You know you are a Catholic nerd...

When instead of sharing clothes and hairstyling tips, you and your girlfriends share confessors and encyclicals.

When you and your friend fight over the last remaining copy of "Spirit of the Liturgy" at Barnes and Noble.

When you wonder why the words "paten" and "thurible" are one of the highest vocabulary levels on FreeRice.com... doesn't everybody know those??

Catholic Voting

It's getting closer and closer to elections and the debate is raging: are Catholics morally obliged to vote for a particular party/candidate? The best article I have seen that deals with this issue is Bill Donahue's article "Catholic Left Hangs Itself," on InsideCatholic.com. Clearly, it is a very biased article, but it nevertheless brings up a couple of crucial points.

I have always seen a clear distinction between social issues and economic issues, though I do see them as interconnected. Luckily for me, I fall on the conservative side on both counts. Yet social issues have always been more important for me. When I say "social issues," I am referring to issues such as abortion, marriage and the family, etc. By "economic issues," on the other hand, I mean the policies we implement to combat poverty, poor education, substandard housing, etc. I'm not sure that these are the most accurate terms to group these issues, but bear with me. The social issues could also be called "undebatable issues," because, for Catholics, the debate on these issues is closed. The Church does not permit a plurality of opinion about them. It has been made unequivocally clear what a faithful Catholic must believe about these topics.

Economic issues, on the other hand, could be called "debatable issues," because the Church allows for debate. With the exception of condemning Communism, the Church makes no unequivocal statements about economic systems or policy. All faithful Catholics must, certainly, strive to eliminate poverty and sub-standard housing, and improve education, certainly, but the Church permits debate about how best to do so. Liberals think that the best way to do so is to pour more and more money into failing government systems; Conservatives think that the best way to do so is to encourage private businesses and charities (including the Church!). But the Church neither condemns nor approves either opinion. Each side can find Bishops to defend their positions, but there is no consensus.

In his article, Donahue quotes Pope Benedict in an attempt to make just this point. "On May 13," he writes, "Pope Benedict XVI told Italian pro-lifers that 'the Church's Magisterium' has always proclaimed abortion to be 'non-negotiable.' He didn't use that term to refer to the minimum wage, dilapidated housing, or Third World debt."

And so the social, or undebatable, issues must always take precedence when a Catholic decides who to vote for, even when that Catholic thinks the liberal solution to economic issues is preferable. This is because to vote for a politician who stands against the Church on undebatable issues is an act of disobedience to Church teaching, whereas to vote for a politician whom you disagree with on the debatable issues is clearly not.


Another important quote Donahue uses comes from Archbishop Chaput. Chaput writes that Catholic voters may vote for a pro-choice politician when they have a "proportionate reason." He defines a proportionate reason as "the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."

This is a powerful quote, and one that should give any Catholic considering voting for a pro-choice candidate pause. What Donahue doesn't tackle, but I think this quote speaks to, is the question of war. One of the most popular arguments of Catholics who vote for pro-choice Democrats is that the Democrats are less bellicose. Although Bush may be pro-life, pro-marriage, etc., he has led us into an unjust war that has led to the deaths of millions of people. This is certainly true, and as Catholics we are called on to pray for the end to all wars. However, it A) has no bearing whatsoever on who we choose to vote for in this election and B) doesn't strike me as a proportional reason, at all.

Now, I am not a utilitarian, but in this case I think it is relevant to look at numbers. McCain, the current Republican nominee, supports a war that has led to the deaths of up to 4,000 coalition troops and about 100,000 Iraqis (some from violence, some from disease, etc.) since it began 5 years ago. Hillary and Obama, on the other hand, support policy that leads to the death of the same number of utterly defenseless unborn children EVERY MONTH. Since we apparently can't have it both ways (and in point of fact neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to stem the violence in Iraq better than can McCain), I think we should heed Archbishop Chaput and consider how we will explain our voting choices in the hereafter.

Conclusion: McCain '08.

Feministing.com - always entertaining

So, during one of my regular feministing.com sessions, I came across a couple of interesting things.

First, apparently until the 1940s, pink was pegged as the color for boys because it was seen as more masculine, whereas blue was considered more dainty and delicate, and therefore appropriate for girls. I know more than a couple boys who would welcome a return of this notion, but I just can't seem to get my head around it. Pink is so girly in my mind! It scares me when I start to think there may be something to this "societal construct" business... At any rate, this is just an interesting trivia tidbit, but the feminists, of course, are hopping mad, because it proves that gender stereotypes that exist now were slightly different before 1940 but were still gender stereotypes. Clearly, this is evil incarnate.

My favorite line from this post, though, is when the blogger writes "I went to a friend’s baby shower the other day and literally 95% of the gifts were blue. You can guess what the gender is anticipated to be." Anticipated to be??? Because sonograms are magical machines that predict what the sex of a child will be when it becomes a child at birth. Amazing how the warped logic of pro-choiciness applies even to the case of a pregnant friend who plans to have her baby! Because it can't have a gender before it is really a person, right? So how could an unborn baby really have a gender? Well, let's see now...

Another quaint (in a good way) notion that feminists are really ticked off about today is the notion of men paying for young ladies. There is a cute Dairy Queen ad in which a little girl smiles at a little boy, and he buys her an ice cream. Admittedly, when she tells her mother it is "like shooting fish in a barrel," the ad becomes a bit odd, but overall still a cute ad. Well, the feminists are, of course, infuriated. Here are some of the reasons I encountered in the feministing.com comments section:

1. It supports the evil dynamic whereby a man pays for a woman.
2. It sexualizes a little girl because the dynamic is, apparently, that when a man pays for a woman she is expected to sleep with him.
3. It is somehow related to alcohol insofar as bars as the places where men most often pay for women.
4. It portrays all women as manipulative gold diggers.

My responses:

1. Not evil. Antiquated, maybe, but still very much appreciated!! Only on feministing.com will you find nearly 70 women who aren't flattered when their date pays for them. In the rest of the world, that is, the sane world, a girl is a little peeved when a date doesn't pay for them, not when he does!

2. I think this must be a product of the fact that all feminists can think of, apparently, is sex. Everything, everything, everything seems to be connected to sex! In what strange universe does having a man pay for you = being required to sleep with him? Ironically, it is probably the girls who are least likely to sleep with a man on a first date, or even kiss on the first date, who are most comfortable with the traditional gender roles that give rise to this scenario.

3. Again, I can see no other explanation for this other than that perhaps these women who are commenting spend far too much time in bars! Neither sex nor alcohol came to my mind when viewing this ad.

4. Apparently feministing.com commenters live in a booze-soaked, sex-saturated world where men have no other motive than to get girls into bed and all women who don't burn their bras in defiance of gender norms are money grubbing, manipulative witches. As scary as this world can be sometimes, I thank the Lord I live in an entirely separate universe from these nutjobs.

I will resist the temptation to say, "don't these looney bins have something better to do with their time?" (Along the feminist line of things - fight rape, violence and STDs in productive, not destructive ways or help support poor women by offering job training, material assistance, counseling, etc), but, clearly, I am wasting my own time reading their inane comments about mundane things and writing whole blog entries in response, so I would just be the pot calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, I am continually amazed by the quotidian things these women get so worked up over.

I am probably just brainwashed by the patriarchy to not even notice when my fundamental rights as a woman are being violated by cutesy ads and gender-assigned colors!! That is how insidious patriarchal control is - I don't even notice when it is happening!! Ah!!! Nobody is safe!

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

So, I have come to the realization that most of my and my friends' 'Catholic nerdiness' is in fact liturgical snobbery. So in that vein, you know you're a liturgical snob when...

Instead of thinking your mom is uncool for being out of touch with pop culture, you think she is uncool because, and I quote, "I mean, she doesn't even know what a pontifical high Mass is!."

Your favorite stories are those about protecting the Eucharist from desecration.

In response to the suggestion that you attend a novus ordo Mass on Pentacost, you reply, "Are you kidding? Pentecost?? You think I am going to miss superb Gregorian chant on PENTECOST!??"

You attempt to find a set of vestments on Ebay because you don't have the proper set and are appalled by the suggestion that the principle celebrant wear a different color, even if all colors involved might be, in strictly technical terms, appropriate.

You picked up on every well-hidden facial suggestion of Benedict's disapproval of the music at the National's Stadium Mass. You call these glances "Pope eyes."

You distinguish people by which campus Mass they attend. As in, "Well, she's very conservative, but she attends the 8 pm," or, "I mean, if he went to Georgetown, he'd probably attend the 8 pm." Such statements are typically followed by a smirk and knowing nod.

More on MOTHER GAIA

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

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

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