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.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Trid: Why You Should Love It
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.
*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
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.
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
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.
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.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Article for the Georgetown Academy
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).
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).
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
"They've replaced the Body of Christ with a plant!"
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?
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?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Stop Drop and Roll Won't Work in Hell!
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.
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
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*
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*
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
You know you are a Catholic nerd when...
... 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 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.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
You know you are a Catholic nerd when...
... 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.
... 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.
Friday, May 23, 2008
My New Blog
It is my last day of work at the Heritage Foundation, and I have finished all of my projects. Hence, three posts in one day and... a new blog! My new blog is called Nun Fun in Dixieland and is located at http://www.nunfunindixieland.blogspot.com/ and is also linked at right. This new blog will chronicle my adventures in Frenchburg, KY, where I will be volunteering for seven weeks this summer with the Glenmary Sisters. I will continue to update this blog, as well.
You know you are a Catholic nerd...
When instead of sharing clothes and hairstyling tips, you and your girlfriends share confessors and encyclicals.
When you and your friend fight over the last remaining copy of "Spirit of the Liturgy" at Barnes and Noble.
When you wonder why the words "paten" and "thurible" are one of the highest vocabulary levels on FreeRice.com... doesn't everybody know those??
When you and your friend fight over the last remaining copy of "Spirit of the Liturgy" at Barnes and Noble.
When you wonder why the words "paten" and "thurible" are one of the highest vocabulary levels on FreeRice.com... doesn't everybody know those??
Catholic Voting
It's getting closer and closer to elections and the debate is raging: are Catholics morally obliged to vote for a particular party/candidate? The best article I have seen that deals with this issue is Bill Donahue's article "Catholic Left Hangs Itself," on InsideCatholic.com. Clearly, it is a very biased article, but it nevertheless brings up a couple of crucial points.
I have always seen a clear distinction between social issues and economic issues, though I do see them as interconnected. Luckily for me, I fall on the conservative side on both counts. Yet social issues have always been more important for me. When I say "social issues," I am referring to issues such as abortion, marriage and the family, etc. By "economic issues," on the other hand, I mean the policies we implement to combat poverty, poor education, substandard housing, etc. I'm not sure that these are the most accurate terms to group these issues, but bear with me. The social issues could also be called "undebatable issues," because, for Catholics, the debate on these issues is closed. The Church does not permit a plurality of opinion about them. It has been made unequivocally clear what a faithful Catholic must believe about these topics.
Economic issues, on the other hand, could be called "debatable issues," because the Church allows for debate. With the exception of condemning Communism, the Church makes no unequivocal statements about economic systems or policy. All faithful Catholics must, certainly, strive to eliminate poverty and sub-standard housing, and improve education, certainly, but the Church permits debate about how best to do so. Liberals think that the best way to do so is to pour more and more money into failing government systems; Conservatives think that the best way to do so is to encourage private businesses and charities (including the Church!). But the Church neither condemns nor approves either opinion. Each side can find Bishops to defend their positions, but there is no consensus.
In his article, Donahue quotes Pope Benedict in an attempt to make just this point. "On May 13," he writes, "Pope Benedict XVI told Italian pro-lifers that 'the Church's Magisterium' has always proclaimed abortion to be 'non-negotiable.' He didn't use that term to refer to the minimum wage, dilapidated housing, or Third World debt."
And so the social, or undebatable, issues must always take precedence when a Catholic decides who to vote for, even when that Catholic thinks the liberal solution to economic issues is preferable. This is because to vote for a politician who stands against the Church on undebatable issues is an act of disobedience to Church teaching, whereas to vote for a politician whom you disagree with on the debatable issues is clearly not.
Another important quote Donahue uses comes from Archbishop Chaput. Chaput writes that Catholic voters may vote for a pro-choice politician when they have a "proportionate reason." He defines a proportionate reason as "the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
This is a powerful quote, and one that should give any Catholic considering voting for a pro-choice candidate pause. What Donahue doesn't tackle, but I think this quote speaks to, is the question of war. One of the most popular arguments of Catholics who vote for pro-choice Democrats is that the Democrats are less bellicose. Although Bush may be pro-life, pro-marriage, etc., he has led us into an unjust war that has led to the deaths of millions of people. This is certainly true, and as Catholics we are called on to pray for the end to all wars. However, it A) has no bearing whatsoever on who we choose to vote for in this election and B) doesn't strike me as a proportional reason, at all.
Now, I am not a utilitarian, but in this case I think it is relevant to look at numbers. McCain, the current Republican nominee, supports a war that has led to the deaths of up to 4,000 coalition troops and about 100,000 Iraqis (some from violence, some from disease, etc.) since it began 5 years ago. Hillary and Obama, on the other hand, support policy that leads to the death of the same number of utterly defenseless unborn children EVERY MONTH. Since we apparently can't have it both ways (and in point of fact neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to stem the violence in Iraq better than can McCain), I think we should heed Archbishop Chaput and consider how we will explain our voting choices in the hereafter.
Conclusion: McCain '08.
I have always seen a clear distinction between social issues and economic issues, though I do see them as interconnected. Luckily for me, I fall on the conservative side on both counts. Yet social issues have always been more important for me. When I say "social issues," I am referring to issues such as abortion, marriage and the family, etc. By "economic issues," on the other hand, I mean the policies we implement to combat poverty, poor education, substandard housing, etc. I'm not sure that these are the most accurate terms to group these issues, but bear with me. The social issues could also be called "undebatable issues," because, for Catholics, the debate on these issues is closed. The Church does not permit a plurality of opinion about them. It has been made unequivocally clear what a faithful Catholic must believe about these topics.
Economic issues, on the other hand, could be called "debatable issues," because the Church allows for debate. With the exception of condemning Communism, the Church makes no unequivocal statements about economic systems or policy. All faithful Catholics must, certainly, strive to eliminate poverty and sub-standard housing, and improve education, certainly, but the Church permits debate about how best to do so. Liberals think that the best way to do so is to pour more and more money into failing government systems; Conservatives think that the best way to do so is to encourage private businesses and charities (including the Church!). But the Church neither condemns nor approves either opinion. Each side can find Bishops to defend their positions, but there is no consensus.
In his article, Donahue quotes Pope Benedict in an attempt to make just this point. "On May 13," he writes, "Pope Benedict XVI told Italian pro-lifers that 'the Church's Magisterium' has always proclaimed abortion to be 'non-negotiable.' He didn't use that term to refer to the minimum wage, dilapidated housing, or Third World debt."
And so the social, or undebatable, issues must always take precedence when a Catholic decides who to vote for, even when that Catholic thinks the liberal solution to economic issues is preferable. This is because to vote for a politician who stands against the Church on undebatable issues is an act of disobedience to Church teaching, whereas to vote for a politician whom you disagree with on the debatable issues is clearly not.
Another important quote Donahue uses comes from Archbishop Chaput. Chaput writes that Catholic voters may vote for a pro-choice politician when they have a "proportionate reason." He defines a proportionate reason as "the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
This is a powerful quote, and one that should give any Catholic considering voting for a pro-choice candidate pause. What Donahue doesn't tackle, but I think this quote speaks to, is the question of war. One of the most popular arguments of Catholics who vote for pro-choice Democrats is that the Democrats are less bellicose. Although Bush may be pro-life, pro-marriage, etc., he has led us into an unjust war that has led to the deaths of millions of people. This is certainly true, and as Catholics we are called on to pray for the end to all wars. However, it A) has no bearing whatsoever on who we choose to vote for in this election and B) doesn't strike me as a proportional reason, at all.
Now, I am not a utilitarian, but in this case I think it is relevant to look at numbers. McCain, the current Republican nominee, supports a war that has led to the deaths of up to 4,000 coalition troops and about 100,000 Iraqis (some from violence, some from disease, etc.) since it began 5 years ago. Hillary and Obama, on the other hand, support policy that leads to the death of the same number of utterly defenseless unborn children EVERY MONTH. Since we apparently can't have it both ways (and in point of fact neither Obama nor Hillary will be able to stem the violence in Iraq better than can McCain), I think we should heed Archbishop Chaput and consider how we will explain our voting choices in the hereafter.
Conclusion: McCain '08.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Feministing.com - always entertaining
So, during one of my regular feministing.com sessions, I came across a couple of interesting things.
First, apparently until the 1940s, pink was pegged as the color for boys because it was seen as more masculine, whereas blue was considered more dainty and delicate, and therefore appropriate for girls. I know more than a couple boys who would welcome a return of this notion, but I just can't seem to get my head around it. Pink is so girly in my mind! It scares me when I start to think there may be something to this "societal construct" business... At any rate, this is just an interesting trivia tidbit, but the feminists, of course, are hopping mad, because it proves that gender stereotypes that exist now were slightly different before 1940 but were still gender stereotypes. Clearly, this is evil incarnate.
My favorite line from this post, though, is when the blogger writes "I went to a friend’s baby shower the other day and literally 95% of the gifts were blue. You can guess what the gender is anticipated to be." Anticipated to be??? Because sonograms are magical machines that predict what the sex of a child will be when it becomes a child at birth. Amazing how the warped logic of pro-choiciness applies even to the case of a pregnant friend who plans to have her baby! Because it can't have a gender before it is really a person, right? So how could an unborn baby really have a gender? Well, let's see now...
Another quaint (in a good way) notion that feminists are really ticked off about today is the notion of men paying for young ladies. There is a cute Dairy Queen ad in which a little girl smiles at a little boy, and he buys her an ice cream. Admittedly, when she tells her mother it is "like shooting fish in a barrel," the ad becomes a bit odd, but overall still a cute ad. Well, the feminists are, of course, infuriated. Here are some of the reasons I encountered in the feministing.com comments section:
1. It supports the evil dynamic whereby a man pays for a woman.
2. It sexualizes a little girl because the dynamic is, apparently, that when a man pays for a woman she is expected to sleep with him.
3. It is somehow related to alcohol insofar as bars as the places where men most often pay for women.
4. It portrays all women as manipulative gold diggers.
My responses:
1. Not evil. Antiquated, maybe, but still very much appreciated!! Only on feministing.com will you find nearly 70 women who aren't flattered when their date pays for them. In the rest of the world, that is, the sane world, a girl is a little peeved when a date doesn't pay for them, not when he does!
2. I think this must be a product of the fact that all feminists can think of, apparently, is sex. Everything, everything, everything seems to be connected to sex! In what strange universe does having a man pay for you = being required to sleep with him? Ironically, it is probably the girls who are least likely to sleep with a man on a first date, or even kiss on the first date, who are most comfortable with the traditional gender roles that give rise to this scenario.
3. Again, I can see no other explanation for this other than that perhaps these women who are commenting spend far too much time in bars! Neither sex nor alcohol came to my mind when viewing this ad.
4. Apparently feministing.com commenters live in a booze-soaked, sex-saturated world where men have no other motive than to get girls into bed and all women who don't burn their bras in defiance of gender norms are money grubbing, manipulative witches. As scary as this world can be sometimes, I thank the Lord I live in an entirely separate universe from these nutjobs.
I will resist the temptation to say, "don't these looney bins have something better to do with their time?" (Along the feminist line of things - fight rape, violence and STDs in productive, not destructive ways or help support poor women by offering job training, material assistance, counseling, etc), but, clearly, I am wasting my own time reading their inane comments about mundane things and writing whole blog entries in response, so I would just be the pot calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, I am continually amazed by the quotidian things these women get so worked up over.
I am probably just brainwashed by the patriarchy to not even notice when my fundamental rights as a woman are being violated by cutesy ads and gender-assigned colors!! That is how insidious patriarchal control is - I don't even notice when it is happening!! Ah!!! Nobody is safe!
First, apparently until the 1940s, pink was pegged as the color for boys because it was seen as more masculine, whereas blue was considered more dainty and delicate, and therefore appropriate for girls. I know more than a couple boys who would welcome a return of this notion, but I just can't seem to get my head around it. Pink is so girly in my mind! It scares me when I start to think there may be something to this "societal construct" business... At any rate, this is just an interesting trivia tidbit, but the feminists, of course, are hopping mad, because it proves that gender stereotypes that exist now were slightly different before 1940 but were still gender stereotypes. Clearly, this is evil incarnate.
My favorite line from this post, though, is when the blogger writes "I went to a friend’s baby shower the other day and literally 95% of the gifts were blue. You can guess what the gender is anticipated to be." Anticipated to be??? Because sonograms are magical machines that predict what the sex of a child will be when it becomes a child at birth. Amazing how the warped logic of pro-choiciness applies even to the case of a pregnant friend who plans to have her baby! Because it can't have a gender before it is really a person, right? So how could an unborn baby really have a gender? Well, let's see now...
Another quaint (in a good way) notion that feminists are really ticked off about today is the notion of men paying for young ladies. There is a cute Dairy Queen ad in which a little girl smiles at a little boy, and he buys her an ice cream. Admittedly, when she tells her mother it is "like shooting fish in a barrel," the ad becomes a bit odd, but overall still a cute ad. Well, the feminists are, of course, infuriated. Here are some of the reasons I encountered in the feministing.com comments section:
1. It supports the evil dynamic whereby a man pays for a woman.
2. It sexualizes a little girl because the dynamic is, apparently, that when a man pays for a woman she is expected to sleep with him.
3. It is somehow related to alcohol insofar as bars as the places where men most often pay for women.
4. It portrays all women as manipulative gold diggers.
My responses:
1. Not evil. Antiquated, maybe, but still very much appreciated!! Only on feministing.com will you find nearly 70 women who aren't flattered when their date pays for them. In the rest of the world, that is, the sane world, a girl is a little peeved when a date doesn't pay for them, not when he does!
2. I think this must be a product of the fact that all feminists can think of, apparently, is sex. Everything, everything, everything seems to be connected to sex! In what strange universe does having a man pay for you = being required to sleep with him? Ironically, it is probably the girls who are least likely to sleep with a man on a first date, or even kiss on the first date, who are most comfortable with the traditional gender roles that give rise to this scenario.
3. Again, I can see no other explanation for this other than that perhaps these women who are commenting spend far too much time in bars! Neither sex nor alcohol came to my mind when viewing this ad.
4. Apparently feministing.com commenters live in a booze-soaked, sex-saturated world where men have no other motive than to get girls into bed and all women who don't burn their bras in defiance of gender norms are money grubbing, manipulative witches. As scary as this world can be sometimes, I thank the Lord I live in an entirely separate universe from these nutjobs.
I will resist the temptation to say, "don't these looney bins have something better to do with their time?" (Along the feminist line of things - fight rape, violence and STDs in productive, not destructive ways or help support poor women by offering job training, material assistance, counseling, etc), but, clearly, I am wasting my own time reading their inane comments about mundane things and writing whole blog entries in response, so I would just be the pot calling the kettle black. Nevertheless, I am continually amazed by the quotidian things these women get so worked up over.
I am probably just brainwashed by the patriarchy to not even notice when my fundamental rights as a woman are being violated by cutesy ads and gender-assigned colors!! That is how insidious patriarchal control is - I don't even notice when it is happening!! Ah!!! Nobody is safe!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
You know you're a liturgical snob when...
So, I have come to the realization that most of my and my friends' 'Catholic nerdiness' is in fact liturgical snobbery. So in that vein, you know you're a liturgical snob when...
Instead of thinking your mom is uncool for being out of touch with pop culture, you think she is uncool because, and I quote, "I mean, she doesn't even know what a pontifical high Mass is!."
Your favorite stories are those about protecting the Eucharist from desecration.
In response to the suggestion that you attend a novus ordo Mass on Pentacost, you reply, "Are you kidding? Pentecost?? You think I am going to miss superb Gregorian chant on PENTECOST!??"
You attempt to find a set of vestments on Ebay because you don't have the proper set and are appalled by the suggestion that the principle celebrant wear a different color, even if all colors involved might be, in strictly technical terms, appropriate.
You picked up on every well-hidden facial suggestion of Benedict's disapproval of the music at the National's Stadium Mass. You call these glances "Pope eyes."
You distinguish people by which campus Mass they attend. As in, "Well, she's very conservative, but she attends the 8 pm," or, "I mean, if he went to Georgetown, he'd probably attend the 8 pm." Such statements are typically followed by a smirk and knowing nod.
Instead of thinking your mom is uncool for being out of touch with pop culture, you think she is uncool because, and I quote, "I mean, she doesn't even know what a pontifical high Mass is!."
Your favorite stories are those about protecting the Eucharist from desecration.
In response to the suggestion that you attend a novus ordo Mass on Pentacost, you reply, "Are you kidding? Pentecost?? You think I am going to miss superb Gregorian chant on PENTECOST!??"
You attempt to find a set of vestments on Ebay because you don't have the proper set and are appalled by the suggestion that the principle celebrant wear a different color, even if all colors involved might be, in strictly technical terms, appropriate.
You picked up on every well-hidden facial suggestion of Benedict's disapproval of the music at the National's Stadium Mass. You call these glances "Pope eyes."
You distinguish people by which campus Mass they attend. As in, "Well, she's very conservative, but she attends the 8 pm," or, "I mean, if he went to Georgetown, he'd probably attend the 8 pm." Such statements are typically followed by a smirk and knowing nod.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
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
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
Sunday, April 20, 2008
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
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
Thursday, April 10, 2008
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
http://www.uspapalvisit.org/stories/vmessage.htm
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
COME TO THIS EVENT!!
"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
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
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Things I like/ don't like:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)