Sexual Souls

Have you ever wondered if your soul is male or female? During the time that our souls are separated from our bodies - between death and the Resurrection - will we have gender? Our souls are indeed sexed; they are not sexually neutral or unisex. In his book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven, Peter Kreeft has a chapter entitled "Is there Sex in Heaven?" Despite my initial assumption, Kreeft is not asking if there is sexual intercourse in heaven (although he does touch on that toward the chapter's end), rather he is examining the gender of our souls.

In our present embodied state, the sexes are equal in value and dignity but they are nonetheless intrinsically different; male and female are not equal in nature. Kreeft (and the Catholic Church) holds that "sexuality is part of our inner essence." It is intrinsic to who we are at our core. If this is the case, "then it follows that there is sexuality in Heaven.” After all, grace perfects nature, it does not replace it, according to the Church.

Kreeft explains:

If sexual differences are natural, they are preserved in Heaven, for 'grace does not destroy nature but perfects it.' If sexual differences are only humanly and socially conventional, Heaven will remove them as it will remove economics and penology and politics. (Not many of us have job security after death. That is one advantage of being a philosopher.) All these things came after and because of the Fall, but sexuality came as part of God's original package: 'be fruitful and multiply.' God may
unmake what we make, but He does not unmake what He makes. God
made sex, and God makes no mistakes. . . . The body is not a mistake to be
unmade or a prison cell to be freed from, but a divine work of art designed to
show forth the soul as the soul is to show forth God. . . .

The reason this subject interests me, is because I am always curious about the differences between men and women. Isn't the opposite sex so enigmatic sometimes? Heck, I find my own sex enigmatic. ;-D Thinking about engendered souls is a whole new aspect of this topic which I have never before contemplated.

“For some strange reason people are shocked at the notion of sexual souls,” Kreeft says. “They not only disagree; the idea seems utterly crude, superstitious, repugnant, and incredible to them.” If we believe that the body is bad, crude, sinful, and/or a temporary shell, then it is easy to view the soul as a perfect essence imprisoned and in need of liberation from our corrupt flesh. In this view, a person is a “ghost in a machine . . . [where] one half of the person can be totally different from the other: the body can be sexual without the soul being sexual. The machine is sexed, the ghost is not,” writes Kreeft.

Kreeft points out that God invites each of us into relationship with Himself as the men and women He created us as – not as “monosexual souls”. I am fascinated by the beautiful differences of the sexes in our embodied states. The complimentarity God has designed is intriguing and awe inspiring. I am fascinated with John Paul II's teachings on the Theology of the Body which so thoroughly examine how both sexes uniquely image the very relationship within the Trinity. Although God is spirit and neither male nor female, He did create men and women in His image. (Yeah, we always refer to God as He.) If we are in God's image then each of the essential attributes of maleness and femaleness originate in God.

Kreeft comments:

A wholly male soul, whatever maleness means, or a wholly female soul, sounds unreal and oversimplified. But that is not what sexual souls implies. Rather, in every soul there is-to use Jungian terms- anima and animus, femaleness and maleness: just as in the body, one predominates but the other is also present.

I suppose Kreeft anticipated questions regarding hermaphrodism as well as the issue of persons who feel that they are the opposite sex "inside" from what they are externally. He writes, tongue in cheek . . .

If the dominant sex of soul is not the same as that of the body, we have a sexual misfit, a candidate for a sex change operation of body and soul, earthly or Heavenly. Perhaps Heaven supplies such changes just as it supplies all other needed forms of healing. In any case, the resurrection body perfectly expresses its soul, and since souls are innately sexual, that body will perfectly express its soul's true sexual identity.

Another controversy regarding the idea of sexed souls is that many hold a pantheistic "view of spirit as undifferentiated," as becoming one with some great Spirit and "leaving behind all the distinctions known to the body and the senses." "But this," Kreeft explains, "is not the Christian notion of spirit. . . . To call God infinite is not to say He is everything in general and nothing in particular: that is confusing God with The Blob! God's infinity means that each of His positive and definitive attributes, such as love, wisdom, power, justice, and fidelity, is unlimited."

Kreeft also says:

Spirit is no less differentiated, articulated, structured, or formed than matter. The fact that our own spirit can suffer and rejoice far more, more delicately and exquisitely, and in a far greater variety of ways, than can the body- this fact should be evidence of spirit's complexity. . . .

God is infinitely differentiated, for He is the Author of all differences, all forms. . . . Each act of creation in Genesis is an act of differentiation - light from darkness, land from sea, animals from plants, and so on. Creating is forming, and forming is differentiating. Materialism believes differences in form are utterly illusory appearance; the only root reality is matter. Pantheism also believes differences in form are ultimately illusory; the only root reality is one universal Spirit. But theism believes form is real because God created it. And whatever positive reality is in the creation must have its model in the Creator.

Before moving on to Kreeft's comments on sexual intercourse and the afterlife, I just want to remind you of a quote frequently repeated by our former Holy Father, Pope John Paul II:

Christ reveals man to himself.

Just contemplate this in regards to the issues Kreeft has already raised concerning our engendered souls.

Okay, are you ready? As for sexual intercourse in heaven, Kreeft writes that in heaven . . .

. . . all earthly perversions of true sexuality are overcome, especially the master perversion, selfishness. To make self God, to desire selfish pleasure as the summum bonum, is not only to miss God but to miss pleasure and self as well, and to miss the glory and joy of sex. Jesus did not merely say, 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God', but also added that 'all these things shall be added' when we put first things first. Each story fits better when the foundation is put first.

C. S. Lewis calls this the principle of "first and second things". In any area of life, putting second things first loses not only the first things but also the second things, and putting first things first gains not only the first things but the second things as well. So to treat sexual pleasure as God is to miss not only God but sexual pleasure too.

The highest pleasure always comes in self-forgetfulness. . . The self has a built-in, God-imaging design of self-fulfillment by self-forgetfulness, pleasure through unselfishness, ecstasy by ekstasis, "standing-outside-the-self". This is not the self-conscious self-sacrifice of the do-gooder but the spontaneous, unconscious generosity of the lover.

(Rodin, Auguste. The Kiss, 1886. )

If there is sexual intercourse in heaven it is not for "baby-making". Kreeft says, "Earth is the breeding colony; Heaven is the homeland." Christ makes clear that at the resurrection we will not be married or given in marriage.

Kreeft asks, "Might there be another function in which baby-making and marriage are swallowed up and transformed? Everything on earth is analogous to something in Heaven. . ."

Sexual intercourse is spiritual. Kreeft says, "We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." He continues that "God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment." He says that, "Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue." Uh, yeah, "promiscuity of spirit" sounds a bit crass, but I understand what he's trying to convey.

This sort of intimacy is different from romantic love here on earth because it is "free, not driven; from soul to body, not from body to soul." Intimacy with others in heaven is not opposed to or apart from our relationship with God, but rather it is "a part of it or a consequence of it." Communion of saints is God's own invention! Our relationships with one another in heaven will be "totally unselfconscious and unselfish: the ethical goodness of agape joined to the passion of eros; agape without external, abstract law and duty, and eros without selfishness or animal drives."

These thoughts thrill me and give me great hope because you know as well as I do that no matter how close you get to someone you love physically or emotionally, it is still not possible to fully know one another down to the minutest detail of their being. Heck, we don't even know ourselves to that degree; only God does! In heaven, we can most fully know ourselves, and know one another. In heaven, we canexpress love and experience the deepest intimacy possible with those whom we now love on earth. (This is a good reason to express your love to others here on earth in such a way as to help you both get to heaven. I mean, if one or both of you leave this life out of relationship with our God and Creator, then . . . well . . . you won't get to experience this ultimate, heavenly knowing of one another.)

After the Resurrection we will all be embodied in Heaven as Mary and Christ are already. We'll be able to eat and to be touched. Therefore physical intercourse is possible. Why would we actualize this potential? Why not?

Kreeft offers the following explanation:

Animal reasons for intercourse include (i) the conscious drive for pleasure and (2) the unconscious drive to perpetuate the species. Both would be absent in Heaven. For although there are unimaginably great pleasures in Heaven, we are not driven by them. And the species is complete in eternity: no need for breeding.

Transhuman reasons for intercourse include (i) idolatrous love of the beloved as a substitute for God and (2) the Dante-Beatrice love of the beloved as an image of God. As to the first, there is, of course, no idolatry in Heaven. No substitutes for God are even tempting when God Himself is present. As to the second, the earthly beloved was a window to God, a mirror reflecting the divine beauty. That is why the lover was so smitten. Now that the reality is present, why stare at the mirror? The impulse to adore has found its perfect object.

Specifically human reasons for intercourse include (1) consummating a monogamous marriage and (2) the desire to express personal love. As to the first, there is no marriage in Heaven. But what of the second?

. . . Even the most satisfying earthly intercourse between spouses cannot perfectly express all their love. If the possibility of intercourse in Heaven is not actualized, it is only for the same reason earthly lovers do not eat candy during intercourse: there is something much better to do. The question of intercourse in Heaven is like the child's question whether you can eat candy during intercourse: a funny question only from the adult's point of view. Candy is one of children's greatest pleasures; how can they conceive a pleasure so intense that it renders candy irrelevant?

This spiritual intercourse with God is the ecstasy hinted at in all earthly intercourse, physical or spiritual. It is the ultimate reason why sexual passion is so strong, so different from other passions, so heavy with suggestions of profound meanings that just elude our grasp. No mere practical needs account for it. No mere animal drive explains it. No animal falls in love, writes profound romantic poetry, or sees sex as a symbol of the ultimate meaning of life because no animal is made in the image of God. Human sexuality is that image, and human sexuality is a foretaste of that self-giving, that losing and finding the self, that oneness-in-manyness that is the heart of the life and joy of the Trinity. That is what we long for; that is why we tremble to stand outside ourselves in the other, to give our whole selves, body and soul: because we are images of God the sexual being. We love the other sex because God loves God.

And this earthly love is so passionate because Heaven is full of passion, of energy and dynamism. We correctly deny that God has passions in the passive sense, being moved, driven, or conditioned by them, as we are. But to think of the love that made the worlds, the love that became human, suffered alienation from itself and died to save us rebels, the love that gleams through the fanatic joy of Jesus' obedience to the will of His Father and that shines in the eyes and lives of the saints—to think of this love as any less passionate than our temporary and conditioned passions "is a most disastrous fantasy". And that consuming fire of love is our destined Husband, according to His own promise.

Why Everyone Cannot Receive Holy Communion

Holy Communion

When you love someone so much that you just wanna eat 'em.

:-D

(The following thoughts are a collaborated effort between myself and my friend Mattias Caro.)

Often I assume-probably incorrectly-that everyone knows that only Catholics are allowed to receive communion at Catholic mass. I think it would be really important for me to explain why the Church holds firmly to teachings such as forbidding non-Catholics to receive Communion at Catholic Mass. Here it goes . . .

The Catholic Church allows only practicing Catholics and Orthodox to receive Holy Communion at Catholic Mass. Interestingly, the Orthodox Church does not give her members permission to receive at Catholic Mass. The reason the Catholic Church has an exception for Orthodox Christians is that, even though they do not esteem the Bishop of Rome as their top authority, they do retain all 7 sacraments from the time they split from (what is now known as) the Catholic Church. Their priests also retain legitimate apostolic succession. The Orthodox Church claims to follow "only the authority of 'Christ and the seven Ecumenical Synods' (from Nicaea I in 325, to Nicaea II in 787)" ( Catholic Encyclopedia). You can read more about the Eastern Schism at the New Advent website. On this site it is explained that there has "never been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith" between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It is a case rather of "pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology." The Orthodox split from the Roman Church. The Eastern rites (which are often Orthodox) have "equally legitimate ways of celebrating the same mysteries." The Orthodox do at least continue to recognize the Bishop of Rome as the first Patriarch of Christendom as he is the successor of the see of Saint Peter the Apostle (the first Pope).

Well, that's sort of a side note, but important foundational information nonetheless. Moving on . . .

The Catholic Church also holds that one must not receive Communion if they have any unconfessed mortal sin. Mortal sin refers to any grave sin which a person commits willfully with full knowledge that such an action is indeed a grave sin. Mortal sins actually cut us off from God's grace and communion with Him by our own doing, by our free choosing. In Confession the penitent person is absolved of his confessed mortal sins by the priest. The priest forgives sins by the authority Christ gave Him that was handed-down through apostolic succession. (See John 20:22-23.) Through Confession and absolution the penitent is restored to a state of grace and communion with God. Of course, only those who are Catholic or Orthodox go to Confession - at least with a priest who has the apostolic authority to absolve sins.

I personally do not like the separation that exists among Christians in that we cannot all eat from one table and drink from one cup. However, this is the reality of things due to the Reformation. Most Protestants do not believe that which the Catholic Church has always taught and defended regarding Holy Communion, namely that Christ is made present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - in the bread and wine during the consecration by the priest. Although some Anglican, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and even charismatic Protestants claim a belief in mystical transubstantiation, this is not what the Church has held up through the centuries.

"Mystical transubstantiation" refers to the belief that the faith of the one receiving Communion is what causes the bread and wine to become the actual body and blood of our Lord. I am curious to know what passages of Holy Scripture a Bible-only, Protestant Christian would use to support this notion. The Church holds that transubstantiation takes place because of the legitimate apostolic authority of her priests at the consecration of the elements. Even if a priest is a wicked man personally, if he has been given the apostolic authority bestowed through the Sacrament of Ordination, then his priestly act of consecrating the host is still valid. (His priestly act of absolution of sins is still valid towards those who receive it from him, even if he is on the path to hell himself.)

This is the sort of faith that Catholics exercise. We do not simply have faith in faith. After all, I could have faith that God will give me a sex-change overnight, but what good would that faith be because it is based on no legitimate rationale. As a Catholic, I have faith that Christ gave His authority to His Apostles at the Last Supper to consecrate bread and wine so that His body and blood would become present in the elements. Not only did He give them that authority, but He commanded them to do it - often. (See Luke 22:19-20 and I Cor. 11:23-26). Those disciples then passed on this authority from Christ to their successors through the Sacrament of Ordination. As a Catholic Christian, this requires much faith on my part; however, this faith is based on something which Christ Himself instituted, not something that a Protestant pastor 1,700 years after-the-fact decided was the right interpretation of a passage from the New Testament - a Catholic book, might I add. ;-D

And I want to take a moment here to explain also that the Catholic Church does not invent truths and dogmas (i.e. the papacy, Sacrament of Confession, Immaculate Conception, Trinity, etc . . . ) Rather the Church is the steward of the truth; she teaches only that which was given to her from Christ in the "deposit of faith" and was taught by His Apostles. The Church comes to fuller understandings of truths as time progresses, but she does not change any of the truths which have already been revealed. For instance, the case of the Immaculate Conception of Mary; just because this doctrine was not defined until recent centuries, does not mean that the Church did not believe and teach it during the prior centuries. The Church often defines doctrine and dogmas only as heresies and conflicts arise that necessitate such definitions.

Okay, back to the original point. . .

As a Catholic, I firmly believe that a priest must have legitimate apostolic authority in order for the bread and wine he consecrates to be transubstantiated. I would venture to say that many Protestants would be repulsed if I said the prayer of consecration over a saltine cracker and then tried to distribute it to them as if it were the actual body of our Lord. Maybe they would find it ridiculous that I would even think that Christ would humble Himself to become a cracker (actually vice-versa) and be eaten by people. But also, they would think, "Who the hell are you?!" By what authority could I do such a thing even if it were possible? If all that is necessary for transubstantion is faith and not any sort of legitimate authority, then why can't I consecrate bread and wine and give it out to other Christians at a home-made Communion?

If someone does not believe that the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Catholic Mass become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, then it would be a sacrilege for them to receive communion. It would be a sacrilege on two accounts: 1. to eat and drink without discerning the Lord's real presence is to eat and drink condemnation on oneself (I Cor. 11: 27-32), and 2. the person receiving Communion while disbelieving that it is what the Church says it is is violating his own conscience and acting contrary to his own beliefs. He should be committing a sacrilege according to his own belief system.

Sometimes a person accepts that a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest has legitimate authority to consecrate the elements and that Christ is transubstantiated in them, but this person is not officially in communion with the Church and does not desire to be so. He is not allowed to receive Communion at a Catholic Mass even though he assents to the Church's teaching that Christ is literally made present in the Eucharist by the apostolic authority of the priest. Why not? Well, it is simply because he is not in full communion with the Church. That's the way it is. It is not that the Church desires to deny this person the real body and blood or our Lord in the Eucharist, but he has simply not taken the steps necessary to be in the position to receive our Lord at Mass.

The Church opens her arms to any and everyone to enter into full communion with her, but this requires a time of being catechised, making a first Confession, and then being Confirmed. The Church wants to make sure the catechumen or candidate is fully aware of what the Church teaches and that he in turn assents to these truths. That makes sense, right? If someone doesn't believe all that the Church holds, then they are not Catholic; therefore they do not participate in Catholic Sacraments. I'm not sure I understand why someone would want to participate in the Sacraments anyway if they do not accept the Church's authority and teachings as legitimate. It is analogous to a man wanting to communion sexually with a woman, yet he does not want to make her his bride. There are just certain things that must come first in order to protect the sacred!

If I am playing softball and I'm on 3rd base, I have to run home and cross the plate in order to score a run, right? What if I decide that I want to score a run by running straight to first base from third? Well, not only will I not score a run, but I will also have screwed up the game and pissed off my entire team. I certainly have no such authority as to change the rules to fit my fancy; neither does my team or our coach have such authority. There is probably some overarching National Softball Federation that determines the rules of all softball games. If you want to play in the real deal you have to play by the rules. The analogy, of course, breaks down at this point, because the Church is not like a softball federation which can alter doctrines and dogmas of her own accord, rather the Church preserves, protects, and promotes the truths she has been given from our Lord and His Apostles.

Similarly, let's say that a man is raised Catholic and leaves the Church because he doesn't accept many of her teachings or her authority. However, this man wants to still receive Communion at Catholic Mass because he feels it is his right, and he believes that it is a legitimate Sacrament - despite the other supposed failings and falsehoods the Church practices and promotes. This is akin to a man leaving his wife because he does not like her any longer, and he does not want the sacrifice and commitment required to remain in their marriage. However, he feels he has the right to come and have sexual intercourse with her when he so desires it. What gives him that right? Either he wants to be with her or he doesn't? In behaving this way he is abusing his wife; he is unwilling to commit to her and live out that commitment, but he wants to keep one perk - the one that he finds most beneficial to him personally. He wants what he wants, and he wants it on his own terms.

Such a man is not willing to lay down his life for his wife, but rather only to take from her. This is selfish and abusive in a human relationship, and it also applies in the situation regarding Communion. It is inordinate and presumptuous, an abuse of the Church and Her Sacraments to receive Communion at Catholic Mass without being committed to the Church and embracing her as a whole, for all that she is and all that she has to offer.

For a Catholic, receiving communion at Mass is affirming a belief that the bread and wine one is receiving is no longer bread and wine-except in appearance-but the actual body and blood of Christ. Our "amen" just prior to receiving "the body of Christ" on our tongues from the priest or Eucharistic minister is an affirmation that we accept not only the truth that Christ is present in the Eucharist but also that we uphold all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ and by extension His body here on earth. Who doesn't want to be a man of his word? In walking the aisle, saying "Amen", and receiving our Lord's body in Communion, we are saying with our actions (and our word) that we are in full communion with the Church, have been cleansed from mortal sin beforehand, and believe that we are receiving the very body and blood of Jesus. If these things are not true, the person receiving Communion is (perhaps inadvertently) lying; he is saying one thing with his actions and his word, but his reality and his beliefs are contrary.

Because I honor and love my Church and firmly believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I wanted to take the time to explain these things to any who were unaware. Anyone who has ever illicitly received Communion at a Catholic Mass out of ignorance is not fully culpable for the sin that it is. From now on, this person should not receive Communion at Mass. If this offends that person, then at the very least they can consider refraining simply as an act of respect for the "customs" of the Catholics at Mass, seeking not to offend them or cause controversy. (That's akin to what we Catholics call imperfect contrition. ;-D) Should I walk into a Jewish Synagogue and demand to read before the Congregation from the Torah? No. Why not? The Torah is a Christian book isn't it? It's the first part of my Bible. Well, I'm just not allowed to do that. It's not going to help my Catholic witness to Jewish people if I walk all over their customs and in their own house of worship.

As for Protestants abstaining from Communion, inversely, I follow the same principle when at a Lutheran service or an Episcopalian service; I don't receive there because I would thus be giving witness to a belief that simply is not mine, namely that Christ is not present in the Eucharist or even that He is although the "priest" has no legitimate authority to consecrate the elements for transubstantiation. Even though Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have much in common in Lewis's sense of a mere Christianity, it is simply a fact that we do not all believe the same things about Holy Communion.

Confession - A Healthy Dose of Reality

Yesterday as I was out for a walk and praying the rosary, I thought about how much I treasure being so utterly candid with God in my prayer intentions. It's satisfying to be so honest with myself, too.

In several ways, Confession is my favorite Sacrament. It is so liberating. Just as a joke, I thought of my own "Demotivational" poster . . .

Confession

Because if you suck, you should at least know why.

Hehehe. Totally kidding.

Have you ever gone through a time haunted by a vague sense of shame? Perhaps in talking with a friend you eventually find yourself confessing some sin or hidden motive or desire or hurt or anger that you didn't realize was deep inside of you. Ahhhh. Then you feel so much better, and even if it is a painful realization, you can face reality and deal with it in a mature and thoughtful manner. Doesn't that feel so good? It feels good to grow in virtue.

That's what Confession is like. Jesus said that the truth will set us free, and He was not kidding.

If something is hurting me, I like to know that my hurt is based in reality and not simply my imagination running wild with scenarios completely out of touch with what is really going on.

Proverbs 24:26 reads, "An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips." Have you ever had someone be painfully honest with you? Even when it stings, isn't it liberating? And have you ever had someone express feelings towards you that were insincere (i.e. lying to you, leading you on)? Ouch. That can be more painful than an honest, "Sorry, but I'm just not interested."

It's all about living in reality. That's where true happiness and freedom lies. How can we better live in reality, to see things as they truly are? Go to Confession. Do an examination of conscience. Confession is the perfect way to examine how you may be lying to yourself about your own actions and desires. It's a great way to examine if you've been living as if something is true that is not true. It's perfect for coming clean if you are using another person in some way. It feels good to "face the music."

I enjoy the lyrics to most every Relient K song, but I especially find comfort in the words of "Forward Motion": "It's good to experience the bittersweet, to taste defeat then brush my teath. Because I struggle with forward motion. We all struggle with forward motion. Forward motion is harder than it sounds. Every time I gain some ground, I've got to turn myself around again." So true.

After Confession, then you receive Christ's own absolution and grace from your priest. Hopefully the priest is also wise to give you counsel about how to face reality better and to make amends as you journey towards deeper freedom in Christ and therefore in life.

John 8:31-36 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' They answered Him, 'We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, "You will be made free"?' Jesus answered them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.'" (NKJV)

Get real. Get clean. Confess, and be free to live in reality!

Blessings!
Natalie



*The still above is from Alfred Hitchcock's film I Confess. I've not yet seen it, but my priest highly recommends it as an exemplary depiction of the "seal of the confessional". All Catholic priests are utterly forbidden to disclose anything revealed in the Confessional . . . ANYTHING. They cannot even bring it up outside of the Confessional with the person who confessed it (unless that person brings the matter up to the priest again outside of Confession). If a priest reveals anything from a Confession to anyone, then I believe he can be excommunicated. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1467.)

How to Attract Women

Thought this was cute . . . and true in many ways. Yesterday the Associated Press posted an article in which writer Don Babwin reports, "Women looking for a long-term relationship like men who like children, and they can tell which guys might be interested in becoming fathers just by looking at their faces." To read about more about these "findings of a study of college students published Wednesday in a British scientific journal" check out Women Get Paternal Clues in Men's Faces. ;-D

"AP illustration showing women attracted

to men who like kids." (AP Graphic)

So true! Haha. So funny. ;-P Well, I've got an illustration of my own. . .

According to my observations and the findings of the aforementioned study, it appears that 2 of the 4 women in this photograph are in the market for a long-term man. ;-D

Blessings!
Natalie

Raccoon Invasion

Well, I have been working on my next blog entry the past couple of days, but time is a bit hard to come by to dedicate myself fully to the task. And so, I have decided to share a true and profound story with you to tide you over until that entry becomes a reality. ;-D

Several days ago I went bounding down the stairs from my bedroom to the kitchen. At the foot of the stairs I noticed what appeared to be the cat's chew toy - which happens to look like an extremely furry rodent. As I stepped over the toy I realized (*gag reflex kicks in*) that it is actually a dead bird. Yes, our spastic Siamese not only attacks us at her caprice, but she also loves to attack living creatures that are smaller than herself. She has brought us many a half-dead field mouse, but this was a heavy duty, totally lifeless bird. It was pretty sick.

Anyway, I got my landlord to clean up the carcass and toss the dead bird in the trash. (Poor thing.) After all, the cat belongs to her. So we set the trash near the stairs as a reminder that it needs to be taken out when we next head out the front door.

Ahem . . . so, a few nights ago my roomie arrives in the wee hours of the morning from an insane marathon day/night at the sweat shop . . . uh . . . I mean her job office. She is deliriously tired, and as she stumbles up the staircase, she sees a dead bird lying next to some trash and a shredded trash bag. Nice.

Too tired to care, she proceeds to the kitchen. There she is greeted by a hulking, wild raccoon. What the crap?! How did a raccoon get into our kitchen? Clearly, you do not have a kitty door on your house. Yes, the kitty door is how a wild raccoon gets into one's kitchen. (Fortunately I was safely asleep in my room with the door closed.)

Poor roomie. The raccoon was so scared that it began to run up the stairs towards our bedroom (where I was safely enclosed :-). I must have been "dead-to-the-world" because apparently a fit of shrieking and extemporaneous prayer ensued as my roommate and our landlady combined efforts to scare the raccoon back down the stairs and back out through the kitty door. That night their efforts were rewarded with great success. Too bad I could not share their panic or their victory because I had no clue that it all even went down until the next day.

Man, I love a good story. I'm just glad this one didn't end with my roommate being attacked by a rabies-crazed raccoon. I lose more friends that way. . . :-D

(not the actual raccoon)