees as an attempt to destroy the state. He says that his escape would be “requiting wrong with wrong and damage with damage.” His condemnation of such vengeful behavior is uncannily like Christ’s command, “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Socrates applies this maxim to obedience of the positive law, even when such obedience is harmful to him and leads to his death. Socrates and Christ both die at the hands of the state without protest. Their acceptance of their respective penalties confirms their belief in obedience to the positive law.

More fundamental than their obedience to the state is their obedience to God. Both Christ and Socrates have the opportunity to escape their fate, but believe that God has ordained their deaths. When Christ is praying in Gethsem’ane, he says to the Father, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Christ turns his life over completely to his Father, and subjugates his own desires to the divine will. When Jesus is captured, he makes it clear that if he so desired, he would be able to escape his captors, but chooses to go with them willingly. He says, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Christ does not avail himself of the possibility to escape because He believes his death is necessary to fulfill that which God has already ordained in Holy Scripture.

Socrates believes his death is necessary not to fulfill the Scriptures, but to best serve his beloved city of Athens. He says, “For this is what God commands me, make no mistake, and I think there is no greater good for you in the city in any way than my service to God.” His death, he believes, is according to the will of God and as such is also good for the state. Like Christ, Socrates could easily escape his punishment if he chose to do so. His friend Criton offers Socrates the chance to flee prison, but Socrates refuses the offer and explains to Criton why he must abide by his sentence. After Socrates has finished his explanation, Criton responds, “I have nothing to say.” To this Socrates says, “Then let it be, Criton, and let us do in this way, since in this way God is leading us.” For Socrates, the will of the state and the will of God are one. Both Christ and Socrates see their deaths as decrees not only of the positive law, but of God Himself. They accept death at the hands of the state because of their obedience to God.

Both men die with firm belief that their obedience to God will win them for themselves eternal reward. In Jn. 16:28, Christ identifies his destination after death: “I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” During his interview with Ca’iaphas, the high priest, Christ declares His exalted role in Heaven. He says, “hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” He is confident in his own coming glory and in his proximity in Heaven to the Father. Although Socrates will not occupy an exalted place in Heaven, he is certain that he will pass into a better place, into the keeping of the gods. He says, “I shall pass over to gods who are very good masters… I have good hopes that something remains for the dead, as has been the belief from time immemorial, and something much better for the good than for the bad.” Socrates classifies himself as one of “the good” people, for whom the afterlife will also be rewarding. Neither Socrates nor Christ has any doubt that what he is doing is for the good and that they will be rewarded for their obedience in the afterworld.

The two men’s hopes for the afterworld are based on their belief in objective goodness, or Truth. Both believe that their teachings and their choices, even the choices that lead to their respective deaths, contain the fullness of that truth. During his trial, Socrates compares the false charges that have been brought against him with his own teachings. Socrates claims that the arguments of his accusers contain hardly a word of truth, but says, “you shall hear from me the whole truth.” The paramount importance of the truth is present for Socrates up until the moment of his death. He is a witness to truth throughout his trial: he will not lie nor renounce his own teachings. He is honest, and yet is condemned by the state.

Christ explicitly identifies his role on earth as that of a witness to truth. “For this I have come into the world,” He says, “to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Christ is a witness, and his witness is universal: his teachings apply to all those who believe in truth everywhere and in every age. Indeed, Christ is not only a witness to the truth, but is truth itself, truth personified. He equates Himself with “the way, the truth and the life” and claims that “no one cometh to the Father, but by me.” Christ’s body is truth incarnate and his very person is the fullness of truth. His whole life and being testify to truth and he is thus the ultimate witness to truth.

Although there are manifold differences between the martyrdoms of Socrates and Christ, what is striking is their similarity, not only in circumstances but in the very words that the two men speak. The similarity between their views of political authority and obedience to God and their respective claims to truth are uncanny. The death of Socrates is a model which is perfected in the death of Christ. Socrates is the first paradigmatic martyr to truth and Christ, who dies 400 years later, is the perfection of martyrdom to truth. Socrates dies because he speaks the truth; Christ is the truth.

You know you're a Catholic nerd when...

2007-12-19T00:13:00.000-08:00

So there is this great blog called the Catholic Nerd Blog (http://catholicnerd.blogspot.com/). I want to pay a little tribute to this very amusing blog by posting a few Catholic "nerdisms" of my own. Here goes!

You know you are a Catholic nerd when...

You call the mass of Pope Pius V the "Trid," or the "Tridi."

You call attending two masses in one day "double dipping."

You can't find a date because all of your male friends plan on entering the clergy.

One of your good friends is more excited about his custom-made cassock than anything else that has happened to him this year...and he's not in the clergy.

Your friend calls you on Saturday night and says, "Hey, want to go to Confession? Bring some friends."

You'd have nothing to do on Friday night if you didn't attend 11:15 pm mass, because all of your friends are there already.

The words "heretic" and "infidel" are a regular part of your vocabulary.

You refer to your Presbyterian friends as "the Protestants."

You can't get through a dinner party without bringing up at least one of the Saints.

You question the morality of 'premarital spooning.'

You use your personal key to your school's chapel to go pray at two thirty in the morning...and you run into somebody you know.

Two of your friends are serving at mass. Friend 1 turns to Friend 2: I think that girl didn't consume the host! Friend 2 looks horrified, and sprints up the aisle after the girl. Turns out she did consume, after all, but you can never be too sure...

Such is my life, people.

The Chapel Veil: Tool of Oppression or Valuable Tradition?

2007-12-18T23:34:00.000-08:00

I recently became very interested in the practice of wearing veils during worship, particularly when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I embarked on a quest to discover all that I could about chapel veils. I want to start out by giving a brief overview of the history of veiling in the Catholic Church, and then offer my own opinion on the subject.

The history of the veil begins in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Paul describes his writing as the Lord’s commandments (1 Cor. 14:37). One of these commandments, the commandment to wear the veil, can be found in 1 Cor. 11:1-16:

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god. 13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Ouch. This passage has no place in our modern conception of the role of women. It is diametrically opposed to modern feminist ideology and as such the passage makes many deeply uncomfortable. We read it and immediately rebel against it; it is at variance with everything we have been taught about woman’s relationship to man. Yet if we are to take Scripture seriously, we cannot ignore it, nor can we simply explain it away.

To accept Paul’s premise is not to accept unbridled oppression of women at the hands of men. Rather, we are accepting a divine hierarchy that was instituted by God for the benefit of all. Paul seems to anticipate that his words could be misconstrued and applied in a way that is damaging to women and attempts to guard against this possibility. He says, “Neither is the man without the women, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God.” Thus men need women just as much as women need men, and men also have responsibilities toward women. In marriage, the husband has authority over his wife, but also duty to her and to their children. Paul’s command is not an argument for the subjugation of women, but for the proper order of all things.

The common arguments for wearing a veil are five, and all can be found in St. Paul’s passage. These five are: 1. The Lord commanded it; 2. It is a visible sign of the invisible order established by God; 3. Angel’s at Mass are offended if the veil is not worn; 4. It is a ceremonial vestmen; 5. It is our heritage.

It is in the modern history of the Church that the question of veiling begins to become interesting and, ultimately, controversial. The practice of veiling was officially incorporated into Canon Law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1262, § 2 says, “Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, should have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”

It is common belief that the Second Vatican Council abolished the requirement of veiling. This, however, is far from accurate. It was not until 1983, nearly 20 years after Vatican II, that the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated. The new Code neither prescribed nor proscribed the practice of veiling; in fact, it made no mention of the practice. The question, then, is whether the new Code nullifies and replaces the old Code or not. Even if the new Code makes null and void all previous laws of the Church, it cannot nullify the commands of Holy Scripture. Thus, Paul’s command remains whether it is contained in formal Church law or not.

The belief that Vatican II explicitly denied the necessity of veiling, which even the Code of 1983 did not do, is not entirely unfounded. Jackie Freppon relates the story of how the confusion began in his article, “The Unveiled Woman.” "During the second Vatican Council," Freppon writes, "a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcover in the churches. His response was that the Bishops were considering other issues, and that women’s veils were not on the agenda. The next day, the international press announced throughout the world that women did not have to wear the veil anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women must still had to wear the veil. But the Press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil as out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups."

The “pressure from feminist groups” that Freppon refers to is no doubt contained in a 1968 pamphlet distributed by the National Organization of Women (NOW):

Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection within many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a ‘national unveiling’ by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches. (Dec. 1968)

If this isn’t a blow at religious freedom and willful dissimulation, I don’t know what it. As troubling as the practice of veiling may be to some women, no command of Holy Scripture, no matter how insignificant we perceive it to be, ought to be neglected, especially when to follow it takes as little effort as donning a head covering.

I myself have recently begun to wear a veil to Tridentine masses on my campus. I wear the veil to the traditional Tridentine mass because I know my choice will be accepted and not cause any controversy. I do not yet wear the veil to Novus Ordo masses. I fear that my choice to wear the veil will spark misunderstanding and possible aversion in my fellow students. May God grant me the courage to obey His commands more fully.

Resources:

General explanation: http://web2.iadfw.net/~carlsch/MaterDei/Library/the_veil.htm
Exegesis: http://www.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm
Purchase veils: http://modestyveils.com/

Bumper Stickers

2007-12-06T00:03:00.000-08:00

My best friend in the whole world, a young lady I have known since my infancy, is a self-professed dirt-worshipping, tree-hugging, bisexual neo-Pagan. To be perfectly honest, I am still trying to discover what exactly all of this implies. This young lady has a penchant for covering her car in bumper stickers. So, for Christmas, I thought I would purchase a few I thought she would like and give them to her. While searching for one in particular I had seen, which reads “Sorry I missed church, I was busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian,” I came across several that really sparked my ire. I’d like to comment on a few of them.

Imagine: Nothing to Kill or Die For
As an ardent defender of the culture of life, I’m right along with the bumper sticker at first. But then comes the “or die” part. Apparently, having nothing to die for is now a utopian ideal. I had always thought that being willing to die for things – for virtue, for love of another, for faith – was a good thing, indeed something intrinsic to human nature. I did not select these three things at random. Rather, they are three of the four categories of martyrdom in the Catholic Church. The Church affirms that dying for these things is a sign of God’s grace. A world without people with belief as great as the martyrs is a bleak vision indeed.

Keep Your Theology off my Biology!
I am not quite sure whether this bumper sticker is supposed to be about abortion or about evolution, but because I am better versed on abortion, I’ll assume it’s the former. Unfortunately, biology confirms the pro-life point of view. Biology shows us that from the moment of conception, a new and genetically distinct life is formed. Biology shows us that from the moment of conception, this new life is a human life because it has human DNA. Scientific technology, specifically ultrasound machines, is one of the pro-life movement’s best allies. It is not religion, nor the pro-life movement, that corrupts biology; rather it is the pro-choice, pro-contraception ideology that corrupts biology. When scientific definitions become inconvenient for pro-choicers, they simply change them.

Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities:
I completely agree with this statement, but perhaps would apply it somewhat differently than its makers intended. I can only assume they are referring to our current government, which has ‘brainwashed’ the American population into fighting an ‘atrocious’ war against poor Iraq. Yet I would apply this statement to something rather different. The absurdities that so many people believe in today are moral relativism and a notion of human rights without any grounding in natural law or theology. Many atrocities are committed in the name of these absurdities, but the most obviously heinous is the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children in the form of procured abortion.

Those Who Would Give Up Essential Liberty to Purchase Temporary Safety Deserve Neither Liberty nor Safety – Benjamin Franklin:
Again, I don’t disagree with the statement, but its application. I assume that this one is again referring to the Iraq war. Those opposed to enhanced security measures in a time of war misunderstand something fundamental: there can be no freedom without security and order. Freedom and liberty are impossible without security. Lack of security threatens even the most essential freedom – the freedom to simply be alive. Further, there is a distinct difference between measures that procure temporary safety, and temporary measures that procure safety.

There Never Was a Good War or a Bad Peace – Benjamin Franklin:
1. There has never been a good war, but there may very well have been justified wars. WWII – ring any bells? 2. Lack of war does not imply peace – sometimes it implies utter chaos and disordered violence. Today’s wars predominantly seek to contain or limit evil and violence.

What Exactly Are Conservatives Conserving?
Tradition, values, morality, family, society, Western civilization, faith, freedom, principles, personal responsibility, the rights of the individual, the dignity of each and every human being, modesty, respect, community… nothing really important, I suppose.