Life Is Romantic

Got Guilt?

2009-10-25T08:42:00.005-05:00

Whenever I hear the expression "Catholic guilt", I can't help but cringe. What does that even mean? I had struggles with overwhelming feelings of guilt long before I became Catholic. I know some folks have grown up in Catholic environments that were more concerned about right and wrong than about why right and wrong matter and Who calls us to share in His right living. This is a travesty, but honestly, not uncommon within Protestantism either.

In a sense, all proper guilt is "Catholic". Catholic means "universal", and the Catholic Church is the only Church that upholds the fullness of Christian moral truths everywhere and at all times. These truths apply to all Christians and even non-Christians whether they know it or not. So any rightly placed guilt in having done something that is truly wrong or failing to do something one ought to have done is guilt against the universal truths of moral right and wrong revealed by the Maker Himself (and defended and promoted by His Church).

The sense of being crushed under the weight of ceaseless guilt may be understandable before one has brought their failings intentionally before Christ for forgiveness, but why does it often linger for Christian folks of all different faith traditions? It's a psychological struggle to which human beings are simply susceptible. It may be conditioned by overbearing religious persons from one's life, or it may be an innate struggle with perfectionism. Sometimes we just have a hard time forgiving ourselves or believing God can forgive us when we've done something "so terrible". In a sense, it's natural to feel that way. Complete forgiveness is supernatural, and it can be hard for our human minds and emotions to grasp.

I struggle much less with that sense of lingering guilt as a Catholic Christian than when I was Protestant. The reason? The Sacrament of Penance (or Confession). When I examine my conscience as thoroughly as I can, accuse myself point blank of all intentional and unintentional sin, desire to sin no more, and hear Christ's words of absolution spoken through His priest, I know my sins are forgiven. Christ, in His mercy and understanding of human needs has given us the Sacrament of Penance so that we may hear His words of forgiveness (just as we hear His words spoken in Scripture through his chosen human authors). In Confession we find certainty to ease our tendency toward harboring guilty feelings; we hear Christ's words of forgiveness for our personal sins with our own ears.

Let us never fail to remind one another and ourselves that God is calling us to freedom... freedom from being a slave of sin, freedom from being crushed by guilt, freedom to confess and get back up and press on every time we fall, freedom to find true love, joy and happiness in our merciful Savior.

In Matthew 5:25 Christ says: "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison." We can apply these words to those instances when we are being accused by the enemies of our souls (Satan and his fellow fallen angels). If the accusations are legitimate, agree with them, and quickly confess your crimes directly to the Judge Himself for He will be your defense and pardon. The accuser no longer has anything to hold over your head.

Reflecting on the final petition in the Lord's Prayer - "but deliver us from evil", Rev. Peter John Cameron, O.P., writes in this month's Magnificat :

Christians do not try to deny their evil, rationalize it, make excuses for it, blame others for it, or despair over it - all marks of being black-mailed by the Evil One. Rather, in the knowledge of our sins, we simply turn in confidence to the Father and ask him to deliver us. The "glory" of the Christian is our great certainty when accused by what is scandalous and damning about us. We are not defined by our sin. We are defined by who we belong to: our Father.

We've all got guilt; give me the Catholic kind!

The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow, Annie

2008-04-26T03:26:00.008-05:00

Below is my response to the most recent post on the Abortion Clinic Day's blog. Please see their post titled: "Annie's Story" - Saturday, April 12, 2008 - before proceeding.

****

I appreciate the realism expressed thus far regarding the difficulty people have with overcoming drug addiction. I too hope and pray that Annie's mother will truly be motivated to reach out for help and find permanent healing from her addiction so that she can be the mother and now grandmother she ought to be. It could very well be that her moral compass isn't so badly broken after all.

Perhaps she realized "I'm a grandmother!" (even though her grandchild is still in the womb) and that this little one's life is in jeopardy partly due to her own failings. Perhaps she was able for the first time in a long time to see beyond herself, her problems, and her cravings. Perhaps she knows the physical and emotional trauma that her own daughter was about to enter into.

I too hope that Annie will not place her hopes so heavily upon her mother's promise that she finds herself regretting the decision to continue the life of her child. But, even if her mother breaks her heart again, it seems that this promise is still a great blessing. For if this emotional outcry from her mother had not occurred when it did, Annie would be today recovering from a long abortion procedure with her head swimming with questions in the wake.

Although carrying her child for another 4 months or so and facing the various medical costs and difficult decisions regarding parenting will be an uphill battle in many ways, hopefully it will allow Annie to also see the world through new eyes. Perhaps she would consider blessing a couple out there who is ready and eager to have a child. It is a courageous and self-less act of love for a child to find him or her a loving home when one feels they are not able to provide well themselves.

[By the way, I know a woman who aborted her first and unexpected child and another who gave her child to an infertile married couple due to great financial and emotional difficulties in her own life. Both have regrets and don't like to talk too much about their experience, but one of them also gets to see pictures of her beautiful daughter and hear updates about her life with her adoptive family - healthy, involved, secure - and hear about her own successes in college.]

Or perhaps one day, several months from now, after hours of intense labor, she'll hold a helpless, soft-haired baby girl in her arms, oblivious then to her pain and fatigue and think, "You are mine! I love you. I would do anything for you. How could I have ever thought of not having you in my life." And perhaps Annie's prerogatives will change. She'll still want to succeed in life and move far beyond the dysfunction she was submitted to, but now she will want to be a strong example to her little girl (or boy) of overcoming adversity and sacrificing oneself for another. (Something her own mother, by God's grace, just might learn to do at last.)

Annie's dreams are beautiful. She has looked at the cards she's been dealt and said, "I don't want to play this same old game. I'm getting out of here and going to go out into the real world and make a life for myself." The problem is, poor Annie doesn't seem to be getting any good advice re: her choices on the front end of things. I am referring to her sexual choices. These choices preceded and directly lead to her pregnancy.

I understand if Annie is sexually active with someone because she wants to feel loved, to enjoy the exhilaration of sexual pleasure or even to feel like she is making someone else happy and is thus "wanted". These are pretty natural longings, but there are unhealthy and imprudent ways to go about seeking to fulfill them. If Annie continues to choose to engage sexually with a man this side of marriage, even if she uses "protection" (as if she is going into battle), she is risking the natural consequences (see below).

And if she doesn't want that man to be the father of her child, all the more reason to abstain. Contraception isn't fool proof, and unfortunately, its use can also lead a couple to a false sense of safety from conception and STDs. (Not to mention the unnecessary, negative, physical side-effects of hormonal contraception vs. no side affects with abstaining from the get go.)

Abstaining is not easy when one is thirsty to feel loved, when one has had their sexual drive stroked by countless perverse examples at every turn in our culture, and when one is in the habit of being sexually involved. Saving sex until one is married to the man they WANT to have children with has many physical and emotional benefits. Annie would be free now to focus on her education, to discern a respectful and loving relationship with someone, and not have to worry about contraception, pregnancy, or the emotional woes of a sexually involved, pseudo-committed relationship right now if only someone had taught her all this sooner.

If you talk to Annie again, please send her first of all to Gabriel Project, a national charitable, pregnancy-assistance organization that can help her find housing, pay her medical expenses, get on her feet before and after the birth, and even pair her up with another woman who can support her through her pregnancy and decisions she will face with the approaching birth of her first, and unexpected child.

Secondly, please let Annie know that she needs to change her course regarding her sexual decisions from this point forward. This really is more loving than arming her with contraceptives and sending her back out into the battlefield that is casual sex. The risks of continued pre-marital sexual activity are clear:
- Future unexpected pregnancy and possible abortion(s)
- Contracting an STD (or two)
- Unpleasant side-effects from hormonal contraceptives
- Bonding emotionally and biologically with someone who is not her ideal husband/future-father-of-her-children or who is not going to be committed to her for the long haul [We can't divorce our body and soul from one another, after all, nor can we suppress forever the desire written on our hearts for an intimate, loving, life-time relationship]
- Habituating herself to compromise
- Damaged reputation
- Lost time and energy spent worrying about any/all of the above
- Loosing the novelty and beauty of sexual union with someone who knows and cherishes her completely, for life [Isn't casual sex a second rate experience in light of all that it could be and is meant to be?]

I'm not advocating mere abstinence-only, nor am I advocating a joyless life in long skirts, high-buttoned sweaters, and a chastity belt. I'm advocating that Annie take a look at the gift of her sexuality and embrace it more fully. She should know that is something to not be wasted or treated casually; it is something to treasure and enjoyed to the fullest, in self-respect and complete giving of self with the man who has taken her as his own beloved partner for life. What woman doesn't want that?! (And who says it will never come so we might as well take what we can get now?! Besides, I'm not going be on my death bed one day thinking, "Man, if only I'd had a whole lot of sexually stimulating experiences before marriage! That's the whole purpose of life!")

She can start fresh. But it takes lifestyle changes. Yeah, she may have invest in a spunky, but modest wardrobe that helps her show outwardly her inward self-respect - not allowing herself to seek love in the dime-a-dozen, lustful gaze of men on the street or at a bar. (Not that I have any idea if this is Annie's lifestyle at all. Just an example of a practical change of action and perspective.) It's about living the attitude of purity (no matter what one has done or been through before) in all of life's little decisions - not just saying, "Hey, I'm not going to have sex with you, but I don't mind getting as close as we can and making ourselves sexually frustrated and tempted to the max."

So send Annie to something like the Pure Love Club website or Dawn Eden's book THRILL OF THE CHASTE for some guidance on this crazy concept of chastity. Choosing (even as a single-mother) to save sexual intimacy for marriage from this point forward is really one of the best steps Annie can take to help her focus her energies well on succeeding in school and a career and ending the cycle of poverty and dysfunction in her life.

Also, once Annie is married, she can consider postponing having children via Natural Family Planning (NFP) if need be. There are several of these all-natural methods to choose from that are: safe, scientific, and highly effective if practiced properly. Plus, it can further unify a couple as they must work together to practice NFP. It can also be used (without any reversal time) to seek conception when desired. And it familiarizes a woman with her body in such a way that she is more likely to notice any abnormalities in her reproductive or general health. It just requires some discipline and communication. Not bad things to have in a marriage I think. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I commend all of the posters and bloggers here for the clear desire to help Annie and women who are in similar situations. It would be strange if any of us wished for her to not succeed in life or to be stuck in a dysfunctional, drug-filled environment. And of course, none of us want her child to have to live through those same things. But there are many charitable groups out there who will help Annie get out of and away from her family of origin, find safe housing and support, stay healthy during her pregnancy, re-evaluate her goals, and make the best decision for herself AND her baby.

Annie is a mother already; her child is merely growing in the shelter of her womb. He or she is utterly dependent on Annie now. It is an inhumane choice for a woman to go against her maternal instinct and will the death of her child. Women choose abortion because they feel they have no other choice, and in that sense it is not a free choice - although we are each ultimately culpable for what we decide in the end.

This is Annie's chance to make a courageous sacrifice for another, a choice for which God will no doubt bless her. She is not the first to choose to say, "This is my body given up for you," and she will be richly rewarded for it! Is not the gift of life itself more valuable than having a life without hardship? I understand why many feel it is a lesser evil to take a child's life in his earliest stages than to risk having him endure horrible life circumstances and also having his mother's life plans disrupted. But we cannot commit a direct evil in order to thwart another potential evil. Evils cannot be avoided in this life; we will each endure them.

Is the purpose of life to have it easy? Is not the human will designed such that it rails against injustice and fights against all odds to achieve what is good? Have not countless people throughout human history bravely fought their way out of horrendous circumstances (such as Annie has been in her whole life) only to achieve great things? (Think of Frederick Douglas!) And none of us yet knows just who Annie's little boy or girl will grow up to be and what he or she will accomplish!

There are groups very willing to help Annie secure a good life for her child as well as herself, so please pass along the info I mentioned above to her and any other women like her. (And may I add Feminists for Life?) This situation is not at all what Annie has wanted or envisioned for her life, but why can she not look back on it in the end and say, "It's not what I wanted. It's not what I would have chosen. It was not easy. But I did what was right and good and self-less in the face of it, and the story has woven together with such a beauty as I could never have imagined. I lived life to the full; I lived it well, and all unexpected things were actually unexpected opportunities for deeper happiness."

I'm glad Annie will now have the chance to stop and think beyond the utter overwhelmingness of her circumstances in this one period in her life.

"Women with unplanned pregnancy deserve to experience unexpected joy." - Patricia Heaton, Actress (Everybody Love Raymond)

Lover, What's on Your Mind?

2008-04-25T23:52:00.006-05:00

Ever been in love? Ever long simply to hear what the other is thinking? And you want to tell them what's on your mind because they have a way of clarifying your thoughts? You "get" each other. You "click". Conversation flows. And there is serenity even in silently breathing in the same space.

A religious sister told me a story last night about a couple she knows. They married young and had children, then the wife developed Multiple Sclerosis that eventually completely debilitated her. She had to be hospitalized and could no longer speak. The only way she could communicate was with her eyes which she could still move at will. Her husband would often come to her side, tenderly holding her hand, and they would stare into one another's eyes for hours. They were communicating without words. He would later say that the most intimate, profound times he ever shared with his wife were those silent moments of a thousand words passing through their mutual and loving gaze.

I've often prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide me out of my perfectionistic tendencies via some miracle or word of wisdom from without. (This is going to tie in with all I've said. Hang in there.) I've also been asking St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (aka Edith Stein) to pray for and guide me in simmering my many interests down into one substantial passion so that I can focus on what the Lord would most have me focus on. Sister Teresa Benedicta was particularly gifted with single-minded determination and an unusual ability to focus on one thing at a time and see it through. (She would posit in her talks on the "feminine soul" that this is often one of woman's greatest challenges.)

Edith Stein always had an intense gaze and seemed to be pondering mysteries far beyond the present moment. After her conversion to the Catholic faith from atheism, she would grow to love spending hours at a time before Jesus in the most holy Sacrament in adoration. This silent, penetrating gaze shared with our Lord delighted her soul more than anything.

Today at Mass, I was contemplating my struggles with perfectionism and scattered passions, and also thinking of how much I love to hear the thoughts of a particular friend and to share our hearts with one another. I often turn to them when I need help thinking through important subjects about which I know little. And then it dawned on me ... I long to be in the presence of our Lord and say...

"Tell me what's on YOUR mind. Help me focus my thoughts by sharing Your own with me. Tell me so that I can learn to see through Your eyes what is really important and what I ought to think upon above all else. When You think about me and my life, what thoughts pervade? Tell me so that I can think them too, so that I can rethink my own thoughts and desires. Bring me out of my own head with your intimate gaze, and bring me into Your world. Let me rest my head on Your chest, and tell me Lover, what's on YOUR mind?"

Do Not Toast Walnuts in the Same Oven in Which You are Baking Fish

2008-03-30T21:00:00.002-05:00

This is my personal proverb for the evening. Eating such walnuts is about as enjoyable as drinking a glass of orange juice right after you have brushed your teeth.

Happy Holy Thursday!

2008-03-20T09:43:00.002-05:00

It's Holy Thursday (or Maundy Thursday) of Holy Week!Holy Week began last Sunday - Palm Sunday - with the commemoration of Christ's "triumphal" entrance into Jerusalem. (See John 12:12-17) Tonight is the anniversary of the night that Jesus instituted Holy Communion (or the Eucharist). This night He also instituted the priesthood during the Last Supper in which he gave His Apostles the authority to consecrate the elements for Communion. At the Masses being celebrated tonight, the priests will wash the feet of 12 men just as this night Christ washed the feet of His Apostles, even knowing that many of them would deny Him shortly thereafter during His passion. (See John 13:1-17.)

See Luke 22:1-38, Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-31, and John 12:12-18:11.

Long time no blog :-)

2008-03-19T08:53:00.003-05:00

For many months now when I go forward to receive our Lord's body & blood in Communion, I have found myself praying, "Mary, thank you for saying 'yes' to God. Thank you for offering your body for the creation of the body of our Lord so that I may receive Him now. Help me to be like you in holiness, purity, and love and total surrender to our Lord."

This prayer organically sprung up from within me one day as I was in the Communion line and looking up realized that the church's lovely statue of Mary is directly behind where the priest stands and in my line of vision as I look ahead. I find this statue particularly beautiful; it is a welcome aid to my devotional thoughts on the historical reality of God's plan unfolding in human history and time through the lives of real people of day's past.

When receiving Christ's body, we are in a certain sense also receiving Mary's body. If (as the Church has held from the earliest days) the Eucharist is substantially, in essence, the actual body and blood of our Lord (although in it's accidental properties it remains bread) then we are consuming the body of Christ which was formed from Mary's flesh and no other person. It is an interesting thing to meditate upon. It just makes me appreciate her role and the special bond she must have felt with Jesus as she nurtured him, marveled at his growth in wisdom and grace, saw him begin His public ministry, saw him scourged and tortured, then encountered Him in His glorified, risen body. I find it very helpful to my own faith to try to view the Lord through her eyes, especially when contemplating His passion and the reality of the Eucharist.

Just this morning I was marveling at the gift of life which you and I have. (At least if you are reading this, I assume you are alive. :-) We get one shot, if you will, to live this life to the fullest. How we live here and now - in our particular time and place in human history, with our particular gifts, interests, family, and sphere's of influence and socialization - will affect how we live for eternity. It is a beautiful privilege. Life is so short; I do not want to squander it. I want to love well, and I want to be fully alive. I want to enjoy my time with those whom God has placed in my life, and to love them as best I can. I want to develop my mind to its fullest, and face things squarely as they are, and to face squarely the ability I may or may not have to change different things.

And lastly, I am very grateful that with God nothing is ever lost forever. A lover, a deceased loved one, innocence taken or given, youth and good times now become memories ... all continue to exist with God in an eternal present ... and if you and I will share eternity with Him, then we shall have all those things yet again in a fuller and permanent way.

So wherever we find ourselves today (i.e. unhappily single, up to our eyeballs in homework, in between jobs, in a financially precarious position, overwhelmed with the demands of being a parent, etc...), don't forget to lift up your anxiety, fears and dreams to God - however choppy or brief. He cares. "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." (Matt. 10:29-31) And realize that this is just one part of your story, your moment of privilege to be alive and trust in the Lord (and to act) as Our Lady did. This moment, although passing, matters in eternity. Pray for the ability to enjoy it for it is a moment that is shaping who you are and giving you an opportunity for faith and to love generously; it it will not remain forever.

May God bless you!
Natalie

**This post dedicated to "Pete" - a fellow blogger whom I do not know - who recently insulted my weblogging or lack there of. Thank you. :-)

My Roomie is OFF THA HOOK

2007-01-25T19:35:00.000-05:00

Read her article for yourself!

:D

Blessings,
Natalie

Making Babies...Not Families

2007-01-05T19:00:00.000-05:00

I just read this article written by a young woman conceived through an anonymous sperm donation insemination. She's very well spoken, and it's all very sad. It makes me think also about how children of same-sex couples likely will feel as they grow older. What a sad world we have made for ourselves. Here's the Washington Post article:

My Father Was an Anonymous Sperm Donor
By Katrina Clark
Sunday, December 17, 2006; B01

I really wasn't expecting anything the day, earlier this year, when I sent an e-mail to a man whose name I had found on the Internet. I was looking for my father, and in some ways this man fit the bill. But I never thought I'd hit pay dirt on my first try. Then I got a reply -- with a picture attached.

From my computer screen, my own face seemed to stare back at me. And just like that, after 17 years, the missing piece of the puzzle snapped into place. The puzzle of who I am.

I'm 18, and for most of my life, I haven't known half my origins. I didn't know where my nose or jaw came from, or my interest in foreign cultures. I obviously got my teeth and my penchant for corny jokes from my mother, along with my feminist perspective. But a whole other part of me was a mystery.

That part came from my father. The only thing was, I had never met him, never heard any stories about him, never seen a picture of him. I didn't know his name. My mother never talked about him -- because she didn't have a clue who he was.

When she was 32, my mother -- single, and worried that she might never marry and have a family -- allowed a doctor wearing rubber gloves to inject a syringe of sperm from an unknown man into her uterus so that she could have a baby. I am the result: a donor-conceived child.
And for a while, I was pretty angry about it.

I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on the "parents" -- the adults who can make choices about their own lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child. The donor gets a guarantee of anonymity and absolution from any responsibility for the offspring of his "donation." As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a success, right?

Not so. The children born of these transactions are people, too. Those of us in the first documented generation of donor babies -- conceived in the late 1980s and early '90s, when sperm banks became more common and donor insemination began to flourish -- are coming of age, and we have something to say.

I'm here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn't ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion. It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter to the "products" of the cryobanks' service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place.

We offspring are recognizing the right that was stripped from us at birth -- the right to know who both our parents are. And we're ready to reclaim it.

Growing up, it didn't matter that I don't have a dad -- or at least that is what I told myself. Just sometimes, when I was small, I would daydream about a tall, lean man picking me up and swinging me around in the front yard, a manly man melting at a touch from his little girl. I wouldn't have minded if he weren't around all the time, as long as I could have the sweet moments of reuniting with his strong arms and hearty laugh. My daydreams always ended abruptly; I knew I would never have a dad. As a coping mechanism, I used to think that he was dead. That made it easier.

I've never been angry at my mother -- all my life she has been my hero, my everything. She sacrificed so much as a single mother, living on food stamps, trying to make ends meet. I know that many people considered her a pioneer, a trailblazer for a new offshoot of the women's movement. She explained to me when I was quite young why it was that I didn't have a "dad," just a "biological father." I used to love to repeat that word -- biological -- because it made me feel smart, even though I didn't understand its implications.

Then when I was 9, the mother of one of my classmates ran for political office. I remember seeing a television ad for her, and her family appeared at the end -- the complete nuclear household in the back yard, the kids playing on a swing suspended from a tree and eating their father's barbeque. I looked back at my lonely, tired mother, who sat there with a weak smile on her face.

In the middle of the fifth grade, I met a new friend, and we had a lot in common: We both had single mothers. Her mother had suffered through two divorces. My friend didn't have much to say about her dad, mainly because she knew so little about him. But at least she got to visit him and his new family. And I was jealous. Later, in the eighth grade, another friend's father had an affair and her parents divorced. She was in so much pain, and I tried to empathize for the loss of her dad. But I was jealous of her, too, for all the attention she was getting. No one had ever offered me support or sympathy like that.

Around this time, my mother and I moved in with a friend and -- along with several other teenagers, one infant and some other adults -- lived with her for nearly a year. I went through a teenage anger stage; I would stay in my room, listening to Avril Lavigne and to Eminem's lyrics of broken homes and broken people. I felt broken, too. All the other teenagers in the house had problems with their dads. I would sit with them through tears during various rough times, and then I'd go back to my room and listen to some more Eminem. I was angry, too, and angry that I had nowhere to direct my anger.

When my mother eventually got married, I didn't get along with her husband. For so long, it had been just the two of us, my mom and I, and now I felt like the odd girl out. When she and I quarreled, this new man in our lives took to interjecting his opinion, and I didn't like that. One day, I lost my composure and screamed that he had no authority over me, that he wasn't my father -- because I didn't have one.

That was when the emptiness came over me. I realized that I am, in a sense, a freak. I really, truly would never have a dad. I finally understood what it meant to be donor-conceived, and I hated it.

It might have gone on this way indefinitely, but about a year ago I happened to see a television show about a woman who had died of a heart attack. A genetic disease had caused her heart to deteriorate, but she didn't know about her predisposition because she had been adopted as a baby and didn't know her biological families' medical histories. It hit me that I didn't know mine, either. Or half of it, at least.

So I began to research Fairfax Cryobank, the Northern Virginia sperm bank where my mother had been inseminated. I knew that sperm donors are screened and tested thoroughly, but I was still concerned. The bank had been established in 1986, a mere two years before my conception. Many maladies have come to light since then.

I e-mailed the bank five times over the course of a year, requesting medical information about my donor, but no one responded. Then one Friday last spring, I started surfing the Web. Eventually I came upon an archive of "Oprah" shows. One was a show about artificial insemination using anonymous donors. A girl perched on Oprah's couch. Next to her sat her "donor," the man who was her biological father.

I froze. Why hadn't I thought of that? If I wanted medical information and a sense of roots, who better to seek out than the man responsible for them?

I set out to find my own donor. From the limited information my mother had been given -- his blood type, race, ethnicity, eye and hair color and hair texture; his height, weight and body build; his years of college and course of study -- I concluded that he had probably graduated from a four-year university in Northern Virginia or the District within a span of three years. Now all I had to do was search through the records and yearbooks of all the possible universities and make some awkward phone calls. I figured if I worked intensely enough, my search would take a minimum of 10 years. But I was ready and willing.

A few days later, searching for an online message board for donor-conceived people, I came across a donor and offspring registry. Scanning past some entries for more recent donors, I spotted a donation date closer to what I was looking for. I e-mailed the man who had posted the entry. A few days later he sent a warm response and attached a picture of himself. I read through his pleasant words and scrolled down to look at the photo. My breath stopped. I called for my mother, who rushed in, thinking something was terribly wrong. "I think I've found my biological father," I gasped between sobs. "Look at the picture. . . .That's my face."

After a few weeks of e-mailing, this stranger and I took DNA tests. When the results arrived, I tore open the envelope, feeling like a character in a soap opera. Most of the scientific language went over my head, but I understood one fact more clearly than I have ever understood anything in my life: There was, the letter said, a 99.9902 percent chance that this man was my father. After 17 years, I let out a long sigh.

I had found the man who had given me blue eyes and blond hair. And it had taken me only a month.My life has changed since then. Once the initial disbelief that I had found my father wore off, my thoughts turned to all the other donor-conceived kids out there who have been or will be holding their breath much longer than I. My search for my father had been unusually successful; most offspring will look for many, many years before they succeed, if they ever do.

My heart went out to those others, especially after I participated in a couple of online groups. When I read some of the mothers' thoughts about their choice for conception, it made me feel degraded to nothing more than a vial of frozen sperm. It seemed to me that most of the mothers and donors give little thought to the feelings of the children who would result from their actions. It's not so much that they're coldhearted as that they don't consider what the children might think once they grow up.

Those of us created with donated sperm won't stay bubbly babies forever. We're all going to grow into adults and form opinions about the decision to bring us into the world in a way that deprives us of the basic right to know where we came from, what our history is and who both our parents are.

Some countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, are beginning to move away from the practice of paying donors and granting them anonymity, and making it somewhat easier for offspring to find their biological fathers. I understand anonymity's appeal for so many donors: Even if their offspring were to find them one day -- which is becoming more and more probable -- they have no legal, social, financial or moral obligation to their children.

But perhaps if donors were not paid and anonymity were no longer guaranteed, those still willing to participate would seriously consider the repercussions of their actions. They would have to be prepared to someday meet the people whom they helped create, to answer questions and to deal with a range of erratic emotions from their offspring. I believe I've let go of any resentment about the way I was conceived. I'm playing the cards I've been dealt and trying to make the best of things. But not all donor-conceived people share this mindset.

As relief about my own situation has come to me, I've talked freely and regularly about being donor-conceived, in public and in private. In the beginning, I also talked about it a lot with my biological father. After a bit, though, I noticed that his enthusiasm for our developing relationship seemed to be waning. When I told him of my suspicion, he confirmed that he was tired of "this whole sperm-donor thing." The irony stings me more each time I think of him saying that. The very thing that brought us together was pushing us in opposite directions.

Even though I've only recently come into contact with him, I wouldn't be able to just suck it up if he stopped communicating with me. There's still so much I want to know. I want to know him. I want to know his family. I'm certain he has no idea how big a role he has played in my life despite his absence -- or because of his absence. If I can't be too attached to him as my father, I'll still always be attached to the feeling I now have of having a father.

I feel more whole now than I ever have. I love our conversations, even the most trivial ones. I don't love him, and I don't know if I ever will, but I care about him a lot.

Now that he knows I exist, I'm okay if he doesn't care for me in the same way. But I hope he at least thinks of me sometimes.

clarkatrina@gmail.com

Katrina Clark is a student in the undergraduate hearing program at Gallaudet University.

Music for the Melancholy

2006-12-14T00:57:00.000-05:00

I should be sleeping...I should be working on my research paper...I should be sleeping on my research paper...but alas, I'm posting on my blog.

So, I have recently been reading the book The Temperament God Gave You by Art & Lorraine Bennett. It seems I have some rather melancholic tendencies...idealism, deep thinking, introversion. Perhaps this explains why sometimes I get into an Alanis Morissette mood; I think she must be a melancholy soul. Her lyrics are candid, vulnerable, and don't glamorize. Even her voice is very honest, not rehearsed and poppy. (Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of her occassionally crass and sexually perverse lyrics, but even still, they betray the very human, gut-level reactions to disappointments, the desperate graspings for a sense of security, the very real brokenness of the human psyche.) Despite the darkness, I don't find her lyrics discouraging; as a whole I find her music quite encouraging . I feel at home with it, I might say.

My favorite listen lately has been "Thank U" from Alanis's "Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie" album. I love the desire expressed in this song to overcome personal vices, the resignation to the need to change, even the desire to change. This song is quite self-affirming and full of great reminders of what matters most in life. Alanis sings...

How bout me not blaming you for everything?
How bout me enjoying the moment for once?
How bout how good it feels to finally forgive you?
How bout grieving it all one at a time?

Thank you India.
Thank you terror.
Thank you disillusionment.
Thank you frailty.
Thank you consequence.
Thank you, thank you silence.

The moment I let go of it was the moment
I got more than I could handle.
The moment I jumped off of it
Was the moment I touched down.

How bout no longer being masochistic?
How bout remembering your divinity?
How bout unabashedly bawling your eyes out?
How bout not equating death with stopping?

I especially love the "thank you"s. Terror, disillusionment, frailty, consequence and silence ... all are huge catalysts for self-evaluation... all are catalysts to look for something greater than yourself for meaning and direction.

Another Alanis song I love is "So Unsexy" from her album "Under Rug Swept". Lyrics below...

Oh these little rejections how they add up quickly
One small sideways look and I feel so ungood
Somewhere along the way I think I gave you the power to make
Me feel the way I thought only my father could

Oh these little rejections how they seem so real to me
One forgotten birthday, I'm all but cooked
How these little abandonments seem to sting so easily
I'm 13 again, am I 13 for good?

I can feel so unsexy for someone so beautiful
So unloved for someone so fine
I can feel so boring for someone so interesting
So ignorant for someone of sound mind

Oh these little protections how they fail to serve me
One forgotten phone call and I'm deflated
Oh these little defenses how they fail to comfort me
Your hand pulling away and I'm devastated

When will you stop leaving baby?
When will I stop deserting baby?
When will I start staying with myself?

Oh these little projections how they keep springing from me
I jump my ship as I take it personally
Oh these little rejections how they disappear quickly
The moment I decide not to abandon me

I don't really have anything to say about this song at the moment, I just enjoy the honesty regarding insecurities. Musically, the song is a pleasure to listen to. I'm very glad God gave Alanis the talent and motivation to make the music she does.

Okay...It's my bed time :-] Happy Advent to you all!

My roommate rocks!

2006-09-07T13:34:00.000-05:00

My Mary has an article published on the National Review On-line today!!!

What’s a life-friendly Telemundo star doing at abortion central?: Where Maria Elena Salinas Stands NOW

"What we may be saving..."

2006-09-05T08:59:00.000-05:00

Got this great link below from Project Rachel. You've gotta read this editorial!

Ms Magazine is calling its readers to sign a petition: I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the U.S. who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom.” Here’s a powerful response in the Wall Street Journal from a woman of Russian descent.

So glad you were born!

Natalie

The Lone Star's Loneliest Girl?

2006-08-29T18:35:00.000-05:00

Six Pence None the Richer fan? Come on; 'fess up. You'll be glad to know that Texas-raised Leigh Nash has put out her very own CD. After 13 years as lead vocalist for Six Pence (which Nash began at age 14) the group disbanded two years ago. Around that time, Nash had her first (and currently only) child and began work on her own album.

As soon as I saw the ad for Blue on Blue, I drove out to Lifeway Christian store (which was advertising it) and bought it. The 11-song album was released in stores on August 15th. Nash co-wrote all of the songs on this album, and the lyrics have a very different focus than those on the Six Pence albums which Matt Slocum authored.

I suppose the album title is related to Nash's song, Blue. It sounds like a break-up song. She sings:

Say goodbye to me.
I'll say goodbye to you, cause I can't move.
The world won't bend enough
For you to see that love is worth all the trouble

There is a dream that I can't finish
A need that I can't fill
All my dreams have been diminished
You're a habit I'm trying to kill

I try to know you
But to know you is to be blue
I say goodbye
But I'm still in love with you

Like all the songs on the album, Blue is very catchy. I've always loved Nash's girlish yet mature, ultra-feminine, lilting vocal style. For fans of Nash's voice, you will not be disappointed. The album is pretty mellow with a piano-based ballad and other songs interspersed with clarinet action. I personally find the album musically plain, but I prefer a more edgy and percussion-heavy sound. The album is, however, a great listen.

On first blush, all of the songs appear to be about romantic relationships, but after reading a bit more about Nash in recent days, it turns out the album is partially inspired by her new role as mother. Her son Henry is now 2 years old. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Nash's label (through Nettwerk Productions) is called One Son Records.

Nash and her husband have been married for ten years, by the way; I don't know who he is. :-) In her "Thank You" section of the album cover, she writes, "Thank you to all the French Canadian musicians that played, I have a crush on all of you!!! A healthy married person's crush, but a crush none the less." I'm not a fan of talking about having crushes on other people when you are married, but....

The first song, Along the Wall, seems to describe a couple separated by a wall of mutual stubbornness and coldness. Nash asks, "Who is the wounded one? Which one will make the move? Which one is willing to lose?" And then there seems a subtle reference to Christ's ability to make all things new, to turn what was a stumbling block into a stepping stone. Nash sings:

All along the wall between us
I see a teacher there for us
I look at the wall; I see right through it
I lean on the wall there for us

Reconciliation, forgiveness, restoration, humility, and having a teachable heart - all good things. One of the things I love most about Six Pence are the spiritual truths clearly but cleverly entwined in the lyrics. Nash's album does not have any overt Christian messages, which I personally find disappointing. As much as I love songs about relationships, without the central theme of God and His relation to man and ours to Him, I find such tunes ultimately unsatisfying.

Nervous in the Light of Dawn begins and ends with the calm, foreign sound of a duduk. Anyone whose ever been depressed, lonely, or stayed up all night contemplating their own existence can connect with the lyrics. Nash speaks of feeling alone in a desert "without any love" and "wandering alone". She contemplates the reality that there is "nothing anyone can really own." Nash continues:

And I wished for guidance
And I wished for peace
I could see the lightning somewhere in the east
And I wished for affection and I wished for calm
As I lay there nervous in the light of dawn. . . .

Hold me in your arms until I fall asleep
I'm so tired; hold me

Several songs on the album are verging on sickeningly sweet. In My Idea of Heaven Nash describes her idea of heaven as lying in the dark with her husband, feeling his "heart beating" and their "lips meeting." Hey nothing wrong with that, just a bit cheesy. But truly, the marital embrace is a foreshadowing of the bliss of heaven. I personally love the later lyrics, "I never thought you'd get here. Why'd you make me wait? But when I looked into your eyes I recognized you were my fate..... How in God's name did you find the lone star's loneliest girl?"

I thought I was the Lone Star's loneliest girl . . . ;-D

By the way, Yahoo Videos has a music video of My Idea of Heaven, but I can't watch it 'cause my computer doesn't have the right program (or whatever).

In Ocean Size Love Nash pines for the one she loves across the sea, but she is hopeful that their ocean size love will keep them bonded during their separation. Long-distance relationship? It's hard to tell what the motivating factor is behind this song and the others on Blue on Blue.

More of It is another one of the sticky-sweet songs, Nash opening with, "I am happy and at ease with love as it has turned out to be. You will be the man I lie beside when all is said and done with."

Ever felt like you could whether any insult or discouragement because your special someone loves you, and you know you'll be home with them soon, in the comfort of their arms, "your hand in mine"? Well apparently Nash has also felt that way. Her song Angel Tonight is all about that lousy day fading away as approaching night brings you home to the one who makes "everything all right." This could easily be a pop radio single.

Cloud Nine is funny 'cause there are two lines in the album cover that apparently were reworded in the final recording. The print says, "We're on fire, everybody knows. I look at you and there goes control." But Nash sings, "We're too high, everybody knows. I'm walking a real tight rope." It's fun either way. ;-D The gist of this song is, "When I'm on your mind, I'm on cloud nine." I really like this verse:

Twenty-four hours in a night and day
Should be plenty
For me to chase your thoughts my way
And let you catch me

Hehe. ;-D

I also especially like the chorus to Never Finish. Nash muses upon the euphoria of loving and being loved. It could apply to a romantic relationship, but it could very much apply to Nash's relationship with her son as a mother. She sings:

I've waited forever to know
How deep down my love will go
And no matter how hard I try to get it
It's the one thing that I'll never finish

What I love about this is the way it captures the "fruitful" element of love. True love is FREE, FAITHFUL, TOTAL and FRUITFUL. (Thank you John Paul II for teaching us this.) Real love is freely given, completely committed and monogamous, requires a total gift of self (i.e. not hiding the parts you don't like about yourself or rejecting your fertility through contraception and barriers - always gotta throw that in ;-). Love is also generous, overflowing, life-giving . . . FRUITFUL.

As you continue to truly love (i.e. your family, spouse, children, etc. . . .) your ability to love expands in ways you never thought possible. Parents often discover in themselves a whole new depth of love once their children enter into their lives. Hey, and if you are heaven-bound (your choice), your capacity to love and your sense of being loved will truly "never finish." It will grow and grow.

An interview article on MySpace quotes Nash as saying, "Motherhood came pretty fast, and I started writing a ton about Henry. I just found that there was a much deeper well within me than there had been before. This was probably because it was such an emotional process with the band breaking up and all the other things happening at once."

My favorite song on this album is Between the Lines, a song about being taken for granted, of not being heard, perhaps even of having one's love spurned. Nash says, "You may feel you wrote me. I'll be undercover. Until you need me. That's where I'll be." The chorus continues:

I'm talking to you
Not the Wailing Wall
If that's what you do
This link may fall

Between the lines
Can you read me?
Between the lines
That's where I'll be
Between hello and
I would give you the moon
Between I love you and I
I'll see you soon

At first, I thought the album's final song, Just a Little, was about Nash longing to be with her husband while on tour. The MySpace interview, however, claims Just a Little is a tribute to her toddler son, Henry. The song is very lullaby-esque; it's the perfect ending for the album, I think. The chorus has broad implications as it concludes with...

Life is a riddle
I wish I had the answer for
Love breaks your heart to teach you to be strong
I die just a little, so I can live just a little bit more

Anyone can be a critic, so I just want to make it clear that I think Nash has created an impressive CD (with the help of knowedgable friends and skilled musicians). I am holding my breath to hear the next album (whenever she puts one out) because I feel confident it will have more dynamic musicality and a lyrical depth that will showcase the fullness Mrs. Leigh Nash's talent.

Blessings!
Natalie

Movement Nashville
Leigh Nash homepage

The Firing Line

2006-08-19T09:49:00.000-05:00

Hello my darlings, It’s been a while, hasn't it? ;-D

I just finished reading Don Aslett's How to Have a 48-Hour Day again. I love this book; it always gets me motivated to DO things and to be productive. Near the end of the book Aslett has a blurb titled "Staying in the Firing Line." He writes:

Heroes and champions are made in the battle, in the game, on the front line, in fact the firing line. Where there is risk, injury, buffeting about, and opposition, is also the number one producing place.
The American dream is personal freedom, but going off the firing line isn't having it made, it isn't freedom. Ninety percent of the time, it's just the opposite: personal bondage! We work, scheme, stick our neck out, and sacrifice to achieve financial independence-so we don't have to answer to anyone. What happens when most people attain "it" and are off the firing line?-marriages fail, spirituality lessens, health deteriorates, enthusiasm evaporates, we become less charitable, and our attitudes sour. On teams and staffs, in families and organizations, the firing line is where everything is happening. It's where life, knowledge, and action abound, where the seeds of greatness are sown, sprouted, and harvested. When you insulate yourself from the action of the front lines, you cut yourself off from the very things that make you grow and prosper and make you productive.
So step out in front, to the firing line, where you're on the hot seat to produce and perform and be accountable. The good life isn't luxury; it's the ability to produce! Be where you have to answer, speak, give, duck, and deliver!
If we want to prove ourselves, then we have to keep ourselves on the proving grounds; stretched to and even beyond our capacity. (143)

Growing up in a financially-challenged home, I LOVED life. I didn't really care about having nice things; I just reveled in the time I had to bond with my mother and sisters. (Besides everything is a toy or a jungle gym when you are a child with lots of imagination.) Of course I wasn't the one worrying about paying the bills and keeping food on the table. But I have often thought, "What would I do with myself if I had a financially comfortable life some day?" Call me crazy, but I don't think I would like it. Just like Aslett said, I think I'd become less spiritually keen, less charitable, lazy. I guess if one lives a virtuous life he can be content and spiritually keen in any state. If one finds himself with great financial gains, the virtuous man will spend and invest and donate is wisely.

But, honestly, I don't want a comfortable, lounge-around the house while the maid cleans, vacation in the Alps 3 times a year family-life. No, I want to earn that vacation. I want to bond with my (one-day) family while doing dishes, scrubbing toilets, or painting the house. I don't want my future children to have everything handed to them on a silver platter. I want a life full of love and activity, bonding and productivity, love for the Lord and one another. (Reminds me of that song "Live Like You Were Dying.")

Once the persecution of Christians under the Roman emperors of the first few centuries A.D. ceased, Roman citizens converted to Christianity en masse. They didn't all have a sincere passion for the truth of salvation through Christ and a love for His Church; it was just what they were expected to do. So, certain Christians, desiring to live a life as passionately devoted to the faith as the martyrs of the Coliseum created for themselves a new sort of martyrdom; they become monks, nuns, hermits, friars, and such. They took (and still take today) vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. I mention this because it relates to Aslett's assertion that being out of the firing line of life often puts us in the position of becoming idle and indifferent. And so those who wanted to spend themselves completely for love of Christ found a way to do so.

This is the sort of life I want to lead - always alert and alive - seeking to live my life to the fullest and to love others to the fullest of my capacity. You only live once (and then you live forever ;-D). Pray fervently. Choose wisely.

Love,
Natalie

"Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit." (Ephesians 5:15-18)

"And I'll say to myself, 'You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:19-21)

Quotey McQuoterton

2006-07-25T12:55:00.000-05:00

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or how the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Mmmmm. Ain't it great?!

Natalie

Another Motivational Thought on the Sacraments

2006-07-22T08:18:00.000-05:00

Annointing of the Sick

Because that which doesn't kill you . . .

probably won't wait much longer.

;-)
Love,
Natalie

Faith to Wait for Something More

2006-07-04T11:54:00.000-05:00

Recently I heard George Michael's late 80's hit "Faith" on the radio. I don't think I'd ever fully listened to the words before . . . except for maybe the first line . . . at which point I just might change the station. Check out the lyrics below:

Well, I guess it would be nice
If I could touch your body.
I know not everybody has got a body like you.
But I've got to think twice before I give my heart away,
And I know all the games you play
Because I play them, too.

Oh, but baby I need some time off from that emotion,
Time to pick my heart up off the floor.
And when that love comes down without devotion,
Well it takes a strong man baby,
But I'm showing you the door.

'Cause I’ve gotta have faith....

Baby, I know you're asking me to stay.
You say, “Please, please, please, don't go away.”
You say I'm giving you the blues.
Maybe you mean every word you say;
I can't help but think of yesterday
And another who tied me down to loverboy rules. [Whatever that's about?]

Before this river becomes an ocean,
Before you throw my heart back on the floor,
Oh baby, I reconsider my foolish notion.
Well, I need someone to hold me,
But I'll wait for something more . . .

‘Cause I’ve got to have faith . . .

I find it interesting. I can’t quite tell if this song is about a man struggling to resist a woman who is throwing herself at him because he is afraid she wants a deeper commitment or because he knows she just wants a good time and nothing more. I tend to think it’s the latter. It’s interesting to hear the struggle of a man wresting with the temptation of using a woman. Sounds like he has done such things before, but now he realizes that it is unfulfilling in the long run. He wants to wait for something more. Reminds me of another song that I have a love/hate relationship with by Weezer called "Tired of Sex." Here is a portion of the lyrics:

I'm tired, so tired.
I'm tired of having sex.
I'm spread so thin, I don't know who I am....

I'm beat, beet red,
Ashamed of what I said.
I'm sorry, here I go.
I know I'm a sinner,
But I can't say no....

Tonight I'm down on my knees.
Tonight I'm begging you please.
Tonight, tonight, oh please,
Oh, why can't I be making love come true?

Wow! In the unpalatable lyrics to the entire song the unfulfilling nature of casual sex is captured powerfully. The man in the song is ashamed of his inability to say "no". I heard another similar message in a Three Days Grace song called "Animal I Have Become". Here's a portion of those lyrics:

I can't escape this hell;
So many times I've tried,
But I'm still caged inside.
Somebody get me through this nightmare.
I can't control myself....

So what if you can see the darkest side of me?
No one will ever change this animal I have become.
Help me believe it's not the real me.
Somebody help me tame this animal I have become.

Help me believe it's not the real me.
Somebody help me tame this animal.

Wow. That's pretty powerful, especially the cry, "Help me believe it's not the real me." Wow!

I was reading a section in It Takes a Family this morning regarding our culture's messages about human sexuality:

Kids conclude from what they see on TV that true love is validated through sexual engagement, that sex is the natural and normal result when two people like each other. And what follows from sex is, of course, true happiness. With all this sex going on outside of marriage, you'd think we should be a pretty sexually satisfied society. Of course, we are not. In a groundbreaking essay on the impact of pornography, Naomi Wolfe asked, "Does all this sexual imagery in the air mean that sex has been liberated--or is it the case that the relationship between the multi-billion-dollar porn industry, compulsiveness, and sexual appetite has become like the relationship between agribusiness, processed foods, supersize portions, and obesity? If your appetite is stimulated and fed by poor-quality material, it takes more junk to fill you up. People are not closer because of porn but further apart; people are not more turned on in their daily lives but less so." The sexual saturation of our culture has had the unexpected effect of depleting real intimacy in our lives. One irony of our times is that surveys show the most sexually satisfied women in America are: married and religious! Hardly what the media would have you believe.

That is dead-on! So all of this to say that George Michael's got a serious point (despite any of his other songs) when he says:

Well, I need someone to hold me,
But I'll wait for something more . . .
‘Cause I’ve got to have faith . . .

So I encourage you to have faith, faith to wait for something more - be it with the one you are already with or with the love-of-your-life yet to come. We are all tempted at various times to seek fulfillment in physical intimacy with someone we are not married to (or in selfish ways with the one we are married to). But we can start shaping our affections towards what is good and true and beautiful from this moment on. We can learn to trust God so profoundly that we can "wait for something more" knowing He'll be faithful to provide the love that truly fulfills. Saying “no” to selfish or desperate desires is part of how we exercise our faith in our loving God.

Blessings!
Natalie

Psalm 37:3-5 "Trust in the LORD, and do good; Dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness. Delight yourself also in the LORD, and He shall give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD, trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass."

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." - Jesus
(Matthew 9:12-13)

The Interpretative Dance Theocrats

2006-06-01T17:26:00.000-05:00

If there were ever a time to laugh so hard that you can no longer control certain bodily functions, then that time has arrived! You've gotta read the following post by "Holy Office" from livejournal.com. I've reproduced the content below, but follow the link above when you're done 'cause the comments left by others on his site are also hilarious!

Enjoy!

Natalie

The Interpretative Dance Theocrats

There is an unintentionally hilarious excerpt in Salon today from Michelle Goldberg's new book, "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism." In it, Goldberg casts doubt on her ability to serve as a reliable guide by repeatedly confusing premillenialism with rapture theology, by confusing the Weimar-era "conservative revolution" in Germany with Nazism, and by apparently believing that Leviticus was a person.

It also opens with a portentous description of an interpretative dance performance regarding the removal of Roy Moore's 10 Commandments monument from an Alabama courthouse. Apparently, Goldberg intends this to be menacing, but it's hard to be frightened by any group that communicates its message through dance. Goldberg draws explicit parallels between today's Christians and the Nazis of 1920s Germany, which only makes the whole thing more ridiculous: my own, admittedly non-intensive, study of the Third Reich has convinced me that ballet was generally low on the list of Stormtroopers' tactics.

This underscores that while many people in America are scared silly of Christianity, many of the most frightened know very little about it. Terms like "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" are thrown around with very little concern about their actual meaning, and this is before entering the dark thicket of Preterists, Amillenialists, Prelapsarian Arminian Claims Adjusters, etc.

To be fair to these perplexed and terrified people, Christians are not easy to understand. To begin with, there are roughly 2,000 years of history to grasp, and certainly more denominations and subdivisions than that to take on board. For people who were raised secular, I imagine it's like trying to understand an opera after coming in halfway before the end: the stage is crowded with people, two of them seem to be dead, a woman is wearing a hat with horns, and everyone is making a terrible racket.

The time has come for some kind of crib sheet for the confused and frightened, a handy, easy-to-use reference guide for identifying some of the key denominations, terms, and concepts in Christianity. This is intended a simple "cheat sheet" for those confused and worried about the place of Christianity in America and, to a lesser extent, the contemporary world. It's not intended to be a comprehensive guide, only to help my secular friends as they navigate the confused waters of the world's largest religion.

Let's start with some of the terms that got Goldberg confused:

Premillenialism
This is the belief among some Christians that, ever since Jan. 1, 2000, it has no longer been possible, in the words of the Prince song, "to party like it's 1999." Postmillenialists are those Christians who believe that it will always be possible to do so, while Amillenialists believe that in this context, "1999" cannot be understood literally, but must be read as an allegorical term roughly meaning "a time at which it is especially appropriate to party."

Rapture
This was a #1 hit in 1980 for Blondie (#5 in the UK), from the otherwise underwhelming "Autoamerican" album. Many Christians now concede that the then-pioneering use of rap in the song sounds a little lame in retrospect. In their best-selling series of books about the song, "Left Behind (Parallel Lines)," Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye defend the rap verse's hip references to Grandmaster Flash and Fab Five Freddy, and maintain that when Jesus returns, all believers will be united in accepting that Blondie's cover of "The Tide Is High" is better than the original.

The Pope
The Pope is the President of Christianity. He is elected every four years by the Congress of Cardinals, which is divided into the Senate and the Holy House of Representatives. As president, the pope can veto important pieces of legislation, which he tends to do. The pope is also magical, and cannot be seen with the naked eye except for one hour on Christmas Eve every year.

The Bible
The Bible was written by God as a merchandising tie-in to His blockbuster film "The Ten Commandments." Each book of the Bible is named after a person who features prominently in it, for example, the Book of Numbers, which is named after Herschel Numbers, who invented numerals. The Bible was so successful that God wrote a sequel, "Bible II: On to Rome," now generally called "The New Testament." Protestants believe the Bible is literal and exactly true in every detail except the description of the Eucharist, while Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible.

Catholics
Catholics are the New York Yankees of Christianity. They are the biggest and wealthiest team, and their owner is intensely controversial (this makes St. Francis of Assisi the Derek Jeter of Catholicism: discuss). Catholics all wear matching uniforms, and are divided into "parishes," or "squadrons," to make choosing softball teams easier. Catholics are rigidly controlled by a hidebound hierarchy that starts with priests and ends with priests' housekeepers. Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible, eat meat, or refrain from worshipping statues.

Orthodox
For many years, American scholars believed the Orthodox were, like leprechauns, unicorns, and Eskimos, purely the product of the fanciful imaginations of medieval writers. Recent evidence leads us to tentatively conclude, however, that Eastern Orthodoxy may have somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million adherents. Protestants tend to see the Orthodox as "Catholics with beards," while Catholics confess to a haunting sense that they are simply "Orthodox without beards."

The Protestant Reformation
This is the name historians give to a major labor dispute that erupted in Germany in 1517 when a group of monks hammered a proposed union contract to the door of the pope's house, requesting a 95 percent pay raise. The pope refused to negotiate with the monks union until it agreed to pay to have the door fixed, and the result was the world's longest-running strike. For nearly 500 years, a huge portion of Christians have been on strike from being Catholic, saying they are "justified" in their work stoppage because the pope won't expand the number of indulgences they get per year. Currently, the matter is in arbitration.

Calvinism
This theory was worked out by the French theologian and fashion designer John Calvin Klein, who argued that some people are predestined to be glamorous while others are doomed to be plain. America was founded by Calvinists, who sought to establish a country where they could pursue their belief that buckled hats were fashionable.

Fundamentalism

The belief that basic elements of play - like passing, ball handling, and defense - are the essential building blocks of a winning basketball team is generally referred to as "fundamentalism." The fundamentalists formulated their doctrine in the 1980s against the showy, heretical play of Magic Johnson's Los Angeles Lakers. Leading fundamentalist institutions include Bob Jones University and Syracuse. Larry Brown's failure to get the Knicks into the playoffs has been seen as a major setback for the cause of fundamentalism.

Baptism
Baptists are Christians who believe God can only be accessed by means of a swimming pool or, in some cases, a shallow outdoor stream. The first Baptist was John the Baptist, who was said to eat locusts and honey, although contemporary Baptists generally prefer barbecue. "Baptism" is also the term used to describe a key Christian ceremony, in which prospective members of the church are either initiated actually (Catholics, Orthodox, confused Protestants) or symbolically (Protestants, confused Catholics, religious studies professors). Catholics believe that anyone can perform a valid baptism, Orthodox believe that any Christian can, while Baptists, paradoxically, believe that only they can.

The Emerging Church

This is a term that refers to churches attended exclusively by white people in their 20s and 30s who have at least one tattoo or body piercing. Their distinguishing characteristics are a refreshing, "up to date" interpretation of Christianity, and a reluctance to directly answer questions.

The Nicene Creed
This statement of faith is the Christian Pledge of Allegiance, recited every Sunday in squadron meetings by Christians all over the globe. Adopted in the 4th century at the behest of Emperor Constantinople, it was designed to counter the influence of the Aryans, who argued that Jesus was German.

Touchdown Jesus
When professional athletes thank Jesus for helping them win a game, this is the Jesus they're referring to.

The Trinity

This is the Christian expression of God, who Christians say is personified by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not all Christians accept this: Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Pentecostals reject trinitarianism, as do Muslims. Interestingly, while this does not mean Pentecostals are Muslim, it does mean that Muslims are Jehovah's Witnesses. St. Augustine famously summed up the difficulty of comprehending the Trinity when he recounted a dream in which a small boy told him he would need a bigger bucket if he wanted to bail out the ocean.

Sex
Christians are not permitted to have sex. This unpopular doctrine was formulated by Pope Lactose LX at the Council of Disney in 1439. Despite this restriction, Christians have managed to increase their ranks to the point where there are roughly 2 billion of them. Scholars attribute this to the competitive health benefits and generous "flex time" arrangements offered by Christianity.

Heaven
Heaven is a term referring to the ultimate destiny of a certain number of souls. Depending on who you listen to, heaven is either: where all of us will end up (Origen); where many of us will end up (St. Gregory of Nyssa); where some of us will end up (John Calvin); where a small portion of us have, in some sense, already ended up (John of Leyden); where precisely 144,000 of us will end up (Charles Taze Russell); or where Jack Chick will end up (Jack Chick). Theologian Belinda Carlisle once posited that "Ooh, baby, heaven is a place on earth," but explorers combing the globe have yet to confirm this.

The Devil
Although the Devil - also known as Satan, Lucifer, the Father of Lies, and, to his friends, "Hef" - is mentioned numerous times in Bible II, most Christians today are uncomfortable with belief in a literal, personal demonic entity. Instead, they prefer to think of the Devil primarily as the potential for wickedness that exists within all human beings or, in some cases, as an especially unreasonable landlord.

I hope this helps clear up some easily-made misconceptions about Christianity. If there are any questions about other doctrines or concepts, please don't hesitate to ask.

By Holy Office

Sexual Souls

2006-05-28T15:56:00.000-05:00
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

2006-05-20T21:29:00.000-05:00

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

2006-05-10T21:35:00.000-05:00
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

2006-05-10T12:49:00.000-05:00
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

2006-05-04T22:58:00.000-05:00

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)

Official Roman Catholic

2006-04-22T21:21:00.000-05:00

Yes, it is official. I was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church at the Saturday Easter Vigil at my parish this year. So many of my friends made it out to support me. I love my parish, my Church and my priests. I am so very, very blessed. Receiving Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist for the first time was soberingly exciting. I have tried to make it to daily Mass every day this past week. I am so happy. I so long to be a holy woman. I welcome any and all of your prayers. I'm truly home and I want to live and breathe the fullness of the faith which Jesus has given to His Bride, His Church. Thanks you so much, all of my friends, who came out to partake of our Lord and my joy in being received into His Church!!!

Well, I had an old girl friend from high school and college drive up to see me this weekend. It was good to catch up. The first thing she said when she set her bags down in my room was, "So you're Catholic now? What made you decide that?" Good times. We had some lovely conversations. Although, we did waste a good hour and a half surfing the internet together and looking up old friends from our high school and college days. Some of our discoveries were disturbing, I must say. But the useful part of it all is that I just felt so thankful to have our Lord, to have His Church, and to have so many friends who long to please Him as well. (Thank You so much, Lord, for where you have brought me. Please, "grant that I may love you always and then do with me as You will"!)

As I awoke this morning, my friend was still sound asleep. So I took advantage of the quite moment and the secure feeling I have when a friend is near to do some quality reading. I picked up Fulton Sheen's Guide to Contentment. It's a quick read, really. One particular part that I enjoyed was on the issue of "love at first sight". Here comes the typical long quote . . . ;-D

A young man may know and appreciate a number of young women, and yet in the depths of his soul remain unmoved. And then one day, a woman with no conscious purpose will release some secret spring in the depths of his personality, and from that moment on, she becomes the center of the world.

What creates this new condition? It may have been knowledge of her character and personality, but it may also have been rather spontaneous, or what is called love at first sight.

One may ask if each of us does not really carry in his or her own heart a blueprint of the one that he or she loves. This blue-print is made by our reading, our prayers, our experiences, our hopes, our ideals, by our mother and father. Then suddenly the ideal becomes concretized and realized in a person, and we say, "This is it."

Each of us carries around in his own heart the music that he loves. We hear a certain kind of music for the first time, and we immediately love it. It satisfies the rhythm and the tempo that are already inside our hearts. Love at first sight may be incomprehensible, but it is a fact, nonetheless. In the end it may not be first sight; it may be just a dream coming true. (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1967. pg 23-24.)

I can tell I'm going to love this book. It deals with much more than romantic love, it focuses also on our affections in general and how our "loves" orient us toward virtue or vice.

Easter Blessings! Christ is Risen!

Natalie

Wanted: Co-creators (see inside for more details)

2006-03-25T23:53:00.000-05:00

I ain't got much time for usin' this here internet these days, so we'z gotz to git right down to business. Mmmmkkk?

You and I are creatures, created beings. My very existence did not come from myself, nor do you have any hand to play in your own existence. It is God Who created you and me, and He designed the means by which we would one day come into being. (Psst . . . it involves sexual intercourse.)

God, in fact, is still very much in the business of creating; His creative work did not end when He rested on the seventh day (see Genesis 2:3). God has established the laws of nature in such a way that His wonderful creation, human kind, participates profoundly in His continuing work of creating new human beings in His image and likeness. (This is not a physical likeness, as God is spirit, but a likeness in that we can reason and will things as God does. We are capable of self-knowledge, self-possession, and self-giving. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church #357.)

When a man and a woman “use the sexual urge in sexual intercourse,” they “enter as it were into the cosmic stream by which existence is transmitted,” says JPII (54). As rational beings, both a man and a woman can “consciously direct their own actions and also foresee the possible results, the fruits of those actions” (54). The CCC #357 says that human persons are capable of freely giving themselves and “entering into communion with other persons.” We are called by grace to offer ourselves in faith and love to God, a gift that no other creature on earth can do in our stead (CCC 357).

When a couple copulates, they are, in the words of JPII, “the rational cocreators of a new human being” (54). The physical union of a man and woman may beget the physical body of their own child, however, neither of them can take credit for the creation of the spirit of that child. It is God rather who “breathes” the spirit of the child into its physical being upon conception. (See CCC 366.) The Catholic Church holds that a person’s body and spirit form a unity of substance; they are not two separate things. That is dualism, and we will have none of that. ;-D

Peter Kreeft explains, in Catholic Christianity:

“Man is not merely a body (that is materialism). Nor is he merely a soul (that is spiritualism). Nor is he two beings, like a ghost in a machine (that is dualism). He is one being in two dimensions, bodily and spiritual. . .

“The human soul is not imprisoned in the body, as Plato taught, but expressed in it, as the meaning of a play is expressed in its words. And the body is not enslaved by the soul but fulfilled by it, as a beautiful piece of marble is fulfilled and brought to perfection in a great work of sculpture. . .

“The human soul is not a pure spirit, like an angel. It is the ‘form’ of the body; it is meant to inform a body. The body is not a house, and the soul is not ghost. We are not haunted! The soul is not something strange, occult, or alien. Just the opposite. It is who we are; it is our personality. God gave it to us at conception (that magical moment that was the beginning of our body, too), and we shape it through all of life’s choices” (59).

“We are neither animals nor angels. Our bodies are neither the whole of our nature, as with animals, nor outside our nature, as with angels. They are not external to us, not costumes for spirits to hide in, like Halloween masks, or instruments for minds to manipulate, like computers. We are essentially body as well as spirit.

“Why did God design us this way?

“God designed us to be the priests of the whole of creation. ‘God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him’ (CCC 358). How then do we fulfill our destiny as the priests of the whole creation?

When we offer ourselves to God, we offer up the whole universe in our body, for our body is a ‘microcosm’, a little cosmos, the universe in miniature. We are made up of star-stuff and mineral-stuff and plant life and animal sensations, as well as mind and will and heart. ‘Through his very bodily condition [man] sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the creator’ (GS 14; cf. Dan 3:57-90). In us, the floods clap their hands and the hills sing for joy (Ps 98:8). (58-9)

So what happens to a man’s spirit upon the death and decay of his physical body? Kreeft explains:

“The soul must be reunited with a new body because God made man as a soul-body unity, and God makes no mistakes. Therefore the resurrection of the body is needed to complete and perfect our human nature in heaven. (Between death and resurrection, we are incomplete.) We do not become angels any more than we become ants” (60).

We are not to despise our bodily life. Because God has created our bodies and will also resurrect them in His own timing, we should indeed hold our bodily existence in honor as the good that it is.

All this to bring it back to the point that when a man and woman conceive a child, they participate with God in the creation of another immortal soul, of a brand new human person, the incarnation of their love (well . . . hopefully). Isn’t that amazing?

Well, if you wanna find out what love's got to do with it, then stay tuned! ;-D

Lent

2006-03-07T16:51:00.000-05:00
Just wanted to let any one out there know that I hope to blog again on Sunday, but for the rest of the week I have very, very little internet access . . . as I've given up most of my personal internet usage for Lent. It's really great, I must confess. Ooooo, and I'm going to have my first Confession/Penance sometime soon. I'm soooooooo excited! Seriously!

Blessings!!!
Natalie

Nothin' Says Lovin' Like Somethin' from the Oven

2006-02-12T09:37:00.000-05:00

JPII explains:

The proper end of the sexual urge is the existence of the species Homo, its continuation (procretio), and love between persons, between man and woman, is shaped, channeled one might say, by that purpose and formed from the material it provides. It can therefore take its correct shape only in so far as it develops in close harmony with the proper purpose of the sexual urge. An outright conflict with that purpose will also perturb and undermine love between persons. (52-3)

Wow! JPII is particularly referring to contraceptive acts here. A husband and wife must recognize the life-giving purpose behind the use of the sexual urge, and they must never do anything to thwart that purpose (i.e. sterilization, coitus interruptus, or use of barriers or chemical contraceptives of any kind). JPII says that "man often accords the sexual urge a merely biological significance and does not fully realize its true, existential significance - its link with existence" (53). When we think of something as merely biological, we tend to think it is okay to manipulate and alter it. Recognizing the "natural purpose of the sexual urge" as pro-creative and existential does not banish love from the equation. JPII says rather that recognizing the procreative purpose of the sexual urge gives conjugal love its true character (53).

In taking marital vows a man and a woman should be consciously choosing to "participate in the whole natural order of existence," being completely open to facilitating "the existence of another concrete person, their own child, blood of their blood, and flesh of their flesh" (53). As JPII says, "This person is at once an affirmation and a continuation of their own love. The natural order of human existence is not in conflict with love between persons but in strict harmony with it" (53).

Love between a man and woman is intimately connected with the utilization of the sexual urge. JPII explains that whenever a couple seeks to circumvent the purpose of the sexual urge by artificial means they are actually damaging the love between them.

There are of course times in which the sexual act simply cannot bring about the conception of a new human person (i.e. when a woman is not fertile - which is the majority of the time). Also, when a woman is already pregnant, if either of the spouses are sterile, or if a woman is post-menopausal, then conception is not biologically possible. JPII tells us that another value of the sexual urge, apart from its procreative purpose, is to bring together men and women into reciprocal and complementary relationships.

He elaborates:

If the spouses are to take legitimate advantage of the energy which the urge releases, and of its natural promptings, they must before all else take into account its basic meaning and rationale. If this condition (that nothing shall be done to negate the proper purpose of the urge) is fulfilled, then even when a new human being cannot be born from the union of a man and woman, or from a particular occasion of sexual intercourse, the spouses are none the less reborn in love, and so to speak give birth to each other in their interpersonal communion. (f.n. 17, p294)

I am reminded of a passage from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. I do not have the book, so I cannot quote it directly, but he speaks of the natural law and of morality regarding contracepted use of the sexual urge. He compares the use of the sexual urge to the use of the urge to eat. The primary purpose for hunger and the desire to eat is that we will indeed eat and be nourished and continue to live. (Remember, existence is our first and primary good :-)

However, there is pleasure attached to eating (unless of course the food tastes bad, is poisonous, or if you simply have no sense of taste or smell). This is comparable to the fact that pleasure is often attached to the use of the sexual urge, but pleasure is not guaranteed and is not a purpose of the sexual urge. By the way, Janet E. Smith in her talk "Contraception: Why Not?" makes the point that God attaches pleasure to those things which He wants us to do for our own continuation and health. Such things include sex, eating, sleeping, and exercising. I think that's fascinating.

Lewis compares contracepted intercourse to bulimia. The bulimic wants the pleasure of eating, but because he does not want to follow the act through to its natural end and experience its natural consequences, he forces himself to throw-up after he experiences enough of the pleasure of beginning the eating process. Likewise, contraception is an unnatural act by which a couple seeks to enjoy some of the pleasure of the sexual act without following it through to its natural end and experiencing its natural consequences. The consequence that most couples are trying to avoid when contracepting is the conception of a child. (The couple does not realize that there is much pleasure also to be had in the begetting of and rearing of their own children.)

Some couples have grave reasons for seeking to avoid pregnancy, particularly if the mother has a condition in which a pregnancy can cause her to die. The Church holds forth any number of modern, scientific Natural Family Planning methods for use in situations like these. (We are not talking "rhythm method" okay?)

Natural Family Planning (NFP) involves the charting of the wife's fertility-cycle. During the wife's "fertile window" the spouses mutually abstinence from intercourse (including any other act which would cause one of the spouses to come to sexual climax apart from the act of intercourse; that's a whole 'nother element of Catholic sexual moral teaching). The difference between NFP and contraceptive acts is that NFP refuses to utilize the sexual urge for the sole purpose of pleasure while intentionally thwarting the procreative capability of that act.

NFP also has some benefits in that it fosters communication between the spouses, prayer, a greater understanding of the woman's body and health, and also the virtues of self-control and self-discipline. During the woman's fertile period, the couple must seek creative, non-sexual ways to express their love. NFP can also help a couple to know when to "try for" a baby because they are aware of their fertile periods. It is still possible for a couple of use NFP with a "contraceptive mentality", but I do think the practice as a whole has a positive influence on the couple's openness to life and selflessness with one another.

The Existential Significance of the Sexual Urge

2006-02-09T22:03:00.000-05:00
What is the foundational purpose of the sexual urge? Come on, take a guess!!!

It's pro-creation, the continuation of the species.

"What?!" some might exclaim. "It's not love? It's not pleasure? Is the purpose of sex to have as many babies as humanly possible?! What happened to the 'personalistic norm' here? Isn't that another form of utilitarianism? Ahhhhhh!!!"

Yes, that could definitely be a utilitarian approach of a different variety. Love does has something to do with the sexual urge; JPII very much affirms that the sexual urge provides the "material for love between persons, between man and woman" (51). However, he also points out that two persons of the opposite sex can have much love for one another and yet have no sexual chemistry or attraction for one another. Love is also not guaranteed between two people who have sex. Love is dependent on human free will. Therefore we can deduce that the primary purpose of the sexual urge is the continuation of the human species. But, as we will see in my next blog entry, JPII will also address those more personalistic, incidental purposes of the sexual urge.

JPII writes:

The existence of the whole species Homo depends directly on [the sexual urge]. The species could not exist if it were not for the sexual urge and its natural results. . . . Human kind can be maintained in being only so long as individual people, individual men and women, human couples, obey the sexual urge. (51)

If the sexual urge had not been built into our nature, we human beings just might cease to exist. Seriously.

JPII points out that "existence is the first and basic good for every creature. . . . All other goods derive from this basic good" (51).

He continues:

Man's multifarious works, the creations of his genius, the fruits of his holiness are only possible if the man - the genius, the saint - comes into existence. To be he had to begin to exist. The natural route by which human beings begin to exist passes through the sexual urge. (52)

Although the sexual urge is a force of nature, we do not study it merely from a biological standpoint. The sexual urge has more than a biological significance; it has an existential significance. The sexual urge is intimately bound to the very existence of mankind in general. The study of existence itself is a subject of philosophy. Natural sciences (such as biology and chemistry) are not directly concerned with existence in and of itself; rather these fields take "existence for granted as a concrete fact inherent in the object which it studies" (52). Because of the existential significance of the sexual urge, it is imperative to consult philosophy in determining the "true importance of the sexual urge, which has obvious implications in the realm of sexual morality" (52).

Remember the Catholic assertion that human existence is "that first and most basic good"(52)? If the sexual urge is intimately connected to the existence of the human person, then the sexual urge is not meant to be used for just any end a man may choose. Although "it is there for man to use,” the sexual urge must follow principles regarding respect for the human person, and the sexual urge must not be utilized in absence of "love for the person" nor used in contradiction to “love for the person” (52).

It is interesting to think, as JPII points out, that the sexual urge is wired into every man by God's design. It was His idea, not ours! And furthermore, God gave us predetermined purposes for the sexual urge that remain independent of any man’s will. So, we don't make the rules about the sexual urge and its purposes, and when we try to we do so to our own peril. For, as a professor of mine once said, "Reality can only bear the weight of a bad idea for so long." (He may have been quoting a book called Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver. I’m not sure.)

We must cooperate with the reality of things in life. We are not doing ourselves any favors by going against the grain of the built-in meaning and purpose of the sexual urge. I particularly like the way Rick Santorum deals with this topic of cooperating with the "natural law" in his book It Takes a Family.

Santorum explains in chapter four, "The Meaning of Family," that the traditional family is "constituted by a mother and a father who have committed themselves to each other in lifelong marriage, together with their children" (28) This is a "traditional" family "because it is fundamentally natural" (28). Santorum says modern liberal thought rejects such a definition of the family as "restrictive" because "it limits our 'freedom' to choose who and how we will love" (28) It "'excludes'. . .different kinds of families" which are supposedly "no better and no worse than the natural family" (28). He says the very word natural often makes people nervous in the liberal sphere of the political spectrum "since nature is what we are as human beings, which we cannot change or choose otherwise" (28)

I don't mean to turn the focus to politics at the last minute, especially since I am largely inept at such discussion. However, Santorum's thoughts are right on target regarding the natural law.

He continues:

In the tradition of my own faith community, the Catholic Church, we speak about the natural law, which we might think of as the operating instructions for human beings. The promise of the natural law is that we will be happiest, and freest, when we follow the law built into our nature as men and women. For liberals, however, nature is too confining, and thus is the enemy of freedom. Consequently, when liberals think about society, they see only "individuals"--not men and women and children. Men and women and children have natures, but liberal "individuals" are abstractions, free to choose anything at all and unconfined by purportedly illusory factors like gender. At first, the liberal vision may sound attractive--because freedom is attractive. The only problem is that it is a false vision, because nature is nature, and the freedom to choose against the natural law is not really freedom at all. (It Takes a Family 28-29)

[By the way, Wikipedia on-line defines "political liberalism" as "the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals." In my on-line quest for a definition of “liberal” as used by Santorum, I came across a blog called Liberal by Definition. The author made me laugh, although I am in no way endorsing his blog.]

"I want your sex"

2006-02-05T20:10:00.000-05:00

In case you didn't catch that, the title of this entry includes lyrics from an old George Michael song. I just thought it would be funny to contemplate the literal meaning of his words in light of what I am going to discuss today from JPII's Love & Responsibility

JPII writes:
"Every human being is by nature a sexual being, and belongs from birth to one of the two sexes. This fact is not contradicted by the phenomenon of so-called hermaphroditism - any more than any other sickness or deformity militates against the fact that there is such a thing as human nature and that every human being, even the deformed or sick human being, has the same nature and is a human being precisely because of it. In the same way every human being is a sexual being, and membership of one of the two sexes means that a person's whole existence has a particular orientation which shows itself in his or her actual internal development" (47).

Yep, folks. We are all inescapably sexed! If you are a human being, you are a sexual being. You have a sex: male or female. (JPII will come back to the issue of hermaphroditism in the last section of Love & Responsibility, which we are no where near yet.)

Our darling, former Pope continues, "The orientation given to a person's existence by membership of one of the sexes does not only make itself felt internally, but at the same time turns outwards, and in the normal course of things (once again, we are not speaking of sicknesses or of perversions) manifests itself in a certain natural predilection for, a tendency to seek, the other sex. What is the goal of this orientation?" (47-8). I ask myself that question every day of my life? Haha. Just kidding.

JPII points out that there is an "urge to mutual completion" between the sexes because the "attributes of each sex possess some specific value for the other" (48). The usual joking about the differences between men and women "indicate only a division in terms of psychological and physiological attributes" (48), but "sexual attraction makes obvious the fact that the attributes of the two sexes are complementary, so that a man and a woman can complete each other" (48). JPII continues, "The properties which the woman possesses are not possessed by the man, and vice versa. Consequently, there exists for each of them not only the possibility of supplementing his or her own attributes with those of a person of the other sex, but at times a keenly felt need to do so" (48).

JPII asks, "Is it that the attributes of each sex possess a value for the other, and that what we call the sexual urge comes into being because of this, or do these attributes, on the contrary, possess a value for them because of the existence of the sexual urge?" (48). Hmmmm. Good question. He says it is the second option. "The sexual urge is something even more basic than the psychological and physiological attributes of man and woman in themselves, though it does not manifest itself or function without them" (49). Hmmm.

He elaborates that the sexual urge is not simply "an orientation towards the psychological and physiological attributes of the other sex" in the abstract (49). No, rather men and women desire a specific, concrete individual of the opposite sex. As JPII puts it, "the sexual urge in a human being is always in the natural course of things directed towards another human being" (49).

Some clarifications on this point from our beloved JPII follow below:

"If [the sexual urge] is directed towards the sexual attributes as such this must be recognized as an impoverishment or even a perversion of the urge. If it is directed towards the sexual attributes of a person of the same sex we speak of a homosexual deviation. Still more emphatically do we speak of sexual deviation if the urge is directed not towards the sexual attributes of a human being but towards those of an animal. The natural direction of the sexual urge is towards a human being of the other sex and not merely towards 'the other sex' as such. It is just because it is directed towards a particular human being that the sexual urge can provide the framework within which, and the basis on which, the possibility of love arises" (49)

"The sexual urge in man has a natural tendency to develop into love simply because the two objects affected, with their different sexual attributes, physical and psychological, are both people. Love is a phenomenon peculiar to the world of human beings. In the animal world only the sexual instinct is at work" (49).

Love between a man and a woman does not consist of the biological or psychological consummation of the sexual urge, but rather love is shaped by "acts of the will at the level of the person" (49). Love grows out of the conditions created by the sexual urge as experienced between two concrete persons of the opposite sex, but love is not merely the experience of sexual attraction or emotional bonding; it is based in the will of the individuals.

The sexual urge does not deprive man of "his power of self-determination" (50). JPII says, "The sexual urge does not itself produce complete, finished actions, it only furnishes, so to speak, in the form of all that 'happens' in man's inner being under its influence, what might be called the stuff from which action is made" (49-50). The human person is master of the sexual urge; he (or she) can turn the "force of the sexual urge" towards the purposes he deems best. Any act originating in the manifestation of the sexual urge "must be evaluated on the plane of love" (50). The power of the sexual urge requires us, as human beings, to be responsible to use it only in ways that truly express love. (And I'm not talking about "If you love me, you'll have sex with me" or "I think it's time to have sex now because we really love each other." No. No. No. Rather true love is all about not engaging in sexual intimacy outside of a lifelong marriage covenant.)

JPII continues:

"Here it should also be said that the sexual urge is an attribute and a force common to humanity at large, at work in every human being, although it is a force which manifests itself in different ways and indeed with different degrees of psychological and physiological intensity in different people. The urge, however, cannot be identified with the ways in which it shows itself. Since the urge itself is a universal human attribute we have to reckon with its effects at every turn in all relationships between the sexes and indeed wherever they exist side by side" (50).

Man is both a social and a sexual being. Men and women often co-exist in social settings; we lead a "co-educational" existence in this sense (51). Because of these realities, sexual ethics also addresses social relationships between men and women in general. All relationships between the two sexes should operate on the principle of the dignity of the human person. Proper relations between the sexes in social life are necessary for the common good of society.

"Interpretation of the Sexual Urge"

2006-02-01T11:40:00.000-05:00
I have to be honest, when JPII begins explaining the "sexual urge," I find it a bit difficult to understand. I hope that as I progress in reading Love & Responsibility that the issue of the sexual urge becomes lucid.

Okay. JPII describes the "sexual urge" as a drive common to all human beings. True. True. This urge or instinct is not merely a matter of physical arousal and a desire for intercourse, but rather it is "the source of what happens in a man" both in his sensual and emotional life. He says that the sexual urge is a "vector of aspiration along which [one's] whole existence develops and perfects itself from within" (46). I like the poetry of that last statement, but I don't understand exactly what he is trying to convey. If any one else out there is familiar with JPII's teachings on this, please contribute your understanding.

What I do get is that the sexual urge is not only reserved to the sphere of sexual intercourse and such activity; it permeates the whole of human existence. It is not so much "that man behaves in a particular way as that something happens to man, something begins to take place without any initiative on his part, and this internal 'happening' creates as it were a base for definite actions, for considered actions, in which man exercises self-determination, decides for himself about his own actions and takes responsibility for them" (46-7).

JPII describes the sexual urge as a "reflex mode of action, which is not dependent on conscious thought" (45). As human beings who are conscious of our free will, however, we also have a reflex action to resist "everything that does violence in any way to that freedom" (45). So our sexual urge is sometimes in conflict with our freedom because we can be tempted to express ourselves sexually "without any conscious thought" or deliberation on "the end in view". It is not typical of man to follow a mode of action without reflecting on its relation to "the end at which he aims (46), writes JPII. It is proper to us as human beings to consciously select our ends and to select the best and most appropriate means to achieve those ends.

We are not responsible for involuntary sexual sensations, but we are responsible for what we do with them and how we act on arousal and our desire to be with another person. We are not the cause of our sexual desires, they are God's idea. We cooperate with our God-given sexual urge using our freewill. (I also get the impression from the words of JPII that he wants to point out that persons are not responsible for what another person may do to them sexually without their consent. That’s a very important thing to note for anyone who has been sexually abused.)

JPII continues: "There is in man an innate principle which makes him capable of considered behavior, or self-determination. Man is by nature capable of rising above instinct in his actions. And he is capable of such action in the sexual sphere as elsewhere. If it were otherwise, morality would have no meaning in this context, would simply not exist, but sexual morality as everyone knows is a universal phenomenon, something common to all humanity. It is, then, difficult to speak of the sexual instinct in man as though it meant the same as it does in animals, difficult to accept it as the sole and ultimate source of actions in the sexual sphere" (46).

My First Gig

2006-01-28T00:52:00.000-05:00
Before I attempt to introduce JPII's "Interpretation of the Sexual Urge," I'd just like to say that last night was my first dance performance "gig". I performed a 15 minute set to Turkish and Egyptian music for some friends' birthday party. I had a blast, and I think the performance was a smashing success with the crowd. Good times.
My beloved roomie and I.

(Thanks for taking these shots!)

Caught by the birthday boy!

Hello there.

Here, hold my veil; I insist.

Make room. Coming through.

"The Unveiling" or "I am Bat Girl"-
whichever you prefer

No matter how many times I hip-drop,
I just can't make myself Persian.
Dang it.

He just ain't no good for me.

He is mesmerized by my veil.
Or maybe he's in a drunken stupor.

I challenge you to a shimmy.

The piñata clown gets it.
Why doesn't anyone else get it?

"The Tempest"

Dance, my Esmerelda, dance!

Blessings!
Natalie

Roe & Doe (In Case You Don't Know)

2006-01-22T17:43:00.000-05:00
January 22, 1973 - Roe vs. Wade ruled that most state laws against abortion are a violation of a a constitutional right to privacy. The Court then removed the right for any state to restrict abortions during the first trimester (3 months) of pregnancy. Roe does allow states to regulate abortions in the second and third trimesters so long as there are provisions for situations in which the "health" or life of the mother is threatened. [Transcript of Roe].

Doe vs. Bolton, Roe's companion case, also ruled that same day to define "health" of the mother to include "all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age-relevant to the well-being of the patient." In a nutshell, January 22 of this year marks 33 years since our federal government made abortion legal through all 9 months of fetal development for virtually any reason throughout all 50 states.

I'd like to point out here that if a woman's life is truly at risk during a pregnancy doctors should seek to save her life as well as her unborn child. The original Hippocratic oath required physicians to pledge to "do no harm" to any patient. Both mother and child are patients because both are living human beings. The Oath also states, "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion." The Catholic Church teaches that no one should ever directly and intentionally destroy the life of an unborn person. We are never to perform an intrinsically evil act (i.e. taking a human life) so that good may result. In fact, even if a child has implanted in a woman's fallopian tube (which will ultimately lead to a rupture of the tube, hemorrhaging within the woman, and the death of the child) the Church does not condone the direct destruction of the child in the womb via suction methods or what have you. Rather, the doctor should remove the portion of the tube which will ultimately rupture and could kill the mother. The child will be inside of this part of the tube, and the doctor must allow the tiny child to die naturally. There is no way to make a child re-implant in a woman's uterus that I am aware of and during this early period the child could certainly not survive outside of the protective, nurturing environment of her mother's body. If during a legitimate operation or treatment to save the mother's life, her child is indirectly harmed or killed, this is morally different than an abortion.

If Roe is ever overturned it will not make abortion illegal in the U.S., but rather each state government will be handed back the reigns to regulate abortion within their own state. I dream of seeing states outlaw abortion completely. It would be a brutal state-by-state battle to achieve this dream, though. Senator Rick Santorum writes in his 2005 book It Takes A Family, "Laws have meaning, and therefore, laws teach. When something is legal it has the presumption that it is moral and right" (34). Many Americans cannot imagine a United States without legalized abortion on demand. We have been in a "culture of death" (John Paul II's words) for 33 years, and many of us have embraced the "right" to abortion as an inalienable human right. As my priest put it this morning, the culture of death values life, but only life that it chooses to value. It is a schtzophrenic culture in this sense.

Senator Santorum goes on to explain in It Takes A Family that the freedom America's Founding Fathers sought to secure at the Constitutional Convention was not the "self-centered, No-Fault Freedom" we hold so dear today. He explains: "It wasn't a freedom that celebrated the individual above society. It wasn't a freedom that gave men and women blanket permission to check in and out of society whenever they wanted. It wasn't the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be. It wasn't even the freedom to be left alone, with no obligations to the people we know and to the people we don't yet know. The Constitutional Convention's freedom, American's traditional freedom--or the better word, as I defined it earlier, liberty--was a selfless freedom, freedom for the sake of something greater or higher than the self. For our founders, this liberty was defined and defended in the context of our Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity. Often, in fact, American liberty meant the freedom to attend to one's duties--duties to God, to family, and to neighbors. Our founders were in the business of constructing a nation, a political community. No-Fault Freedom, a freedom from every tie and duty, provides no basis for that project: it is a principle of division and social deconstruction." (44)

We as Americans no longer conceive of ourselves as a people with a "common vision for society", with a shared "sense of justice and morality" (45). Santorum continues: "It is the pursuit of the common good, f using our freedoms to promote the general welfare, that makes the Great Experiment of American democracy so remarkable. But today, it must be said, we have not always been good stewards of our founding fathers' freedom. . . . The Preamble has been long forgotten; freedom is increasingly just about the individual and his choices. Freedom has become its own end, and virtue has fallen out of the equation. No-Fault Freedom serves no common good, only the pursuit of one's own happiness. Promoting the general welfare is no longer considered a duty of citizens-- after all, that's why we have the government, right?"

". . . Just as original sin is man's inclination to try to walk alone without God, individualism is man's inclination to try to walk alone among his fellows. Under the spell of individualism, we splinter into pursuing what each of us considers important for ourselves and think little if anything about what might be important for our communities. And we do so not necessarily for any grand reason or purpose, but merely because it is more convenient, merely because it is easier." (52)

In the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Court wrote, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Santorum comments on this case in his book, "You cannot build a community that is healthy for families and individuals if you understand society only as an unconnected group of individuals, each pursing his own idiosyncratic vision of his self-centered good. That isn't our founders' vision of a community with a common good; it's an image of society as a pile of sand, each grain unconnected to all the others. And the common good, like a house build on sand, sinks and fractures. No, No-Fault Freedom is not American liberty." (53)

This book is so good, I have to quote just one more paragraph before I conclude. I highly recommend this book to you, by the way.

"The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution, enshrines our inalienable rights as a free people. Through the responsible use of these rights we can seek truth and the Truth Giver, marry and raise a family, pursue our dreams, and influence the government and each other. These are opportunities that every American inherits from the great document that is our Constitution. Yes, these are rights that belong to us as individuals. But these rights were never intended solely for individual gain for 'the individual welfare.' The framers clearly stated that the purpose of the Constitution--and, therefore, of all these individual rights--is to promote the general welfare, not simply the welfare of the individual. The men who wrote the Constitutions gave us, in the Preamble, a purpose for these personal freedoms--a purpose greater than the needs, wants, or dreams of any one person. Freedom's goal in their mind was not individuals pursuing whatever end fits an individual's desire, but the general welfare, the common good." (47-48)

I pray that each of us living in this day and age in America (and elsewhere) will embrace the "culture of life" worldview that John Paul II promoted. I want to see communities where people know each other and feel responsible towards their neighbors and their neighbor's children - to promote morality in their community for the common good. I ask God to show us each what we can do in the small piece of earth where He has placed each us and with the human persons He has set us among. Please pray, also.

Warming Up for JPII's "Interpretation of the Sexual Urge"

2006-01-16T10:19:00.000-05:00
Where JPII is headed in his book Love & Responsibility is toward a thorough, philosophical analysis of sexual morality in regards to male-female sexual union. He has just told us that justice and love are interconnected. It is just to love and affirm a person because that is what persons are designed for. Also, in loving someone, wel naturally treat them justly . . . because we love them.

JPII warns now that "in the sexual context what is sometimes characterized as love may very easily be quite unjust to a person" (43). Because sexual intimacy is usually pleasurable, our sensuality and sentimentality will greatly tempted to turn toward a quest for pleasure "for its own sake" (43). And eventually it is possible that one will begin to view the pleasure-seeking approach to male-female relationships as "the proper basis for a norm of behaviour" (43).

When it comes to a sexual relationship, there are two mindsets upon which we can choose to base our interactions: the utilitarian principle or the personalistic norm. JPII refers here to Saint Augustine's way of defining these two different mindsets. Seeking pleasure "for its own sake, with no concern for the object of pleasure" is what Augustine calls uti. When a person "finds joy in a totally committed relationship with the object precisely because this is what the nature of the object demands," (44) Augustine calls this frui.

When Christ commands us to love one another, He is calling us to frui. This personalistic, deeply human approach to love is also how we must approach sexual love . . . that is if we really want to experience to fullness of our gift of sexuality.

Stay tuned! Next time we will launch into JPII"s "Interpretation of the Sexual Urge."

"Love is a Verb"

2006-01-15T22:33:00.000-05:00
(So says DC Talk. :-)

At the end of the last entry I quoted JPII as saying that "love for a person must consist in affirmation that the person has a value higher than that of an object for consumption or use" (42). He goes on to say, "He who loves will endeavour to declare this by his whole behavior" (43). We all want to be loved, to be truly loved for who we really are. And we need to experience another person taking time to show us their love. (By the way, in the homily today at Mass our Pastor stressed that how we live our lives demonstrates what it is we most desire. We can show God our love by how we spend our time. Our Pastor especially exhorted us to spend time simply in prayer and meditation on Scripture as a way to know God and to love Him with our time.)

Anybody read The Five Love Languages by (Protestant author and counselor) Gary Chapman? I personally love the book. He has observed 5 major categories of ways that people express and receive love. The five major categories he gives are: 1. words of affirmation 2. physical touch 3. quality time 4. giving/receiving gifts 5. acts of service. It could be that my best girl friend tends to express love and receive love primarily through gifts, but I am more of a "words of affirmation" girl. So if she gives me a bracelet she bought on trip to Brazil (all hypothetical), I can understand that she is showing me how much she values me. However, I may not be particularly fond of knick knacks and trinkets or even jewelry, and therefore, I do not derive much pleasure from the gift itself but rather from knowing what that gift expresses. I in turn may frequently praise my friend for her maturity in handling difficult situations and her great fashion sense. She appreciates it, and knows that I am saying those things because I love and value her. But perhaps a hand-made card would have communicated my love even more loudly to her because for some reason such tangible gifts are her favorite way of receiving love.

Anyway, I think that the "love languages" concept is really fun to think about. The overarching message of the book is that when you love and care about someone, you are willing to make the effort to find out what makes them tick and to learn to express love to them in a way that speaks loud and clear to them personally. Again, we all long to be loved this way, for who we really are, and in such a way that another person's love for us affects their behavior profoundly.

Catholic psychologist Conrad W. Baars, M.D., and Anna A. Terruwe, M.D., discuss in their book Healing the Unaffirmed the innate need each of us has to be truly affirmed by another, to know we are valuable simply as we are. This affirmation frees us to become even more fully who we are, to become the best, most holy person we can be. It fills us with confidence. Here are some thoughts from the book:

"The most typical characteristic of mature human love is tenderness, whether manifested in the tone of voice, words, touch, or the way one looks at the beloved. People are tender because they sense another's goodness and beauty, because they realize how precious the other is. They take care to let the other person be, precisely because they love the other just the way he or she is at that moment." (184)

"It is through the tender touch, the tender look, the tender words and tone of voice that the child is affirmed in its own goodness, worth, and loveableness. The tenderness with which a mother cradles her infant in her arms, cuddles and caresses it, and presses it to her, is as primary in the order of importance as it is in the order of development. Without such tactile expressions of maternal love the child will develop later in life the most serious form of emotional deprivation disorder." (184)

" Similarly, such tender love leaves its unmistakable mark in the expression of the eyes. The tender gaze is characterized by repose and tranquility in the delight of contemplating the good. It reflects admiration and awe, as well as the joy of love. It changes in character as soon as one feels a desire to possess or direct the other to oneself. Nor does the other fail to sense this, for the will can mask or control the expression of the eyes only very slightly. . ." (185) [emphasis is my own]

"Only genuine love declares unequivocally to children that the other has recognized them as good and valuable. Only this love affirms their goodness and worth, and because this process takes place on the emotional level, in the sensory sphere, it becomes anchored in the soma, in the biological organism where it forms a lasting source of the feeling that children are a good for themselves as well as for others. Without it they may in later years arrive at the conclusion that they are good because of what they do: performing their duties, showing obedience, getting good grades at school, attaining success in their profession, and so forth. Yet this cognitive knowledge will never provide them with the feeling of self-love which is the indispensable requirement for the fullness of their existence as social beings. 'Man's being,' says Heidegger, 'is to be with others,' to commune with one's fellow human beings in a union of feelings, in mutual emotional rapport. The nature of people as social beings absolutely demands this emotional contact with others; they cannot become open to others unless they have first been affirmed by another's unselfish love. Without such affirmation they are doomed to a life of gnawing uncertainty about their own self-worth. No degree of professional or intellectual accomplishments, however outstanding or widely acclaimed, can make up for this emotional deficit. It can only be filled by the unselfish love of another person." (185-6).

I John 3:18 "My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth."

I John 5:2-3 "This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome . . . ."

James 2: 14-26 "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
"But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.'
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

The Personalistic Norm

2006-01-14T18:47:00.000-05:00
Guess what time it is? It's time for the personalistic norm! Yeah!!! But first . . . a few words from our Sponsor:

Deuteronomy 4:4-6 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts."

Leviticus 19:17-18 "‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD."

Matthew 22:37-40 "Jesus said to him, ‘"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.'” (NKJV)

Okay, now . . .

The personalistic norm, as articulated by JPII, confirms that "the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love" (41). In the "negative" definition, the personalistic principle "states that the person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and as such the means to an end" (41). Wow!

JPII explains that the command to love persons is not the personalistic norm in and of itself, but rather, Christ's command to love is based on the personalistic norm. See, we have to be told these sorts of things or else we'll just go on acting selfishly and using people for our own personal gain either out of malice or ignorance. But now we know . . . and as "they" say, "Knowing is half the battle." (Hmmm . . . I think that might be relevent to the concept of faith AND works vs. faith alone. Knowing, accepting, and believing something is all nice and good . . . but you've gotta put it into action. That's how you know that you really know and believe something from the depths of your being.)

The commandment to love is not derived from a utilitarian value system that prioritizes pleasure over love for the person. Nope, indeed. The personalistic norm, however, is part of an entire system of values that JPII calls "a personalistic axiology" (41). Within the framework of a personalistic axiology "the value of the person is always greater than the value of pleasure (which is why a person cannot be subordinated to this lesser end, cannot be the means to an end, in this case to pleasure!)" (41).

Again, the command to love presupposes the personalistic norm, and the personalistic norm provides "a justification for" the command to love (41).

Ahhhh. I just love John Paul II. And that's why I'm now going to quote another beloved and lengthy passage from Love & Responsibility. ;-D

"This norm, as a commandment, defines and recommends a certain way of relating to God and to people, a certain attitue towards them. This way of relating, this attitude is in agreement with what the person is, with the value which the person represents, and therefore it is fair. Fairness takes precedence of mere utility (which is all the utilitarian principle has eyes for) - although it does not cancel it but only subordinates it: in dealings with another person everything that is at once of use to oneself and fair to that person falls within the limits set by the commandment to love."

". . . this attitude, will be not only fair but just. For to be just always means giving others what is rightly due to them. A person's rightful due is to be treated as an object of love, not as an object for use. In a sense it can be said that love is a requirement of justice, just as using a person as a means to an end would conflict with justice. In fact the order of justice is more fundamental than the order of love - and in a sense the first embraces the second inasmuch as love can be a requirement of justice. Surely it is just to love a human being or to love God, to hold a person dear. At the same time love - if we are to consider its very essence - is something beyond and above justice; the essence of love is simply different from the essence of justice. Justice concerns itself with things (material goods or moral goods, as for instance one's good name) in relation to persons, and hence with persons rather indirectly, whereas love is concerned with persons directly and immediately: affirmation of the value of the person as such is of its essence. Although we can correctly say that whoever loves a person is for that very reason just to that person, it would be quite untrue to assert that love for a person consists merely in being just" (42).

Never weak, but always strong?

2006-01-07T17:28:00.000-05:00

I have the song "It Ain't Me, Babe" by Johnny Cash and June Carter running through my head. At one point Cash sings, "You say you're looking for someone who's never weak but always strong, to protect you and defend you whether you are right or wrong." And then he proceeds to explain that "it ain't me you're lookin' for." It's almost a humorous song, but it's also sad.

It seems that men often get the impression that a woman is looking for perfection in them. This is a lot of pressure, indeed. I can see why many men feel this way. This song seems to express the high expectations men often feel that women have of them. And I'm sure that many a woman (not only today, but throughout the course of history) have sought a savior in a relationship with a man. As Christopher West says in his talk Sex and the Meaning of Life, whenever any person expects another person to be their savior and to make them happy in every way, they will crush that other person. He says, "Do not hang your hat on a nail that cannot support the weight."

"It Ain't Me, Babe" seems to paint a picture of how a man can feel extreme pressure from a woman to be perfect in every way according to her standard of perfection. Cash (along with Carter) sings of his frustration and resignation, "It ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe." And there is also a sense in the song that he does not love this woman and is not interested in making sacrifices for her. I have no clue what Cash or Carter thought about this song.

When Cash sings that this woman wants "someone who is never weak but always strong," I think, "Most women don't want that." I'm not saying I, or any other woman, desire a husband who is wimpy, passive, effeminate, or overly emotional. Somewhere in Wild At Heart, John Eldredge describes a difficult period in his marriage, and whenever he and his wife finally discuss what is wrong she tells him, "You don't need me." It is built into a woman to be a nurturer, and a woman desires to be needed, even by her husband. Women like to be able to encourage and to comfort at times.

Ponder these lyrics from a few other songs:

"Made for You" by Watermark (a husband and wife duo, Nathan and Christy Nockels):

Nathan: "Darling, I need to confess,
it's hard to show my weaknesses.
I want so much to show you strength,
With every feeling . . . everything."

Christy: "You know what I always say.
When you're weak you're strong to me;
It's another way of loving me.
'Cause when I see your heart,
I get carried through
The reasons why I fell in love with you."

"Til Kingdom Come" by Coldplay:

"Hold my hand inside your hands,
I need someone who understands.
I need someone, someone who hears,
For you, I've waited all these years.

For you, I'd wait 'til kingdom come.
Until my day, my day is done.
And say you'll come, and set me free,
Just say you'll wait, you'll wait for me."

"You are like Coming Home" by Lonestar:
"Go ahead and let your hair fall down.
This wanderlust: it's gone now.
I'm here in your arms; I'm safe from the road again.
These are the days that can't be erased:
Baby, there isn't a better place;
You're like heaven; you're like coming home.

You're like a Sunday mornin', pleasin' my eyes;
You're a midsummer's dream under a star-soaked sky,
That peaceful easy feelin' at the end of a long, long road.
You're like coming home.

You're that innocence, that serenity,
That long-lost part of me."

[ Oh, the complimentarity of the sexes. Gotta love it. ;-) ]
"To Really Love a Woman" by Bryan Adams:

"When you find yourself lying helpless in her arms,
You know you really love a woman."

[Among other images this last line conjures, I picture Christ as a helpless infant sleeping on Mary's lap and also Christ lying lifeless in His mother's arms after His removal from the cross on which He was crucified. The ultimate man Himself loved a woman and gave Himself to be loved by her.]

I had heard somewhere that after the Fall, men have a tendency to objectify women and women have a tendency to worship men. We see this everywhere! Women will take horrendous physical abuse or abort their own child in order to keep the "love" of a particular man. This is the nurturing instinct turned against the woman and used as a weapon. (Yeah, Satan has a way of doing that with good things, and we're all hopeless without God's revealed truth since the Fall.) I wonder if this problem is what God meant when he told Eve after she and Adam ate the forbidden fruit, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Hmmmmm???

Anyway, just some thoughts that were running through my mind. ;-)

Blessings.
Natalie

Beauty

2006-01-06T17:41:00.000-05:00

John William Waterhouse, 1900, Mermaid

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things" (Philippians 4:8)

The man to his beloved: "My love, you are as beautiful as Jerusalem, as lovely as the city of Tirzah, as breathtaking as these great cities. Turn your eyes away from me; they are holding me captive. . . . Who is this whose glance is like the dawn? She is beautiful and bright, as dazzling as the sun or the moon" (Song of Songs 6:4,5, 10 TEV).

This morning I woke up way before my alarm. I just couldn't sleep any more. As I got up and prepared to go for a walk and to pray the Rosary, I could not stop thinking about George Weigel's reflections on beauty in Letters to a Young Catholic. Perhaps this was on my mind because I went to sleep fantasizing about art work that I'd like to buy to hang in my bedroom.

Weigel writes:

"Chartres . . . teaches us about the importance of beauty and the beautiful for Catholic faith. The sad fact is that a lot of contemporary Catholicism is ugly: ugly buildings, ugly furnishings, ugly decorations, ugly vestments, ugly music. There are exceptions, huge exceptions, to be sure. But the general Catholic drift in the United States is not, to put it gently, toward the beautiful. That's not just an aesthetic problem. It's a serious religious and theological problem.

"Why? Because beauty helps prepare us to be the kind of people who can be comfortable in heaven--the kind of people who can live with God forever. Beautiful things and beautiful music draw us out of ourselves and into an encounter with a truth that's beyond us, yet accessible to our senses. . . . The beauty that, by its very nature, draws us out of ourselves is an antidote to self-absorption. The beauty of Beatrice drew Dante [The Divine Comedy: Paradisio] out of himself and into paradise, and into an encounter with the beauty that is Love itself. The same experience is available to us in our encounters with the beautiful.

"The joy of beauty is another anticipation of the kingdom, and another way that we're prepared for the kingdom. How are we to become the kind of people who can be happy forever--especially those of us who are congenitally grouchy? Beauty, by giving us experiences of unalloyed joy here and now, prepares us for that dimension of life with God. So does beauty's inexhaustibility--the fact that we never tire of a beautiful painting, sculpture, building, poem, or piece of music. . . . The inexhaustibility of beauty . . . is another reason why beauty prepares us for, even as it anticipates, life in the kingdom, life with God forever. As Hans Urs von Balthasar once wrote, the more we know and love and understand a great work of art, the more we recognize that we can't, in the final analysis, 'grasp' its genius. That's why we never 'outgrow' a beloved work of art. And that inexhaustibility prepares us to 'contemplate God in the beatific vision, [when] we will see that God is forever the ever-greater.'

"So beauty helps deepen in us a sense of our human and spiritual destiny, which is life forever in the light and love of the Holy Trinity. . . .

"Beauty is something that even the most skeptical moderns can know. Balthasar once wrote that people who doubt they can say what's good or what's true can't be similarly skeptical about the meaning of beauty, once they've experienced it. People know that they know what's beautiful. Thus beauty is one way we can introduce our doubting friends and colleagues to the mystery they often deny: they mystery that there is truth and we can know it. Once they've crossed the bridge of radical skepticism, the results can be dramatic and surprising. You'll remember Father Jay Scott Newman from an earlier letter. It's worth noting that the Gothic beauty of the Princeton chapel played a considerable role in breaking him free from the rationalistic atheism he had adopted as a teenager and bringing him to Christ.

"All of which takes us back to the great theological mentor of the Middle Ages, St. Augustine, and his Confessions. In perhaps the most famous and lyrical moment in this first true autobiography, Augustine takes himself to task for his resistance and then exults in his surrender to the God who is Beauty itself:

Late have I loved thee, O beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved thee! You were within, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance over me; I drew in my breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, and now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your embrace

"The Catholic spirit can't live without beauty; the human spirit can't live without beauty. . . . Everyone needs beauty. We need it for our souls. We need beauty to prepare our souls, and the rest of us, for what lies ahead, when we come home at last.

". . . An increasing number of Catholics pray with icons in their homes. Why?"

"In part, I suspect, because of a reaction to the not infrequent ugliness I have already mentioned. Even the most sterile cinder block 'worship space' (another of those awful AmChurch neologisms) is ennobled by an icon. Post- Vatican II Catholics may be discovering the power of icons after too many preconciliar decades of religious 'art' that was, truth to tell, shlock. But whether it's in response to modern AmChurch ugliness or old-fashioned Catholic bad taste, the new interest in icons is instructive for the same reason that Chartres is instructive--it tells us that beauty and prayer go together.

"When Chartres invites us out of ourselves into a realm of luminous beauty, it's inviting us, however gently, to pray. The brilliant craftsmen who put those extraordinary blues and reds into the glass of Chartres . . . the glass they made was an invitation to a wider and deeper vision of the human estate, a vision that necessarily leads to praise and thanksgiving, intercession and contrition--in a word, to prayer. The same is true of icons. I think that's what so many people who now buy icons or applaud the erection of icons in their churches intuitively understand.

"As we've discussed before, we don't merely look at icons; we look through them and discover ourselves engaged with the Truth the iconographer has written. We meet the truth of Christ through [them] . . . . Beauty is an invitation to pray. The God who is Augustine's 'Beauty ever ancient, ever new' pours beauty into the world as one facet of his thirst for us. God asks us to drink at the wellspring of beauty here and now in order to drink, finally, of his own ineffable and inexpressible and inexhaustible beauty in the New Jerusalem.

"Through the beauty of Chartres we encounter what the early Greek Fathers of the Church called the 'divinization' of man. Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, O.P., the archbishop of Vienna, reminds us that this 'divinization' of man is made possible by what the cardinal calls 'the humanization of God'--the Incarnation. When God enters history in the flesh, history isn't the only thing radically transformed; so are the possibilities of the human. Through the Incarnation, human nature is led to its fulfillment, its completion.

"That's the truth shining through the ineffable blues of the Chartres windows. That's the truth that makes every icon possible. That is grace at work--God's outpouring of his superabundant life into the world and into our lives. Like Augustine, we burn for the embrace of the Beauty that is always the same and always new. That burning, which God himself has built into us, is the beginning of every prayer" (198-206).

The beauty of an epic film often moves me to prayer on a deeper level than I typically experience day in and day out. There is something about such a film that awakens the depths of my humanity and causes me to cry out for more of the beauty of God. I hope that if I do ultimately pursue Middle Eastern dance performance publicly that my dancing will be an act of beauty and an invitation to prayer. "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted" (Titus 1:15). We'll see.*

Peter Kreeft in Catholic Christianity had the following to say about beauty:

"The experience of beauty often leads to God more directly and intuitively than does a process of argument. 'There is the music of Mozart, therefore there must be God'--you either see this or you do not."

"Our desire for joy, for a joy we can never find in this world, even from other people, points to another world (heaven) and another Person (God): for every natural, innate, and universal desire corresponds to a reality that can satisfy it. The reality of hunger shows the reality of food; the same is true of the hunger for God and heaven" (34).

* This passage captures my heart's desires to romance others to God through the beauty of my dance performances . . . one day.

The Women: "Dance, dance, girl of Shulam. Let us watch you as you dance.

The Woman: "Why do you want to watch me as I dance between the rows of onlookers?"

The Man: "What a magnificent girl you are! How beautiful are your feet in sandals. The curve of your thighs is like the work of an artist. A bowl is there, that never runs out of spiced wine. A sheaf of wheat is there, surrounded by lilies. Your breasts are like twin deer, like two gazelles. Your neck is like a tower of ivory. Your eyes are like the pools in the city of Heshbon, near the gate of that great city. Your nose is as lovely as the tower of Lebanon that stands guard at Damascus. Your head is held high like Mount Carmel. Your braided hair shines like the finest satin; its beauty could hold a king captive."

Song of Songs 6:13 -7:5 TEV

(You know, from the sound of that last passage of Scripture, I'm thinking I should say that at least I can romance my some-day husband to reflect on God. Haha. That book is so steamy. Only my husband would be allowed to say after seeing me dance, "Your breasts are like two gazelles." And he'd better be joking. Haha.)

Don't be jealous . . .

2006-01-03T19:03:00.000-05:00
". . . because I've been chatting with hot babes on-line all day." (- Kip "So Dreamy" Dynamite)

Rather, be jealous because I got a speeding ticket today and you didn't. However, I am willing to give anyone who is interested pointers on how to get your own speeding ticket. I would say the secret of success begins with losing directions to an appointment, leaving late for said appointment and following the directions as best you can remember until you are headed into the wrong county. Then, once your doctor realizes that you are not there at the appointed time, be sure to answer your cell phone and have a lengthy discussion with him about where you are and where you are not. As he tries to look up directions on Mapquest, be sure to turn down a road where there is a school zone. But, and this is key, remain frazzled enough that you will not realize there is a school zone, and proceed at your usual 40 mph. Then, if you see a young man wearing a safety green vest jump in front of your vehicle and flag you over to the side of the road, be sure to say, "Damn it, I just got pulled over by a cop. I'll have to call you back." While you are doing this, you must simultaneously step on the brakes causing your address book to fly out of your lap and into the floorboard at your feet.

Not only is this successful for obtaining a speeding ticket, but it also provides the perfect opportunity to have a good cathartic cry while the officer is at his vehicle doing a background check. Not only is life romantic, but it's also really funny! Okay, now it's your turn!

*The above story is not the "personalistic norm," neither is it the norm for me personally. ;-D

"The cheese is old and moldy. Where is the bathroom?"

2006-01-02T23:02:00.000-05:00
I love that part in Encino Man. Okay, now down to business. . .

What I love about reading through Love & Responsibility is that I feel as if I am sitting at Christ's feet, asking questions like, "What exactly do you mean 'love' my neighbor?", and getting a detailed response. When Christ was on earth, He once explained that to even look upon a person lustfully is to have already committed sexual sin in our hearts. I'm sure he could have elaborated, but since the Bible is not a book of systematic theology or moral philosophy, this is where we must rely on the Church. God has given us nearly 2000 years of guidance and teaching via His instrument, the Church, and her leaders. And now I can sit at JPII's feet and get detailed answers to my questions as from the very lips of Christ our Lord Himself. (*sigh of comfort*)

Well, L&R is a bit repetitive. But I really need that, so I am thankful for it. And now, I will repeat what has basically been said in all previous posts.

We are commanded by Jesus to love God first and foremost, and to love our neighbors (all persons) as ourselves. God is "the most perfect personal being," and "the whole world of created persons derives its distinctness from and its natural superiority over the world of things (non-persons) from a very particular resemblance to God" (40).

The utilitarian principle "points to pleasure not only as the basis on which we act but as the basis for rules of human behavior" (40). Utilitarianism has its own set of values, "that according to which pleasure is not only the sole, but also the highest value" (40-1). Such an approach to persons can never lead to love. I made a note in the margins of my book, "Funny how you can experience great physical pleasure with someone yet have a negation of pleasure emotionally because you do not truly love the person or they do not truly love you." And how. JPII says, "The principle of 'utility' itself, of treating a person as a means to an end, and an end moreover which in this case is pleasure, the maximization of pleasure, will always stand in the way of love" (40).

A friend recently commented to me over coffee (you know who you are ;-D) that our society has lost the concept of sacrifice. He's so right. All around me I see relationships based on the pleasure principle, and then when things get tough and sacrifice is required on behalf of one or both parties, somebody decides to split. I'm sure many of us have been there ourselves. That is no mui bueno. (Yeah, I don't speak Spanish.)

It's easier to say this now, while my life is going nicely, but I think sacrifice is one of the greatest privileges of living. It is a solid way to really love another person. And to love another person and give your life for them fulfills our own God-given desire for love. Fascinating.

Next time I write, I'll be picking up with what JPII calls the "personalistic norm". Stay tuned. ;-D

Blessings!!

Peanut Butter, Planes, and Procreation

2005-12-23T01:38:00.000-05:00
So, I have arrived safely in Tejas to spend this Christmas with my family. As I prepare to be confirmed in the Catholic Church this coming Easter, I have been reading through Peter Kreeft's book Catholic Christianity. I do love it. I brought it along on my flight, in addition to a smashed peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a baggy of broken Saltine crackers. (*drooling*) Hey, at least I didn't have to pay an arm and a leg to eat some MSG-saturated Chinese food at the airport, as much as I love to eat Chinese food.

I had my first introduction to teachings on sexual abstinence until marriage (via a Baptist church) when I was 12. It's been over a decade since then, and although sexual purity is very important to me, I often feel like there is nothing particularly gripping left to say on the subject. I feel that I have heard it all. However, as I began my journey towards Catholic Christianity, I discovered that the Church goes beyond "abstinence" and upholds what is known as "chastity." Chastity is much more than simply abstaining from sex until marriage; it involves living all of one's life before God in purity. It requires seeking purity of heart and mind, as well as purity of action. Spouses are to practice chastity in their relationship with one another, sexually and otherwise. Sexual marital chastity involves honoring the human dignity of one's spouse in sexual actions. This is why the Catholic Church teaches against things like sodomy, barriers and artificial "birth control", and climax outside of the intended sexual embrace. They are a means of treating one's spouse as an object for pleasure.

Well, Peter Kreeft has indeed blown-me-out-of-the-water with his observations on the marital sexual union. This stuff is revolutionizing how I think. In the Bible, it is written, "As a man thinketh, so he is" (sorry, I don't know the "address"). Guess this is why we are called by God to "renew our minds" and seek His help in surrendering our twisted perceptions and misguided affections to Him while seeking His truth (see Romans 12:2 and Ephesians 4:23).

Kreeft begins laying the foundation for grasping the truth about God's design for human sexuality as quoted below:

"To create a thing is to give it existence. To make a thing means to give new form to matter, to something that already exists. What is created is not just changed but made to exist in the first place.

"The closest man ever comes to creating is 'procreating'. Procreating is cooperating with God's most important act of creation . . . the creation of human beings, with immortal souls, destined to exist eternally. When God creates a new human soul out of nothing, he does so only when a man and a woman make a new body out of their previously existing matter and genetic form by sexual intercourse. That is why sex is holy" (45)

Are you ready for this? Kreeft picks up . . .

"Sexual intercourse is like the Consecration at Mass. It is a human work that God uses as the material means to do the most divine work done on earth. In the Mass, man offers bread and wine, the work of nature and human hands, for God to transform into the Body and Blood of Christ. In sex, man offers his work--the procreation of a new body--for God to do his work: the creation of a new soul. God grants priests the incredible dignity of being his instruments in working one of his two greatest miracles. God grants spouses the incredible dignity of being his instruments in working the other one.

"Something that is so very good 'ontologically', that is, in its being, essence, or nature, needs to be respected and rightly used. Misuse of something ontologically good is morally bad. The better and more important it is ontologically, the more seriously harmful its moral abuse is. We have rules for careful use of precious works of art, not for paper clips. . . .

"As Holy Mass is the place for the Transubstantiation, holy marriage is the place for sex" (61).

I never want to grow tired of this stuff; I want to truly know it so that I may live it from the depths of my being!

Merry Christmas!
Natalie

Subjective Sweethearts

2005-12-18T09:43:00.000-05:00

Immanuel Kant is known for his moral imperative against utilitarianism - holding that a person should always be an end in himself and never a means to an end. Utilitarianism cries, "Seek the maximum amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people." If the ultimate aim of man is pleasure, if pleasure is "the whole basis of moral norms" (37), then everything we do must be aimed at gaining pleasure, the ultimate good. JPII writes, "If I accept the utilitarian premise I must see myself as . . . an object which may be called upon to provide [pleasurable] experiences for others" (37).

JPII continues:

"If, while regarding pleasure as the only good, I also try to obtain the maximum pleasure for someone else - and not just for myself, which would be blatant egoism - then I put a value on the pleasure of this other person only in so far as it gives pleasure to me: it gives me pleasure, that someone else is experiencing pleasure. If, however, I cease to experience pleasure, or it does not tally with my 'calculus of happiness' - (a term often used by utilitarians) then the pleasure of the other person ceases to be my obligation, a good for me, and may even become something positively bad. I shall then - true to the principles of utilitarianism - seek to eliminate the other person's pleasure because no pleasure for me is any longer bound up with it - or at any rate the other person's pleasure will become a matter of indifference to me, and I shall not concern myself with it" ( 38).

Viewing pleasure, a subjective and ephemeral experience, as one's greatest good leads to egoism. Well, yeah, we all want to feel good. We are all largely looking out for our own desires, right? So what's the problem with that?

Glad you asked. ;-D According to JPII, if you ever want to experience a true and lasting love, it must be built on an objective common good, not a subjective good such as pleasure. Although it is possible to harmonize two egoisms, the relationship still remains based on egoism. The only difference is "that these two egoisms, the man's and the woman's, will match each other and be mutually advantageous. The moment they cease to match and to be of advantage to each other, nothing at all is left of the harmony. Love will be no more, in either of the persons or between them, it will not be an objective reality, for there is no objective good to ensure its existence. 'Love' in its utilitarian conception is a union of egoisms, which can hold together only on condition that they confront each other with nothing unpleasant, nothing to conflict with their mutual pleasure. Therefore love so understood is self-evidently merely a pretence which has to be carefully cultivated to keep the underlying reality hidden: the reality of egoism, and the greediest kind of egoism at that, exploiting another person to obtain for itself its own 'maximum pleasure'. In such circumstances the other person is and remains only a means to an end, as Kant rightly observed in his critique of utilitarianism" (39).

A utilitarian relationship has "a paradoxical pattern: each of the persons is mainly concerned with gratifying his or her own egoism, but at the same time consents to serve someone else's egoism, because this can provide the opportunity for such gratification - and just as long as it does so. This paradoxical pattern . . . means that the person . . . sinks to the level of a means, a tool. . . . If I treat someone else as a tool in relation to myself I cannot help regarding myself in the same light. We have here something like the opposite of the commandment to love" (39).

JPII observes that the only way to escape from utiliarianism and egoism in relationships if to recognize "beyond any purely subjective good, i.e. beyond pleasure, an objective good, which can also unite persons - and thereby acquire the characteristics of a common good" (38). He continues, "Such an objective common good is the foundation of love, and individual persons, who jointly choose a common good, in doing so subject themselves to it. Thanks to it they are united by a true, objective bond of love which enables them to liberate themselves from subjectivism and from the egoism which it inevitably conceals. Love is the unification of persons" (38).

Pleasure or not . . . here I come

2005-12-07T22:11:00.000-05:00

God said "It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him." And so God gave to Adam animals of all kinds, and yet "not one of them was a suitable companion to help him. . . "

"Then the LORD God made the man fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh. He formed a woman out of the rib and brought her to him."

"Then the man said, "At last, here is one of my own kind--Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. 'Woman' is her name because she was taken out of man." (Gen. 2:18, 20-23 TEV)

Because only another human being shares equal status with another human being, only two persons can truly become "partners" in activity with one another. JPII says that "a person is for another person the source of experiences with a special emotional-affective charge" (32-3). The depths of personal and moral interaction that are possible between two persons bring with it great potential for pleasure as well as pain, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and spiritually. When we throw romantic relationships into the mix, the potential for pleasure and/or pain is something I'm sure we all can relate to.

Peter Kreeft, in his book Catholic Christianity makes a comment regarding "Social and Economic Morality" that is quite applicable to the issue of pleasure in human relationships. He writes:

"Profit is to production what pleasure is to sex: right and proper and natural when associated with the intrinsic purpose of the activity, but all too easily divorced from that purpose and loved for its own sake" (264).

JPII makes the same point in Love & Responsibility regarding the temptation for man and woman to make pleasure the "say all and be all" in their relationships with one another. He writes in his usual eloquent, philosophical style:

"For man, precisely because he has the power to reason, can, in his actions, not only clearly distinguish pleasure from its opposite [pain], but can also isolate it, so to speak, and treat it as a distinct aim of his activity. His actions are then shaped only with a view to the pleasure he wishes to obtain, or the pain he wishes to avoid. If actions involving a person of the opposite sex are shaped exclusively or primarily with this in view, then that person will become only the means to an end" (33).

After the fall, it has become an enormous temptation for us to use one another for the sake of physical and/or emotional pleasure. JPII says "enjoyment must be subordinated to love" (34). He warns us again that sometimes "use" masquerades as "love"; selfishness often justifies itself as being love.

The utilitarian principle is that pleasure in itself is "the sole or at any rate the greatest good, to which everything else in the activity of an individual or a society should be subordinated" (36). Of course, people want to avoid pain and experience pleasure by nature, but pleasure is an elusive thing; it is contingent and incidental, not something we can secure by our actions. In fact, we cannot even properly predict the degree of pain that may be entailed in our various actions. Obviously, pain and pleasure cannot be our measuring stick for the morality or worthiness of our actions.

Man is a rational being; he is a material and spiritual entity with his soul being the animating force of his human existence. It is, therefore, improper for man to organize his actions around the principle of avoiding pain and seeking to maximize pleasure.*

Because JPII says it best, I'm going to close with his thoughts:

". . . Pleasure (as opposed to pain) cannot be the only factor affecting my decision to act or not to act, still less the criterion by which I pronounce judgment on what is good and what is bad in my own or another person's actions. Quite obviously, that which is truly good, that which morality and conscience bid me do, often involves some measure of pain and requires the renunciation of some pleasure. The pain involved, or the pleasure which I must forego, is not the decisive consideration if I am to act rationally. What is more, it is not fully identifiable beforehand. Pleasure and pain are always connected with a concrete action, so that it is not possible to anticipate them precisely, let alone to plan for them or, as the utilitarians would have us do, even compute them in advance. Pleasure is, after all, a somewhat elusive thing" (36).

* This is not the case when it comes to eternal pain and eternal pleasure. We should rather endure temporal pain, on earth or in purgatory, in order to obtain the joy of being in God's presence forever and to avoid the eternal torment of separation from God in hell. That is proper to the nature and design of the human person.

When is an act of love anti-love?

2005-11-17T21:20:00.000-05:00
No, really, I'm asking you. What do you think? When is an act of love anti-love?

I ask because of Footnote 11 in JPII's Love & Responsibility. I am fascinated by this quote, but I can't quite wrap my mind around what it means and how it plays out in our lives. JPII writes:

"It is, of course, not enough just to want to affirm the other person for the consequent act (of goodwill) to become also an act of love. It is necessary in addition for the action undertaken with the intention of affirming another person to be objectively suited to the role which the agent's intention assigns to it. Whether it is or is not suitable is decided by the objective structure of the person affected by the action. Only success in understanding the other person and allowing when acting for that person's specific traits ensures that the act will be recognizable as a genuine act of love. An imperfect understanding of the structure of the object person must, in consequence become the source of (inadvertent and hence involuntary) action to the detriment of that person. The danger is all the greater in that utilization of the other takes place in the name of love. The agent is unaware of his delusion, and so immune from blame. None the less, the agent is responsible for an act of 'anti-love' . . . . because he loves. Only constant awareness of the danger of disintegration of love in this way (emotionalization) can help us to avoid it. Cf. Introduction o the first edition (Lublin 1960), p. 6, where the author postulates the need for 'the introduction of love into love'."

So, my darlings, enlighten me! Tell me your thoughts or questions about this passage.

Blessings!
Natalie

50 ways to use your lover

2005-11-17T04:44:00.000-05:00
If it is not okay to use a person solely as a means to an end, then what do we do with other persons? We LOVE them! Love is the opposite of using. If "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage", what comes before love?

The sharing of a common good or aim.

JPII writes in Love & Responsibility:
"Obviously, I may want another person to desire the same good which I myself desire. Obviously, the other must know this end of mine, recognize it as a good, and adopt it. If this happens, a special bond is established between me and this other person: the bond of a common good and of a common aim" (28).

Whenever two people share a common good, each of his own free choosing, then they see one other in relationship as equals. One is not "subordinated to the other," but rather both are "subordinated to that good which constitutes their common end" (29).

Unlike animals, love is "exclusively the portion of human persons;" love is predicated on free will, which animals do not posses as we do. Interestingly, just because someone shares a good end with another does not mean that they are truly able to love those others. It is possible to be utilitarian and to view another with a consumerist attitude while striving towards a good. Just because a man strives towards a good (i.e. protecting the unborn) does not mean he is willing to consciously pursue that good with others, subordinating himself to the good for the other's sake and subordinating himself to the others for the sake of the good.

JPII gives the example of employee/employer relations. It is clear that an employer can use his employee in a utilitarian fashion, to accomplish a company goal, but not really care about or get to know his employee as a human individual. They are both working towards a common good, but there is no love or common bond between them. (We are not yet speaking of romantic love here. Hopefully, that's obvious. ;-D) But it is also possible that both parties could be so persuaded of the goodness of their common aim, that they work together in a partnership, with an attitude akin to love, a camaraderie.

In marriage, it is possible that the man and woman acting together in their common sexual life, becoming one flesh (see Genesis 2:24), can use each other primarily as an object for sexual gratification. Married sex can still be selfish. JPII says the married couple should recognize that they share a common end. When it comes to married sex, the common goal is procreation, the creation of a family, as well as deepening the relationship between husband and wife. Dr. Janet Smith (Contraception: Why Not?) summarizes this point by saying that sex is for babies and bonding.

The couple value one another as persons, and value their future children as persons, and they are most likely to treat one another in accord with their dignity as human individuals. When it comes to sex, it's funny because people can actually mutually agree to use each other (i.e. porn actors, premarital sex). However, they are not supposed to. Also, it is possible that one spouse could be engaging in sexual intercourse with the other for the sole purpose of creating a child, in a utilitarian sense. (Not to mention that we cannot technically force conception. God controls life.) This would be also a selfish act, stripping love of the other person and the desire to grow in intimacy from the sexual union. Is this what was commonly practiced among Puritans in the early American colonies? Sex is for babies, but also for bonding.

Get Schooled

2005-11-11T17:50:00.000-05:00
"Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge... Hear, my son, and be wise: and guide your heart in the way." Proverbs 23:12, 19

The ability to think and make decisions for one's self are prominent attributes of the inner life of a human person. Every person is capable by nature of determining his own aims (Love & Responsibility 27). If we treat a person as a means to an end then we are violating their natural right to decide their own aims. Is it therefore wrong to seek to mold your children into godly men and women? Is it a violation of someone's natural rights to try to convince them of the immorality/morality of certain actions when they hold a differing opinion?

JPII notes that we must demand that every thinking indvidual seek genuinely good ends. In fact, "the pursuit of evil ends is contrary to the rational nature of the person" (27). Both the education of a child and mutal education between adults revolves around the seeking of real goods (true ends) and helping one another to realize those ends. In "Person and Act", JPII observes that freedom is not found in " absolute independence" but rather in "a self-dependence comprising dependence on the truth" (162) The function of the human conscience "consists in making action dependent on truth" (163).

In any activity where another person is the object, including education, we "may not treat that perons as only the means to an end, as an instrument, but must allow for the fact that he or she, too, has, or at least should have, distinct personal ends" (28). So, we should not go so far in seeking to persuade, educate, or mold a person in godliness that we are actually forcing them to act according to our wishes. This is a violation of their conscience, their personhood. Of course, this is a general statement; it is okay if a parent "forces" his child to clean his room by refusing to let the child stay the night with a friend unless he finishes his chore. This is in fact part of the parent's duty in disciplining the child and teaching him to be responsible. And, if a man were going to shoot someone on the street, there would be no moral violation of personhood in disarming him by reasonable force.

God Himself does not use human beings as means to an end. (My Calvinist friends are gonna love that ;-D) The late Holy Father has written:
"On the part of God, indeed, it is totally out of the question, since, by giving man an intelligent and free nature, he has thereby ordained that each man alone will decide for himself the ends of his activity, and not be a blind tool of someone else's ends. Therefore, if God intends to direct man towards certain goals, he allows him to begin with to know those goals, so that he may make them his own and strive towards them independently. In this amongst other things resides the most profound logic of revelation: God allows man to learn His supernatural ends, but the decision to strive towards an end, the choice of course, is left to man's free will. God does not redeem man against his will" (27)

The Catholic view of the Annunciation (when Gabriel anncounced that Mary would conceive the son of God) is that God was not forcing Mary to bear the Christ child. Rather, God's message to her was one that came with a choice. She gave her assent, her fiat, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word." She is the second Eve, as Christ is the second Adam. Through Adam sin entered the world, but through the one man, Jesus Christ, the world was redeemed. Eve exerted her freedom of choice, her will, in disobeying God (presumably because she disbelieved in His good intentions towards her in forbidding her to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil). Eve is the woman who said, "Yes" and became the doorway to salvation. God did not merely use her as a means to clothe himself in flesh, but He loves her and invites us all to call her our mother. Don't you want to have a mother who teaches you by her example to say "Yes, be it done unto me according to Your will, Lord"?

Sex and Exorcisms

2005-10-29T15:20:00.000-05:00
Hey, just a few interesting thoughts.

First, if you have not seen the movie the Exorcism of Emily Rose, I highly recommend it. It is loosely based on a true story, and I found the enactments of possession to be very believable, not gratuitously gory or physically impossible. If you get freaked out by the subject matter, then don't see it, or see it with a good friend.

And, secondly, last night I attended a Catholic social event involving a bonfire, smores (*drooling*) and a talk by an exorcist. The priest made an interesting observation starting off the night. He said that demons hate the fact that human beings can reproduce. Angels and demons are not sexual beings and cannot reproduce their own kind. Therefore, they seek with especial vehemence to pervert human sexuality and reproduction. Wow. That makes sense.

Blessings!
Natalie

You are worth more

2005-10-29T15:08:00.000-05:00
"Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." - Jesus (as recorded in Luke 12:6-8)

In man's treatment of animals, "since they are beings endowed with feeling and sensitive to pain, man is required to ensure that the use of these creatures is never attended by suffering or physical torture." (25) However, animals can and even must be treated as instruments for use/exploitation, "whenever treating them so is the only way of affectively affirming a person or persons." (290, F.4) I can't think of any example other than, if you were driving on a two-lane bridge and there was a large deer blocking both lanes and you had to choose between hitting the deer (very carefully - you know it can be lethal) or driving off the bridge and most likely killing yourself and your passengers, then the obvious choice is to hit the freakin' dear.

JPII writes, "To use means to employ some object of action as a means to an end."(25) If we use a person as a means to an end (i.e. sexual pleasure, landing a job, meeting a cute guy or girl, financial security), then we treat them as an object, making them subordinate to us for our own purposes. Man is free to use inanimate objects, earthly resources, and animals all within good reason to accomplish good ends for humanity. A person, however, by his very nature is to be an end in himself. "To treat one person purely as an instrument 'for the good of' another or even of all other persons is impermissible." (290, F.4) The first example which comes to mind is embryonic stem-cell research. Removing the stem-cells from an embryonic person, actually takes the life of that person, and this is morally wrong, even though many believe that one day these stem-cells will be the most powerful means for creating new human organs or treating diseases in other living human beings.

JPII is all about affirming the dignity of the person; he calls this the "personalistic norm". (290, F.4) A person is "a value not to be compared with anything in the world outside the world of persons." (290. F4)

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." - the Apostle Peter, the Church's first Pope, as writen in his encyclical - I Peter 1:18-19

"You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals..."

2005-10-09T03:44:00.000-05:00
". . . so let's do it like they do it on discovery channel." - Bloodhound Gang

Remember that objectifying hit song that came out about 6 years ago? Well, I hope you don't, but I reference this portion of the lyrics because it captures the mentality of our pornographic culture which views people as objects primarily seeking sexual pleasure and as objects to be used for the sexual gratification of others. (In no way do I believe sexual pleasure to be an evil, but rather it is not man's primary good. When viewed as such, our priorities and loves are all out of whack, and as our selfish desires play themselves out in our lives they will wreak havoc.)

The author of Love & Responsibility (that is Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II) begins by emphasizing that a person is not a "thing" but rather a "somebody". . . a person. Persons are different from other living things, including the most advanced animals, because we have a unique ability to reason; we are "rational beings" and can think conceptually. We also possess an "inner life" or "spiritual life." Although animals have a sensual existence and strive to fulfill their own particular desires, man's cognitive abilities allow him to desire and strive towards goodness and truth. Animals do not make such willful choices in their desires and behaviors; they do not have a conscience.

Because we exist as real, physical, cognitive beings in space and time with a will and self-awareness, it is natural that we ask, "What is the ultimate cause of everything?" (23) Where did we come from? Why are we here? Why are things the way they are? With our ability to will and to desire we ponder "how to be good and possess goodness at its fullest" (23). Sometimes we are mistaken about what is actually good and true, falling for the "shadow" of the real thing. Bruce Marshall in The World, The Flesh, and Father Smith writes, "The young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God" (108). He is seeking a good in a union with another person, albeit inappropriately attained, but his deepest longing is to be knowingly known and loved by God and to be one with Him. JPII calls these ponderings about our existence and about what is good "natural tendencies of the whole human entity" (23).

JPII writes: "The person's contact with the objective world, with reality, is not merely 'natural', physical, as is the case with all other creations of nature, nor is it merely sensual as in the case of animals. A human person, as a distinctly defined subject, establishes contact with all other entities precisely through the inner self, and neither the 'natural' contacts which are also its prerogative, since it has a body and in a certain sense 'is a body', nor the sensual contacts in which it resembles the animals, constitute its characteristic way of communication with the world." (23) Not only does the inner life of a man cause him to relate to the physical world in a unique way, but he also possesses a unique relationship to the invisible world . . . namely to God.

Of course, we all begin with a sensual and natural relationship to the outside world, but as we grow our inner life evolves and affects how we relate to all things and persons. JPII writes, "Man's nature differs fundamentally from that of the animals. It includes the power of self-determination, based on reflection, and manifested in the fact that a man acts from choice. This power is called free will" (23-4). Man is his own master, sui juris (24), because he has the gift of self-determination in a unique way. We should seek to conform our desires and wills to objective reality.

In relating to the world, man intercepts messages, interprets them, and reacts thoughtfully, not merely spontaneously, instinctually, or mechanically. Also, because every person is an individual "I" with a will of his/her own, it is proper to man that he relate to other persons in such a way as to respect their free will. The very nature of man demands that he assert himself, his "I", in relation to the outside world. It is proper to man to be his own person in this respect.

No one else can will for you. You cannot ever actually will on behalf of any other person. JPII labels this alteri incommunicabilis, meaning "not capable of transmission" (24) in Latin. This is the fact we must face when we are romantically interested in someone who does not reciprocate our interest. We face the reality of their free will and our lack of control over their will. This is why it is beneficial to conform our understanding of the world to REALITY. Painfully liberating, huh?

JPII explains: "This is the moment when the impassable frontier between him and me, which is drawn by free will, becomes most obvious. I may not want that which he wants me to want--and in this precisely I am incommunicabilis. I am, and I must be, independent in my actions. All human relationships are posited on this fact. All true conceptions about education and culture begin from and return to this point" (24).

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . everybody knows this stuff. It's common sense. What's the big deal?

Well, all of these things should be common sense, but it is clear by looking around that we often times do not live in accord with these simple realities about persons. This is all setting the stage and laying the foundation for further talk about the human person and proper sexuality. (If you can't tell by now, I'm just a little bit obsessed with sexual ethics.)

Sometimes we may be the subject acting upon another. Other times we are the object, the one being acted upon by another. Many of our actions involve other human beings as our object. Love & Responsibility is focused on sexual morality, the thrilling principles which should guide all sexual actions between persons of the opposite sex. "The woman is always the object of activity on the part of a man, and the man the object of activity on the part of the woman. . . . We know already," writes JPII, "that the subject and the object of the action alike are persons. It is now necessary to consider carefully the principles to which a human being's actions must conform when their object is another human person" (24).

Please, continue to join me as I blog my way systematically through JPII's Love & Responsibility.

"Sex is Currency"

2005-09-14T14:42:00.000-05:00
So today I made a run to Walmart and bought the latest Switchfoot CD. I especially have taken a liking to the fifth song on the album . . .

Easier Than Love
by Switchfoot

Sex is currency;
She sells cars; she seels magazines.
Addictive, bittersweet, clap your hands
With the hopeless nicotines.
Everyone's a lost romantic, since our love became a kissing show.
Everyone's a Casanova, come and pass me the mistletoe.
Everyone's been scared to death of dying here alone.
She is easier than love, is easier than life.
It's easier to fake and smile and bribe.
It's easier to leave. It's easier to lie.
It's harder to face ourselves at night, feeling alone.
What have we done?
What is the monster we've become?
Where is my soul? (Numb.)
Sex is industry, the CEO of corporate policy.
Skin-deep ministry, suburban youth hail your so called liberty.
Every advertising antic our banner waves with a neon glow.
War and love become pedantic;
We wage love with a mistletoe.
Everyone's been scared to death of dying here alone.
Sex is easier than love.

This song is especially great when you can hear it. Switchfoot is making a strong statement about our current "pornographic culture." Everyone is looking for love; no one wants to be alone. But we do not really know what love is. Sex often feels like love; this is why women in particular are willing to make themselves objects to be used sexually by others, to be consumed . . . because when they are the center of attention and an object of desire, they feel wanted, they feel they have something to offer, they feel loved. Seems in our day and age that we have developed a wrong appetite. We make war with one another and our weapon is "making love." We have developed a taste for those things which most closely resemble the love and the mystery that we all seek. But we don't know that we are feasting on garbage and yet have a banquet of beauty and fulfilling sexuality prepared before us by our Maker. Until we get sick to our stomachs (or to our souls), we cannot see the wrongness of our approach to the human person, sexuality, relationships, and pro-creation. Even those of us who believe we have a Christian perspective still often have gaps in our understanding of the human person and sexuality. Our cultural norm is to revel in selfishness and physical pleasure until we "mourn at last, when [our] flesh and body are consumed, and say: 'How I have hated instruction, and my heart despised correction!' (Proverbs 5:11-12).

Fortunately, God reaches down to us to show us the more beautiful and fulfilling way to being human, to experiencing the fullness of all our sexuality, and to show us what our relationships were meant to be. Some, for whatever reason do not learn of these truths until they have spent their lifetimes in a confused pursuit of love. Such is the human condition. (Switchfoot sings in song #4 of the Nothing is Sound album: "Oh, Lord, why did you forsake me? Oh, Lord, don't be far away. Storm clouds gathering beside me. Please, Lord, don't look the other way. I'm a crooked soul trying to stay up straight. Shine on me; let my shadows prove the sunshine." Seems Plato's cave analogy would be fitting here.)

But I desire to hold forth to you now the fullness of truth that God has unfurled before all mankind. I want to be His ambassador. It is my intention to begin a lay man's discussion of the rich and philosophical writing of the late Pope John Paul II entitled Love & Responsibility. Although it has taken me years to get to this point, I do believe now that the Almighty God of heaven and earth has given us such men (popes) as John Paull II (and now Benedict XVI) to be the voice of Christ to us in our own age and culture. Please join me on my journey as I also learn the fullness of truth!

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. " (Proverbs 18:17)

"And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, 'How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?' When Jesus heard it, He said to them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.'" (Mark 2:16-18; Luke 5:30-32; Matthew 9:11-13)

Cherubs and Chicks

2005-09-10T20:46:00.000-05:00
Welcome to the spot light Jones! Your response to my last entry* was:
"You said the children had cherubic faces...do you mean that their faces glowed like fire and they wielded flaming swords? Or were you employing Hallmark theology? If cherubs look like children, won't ALL children look 'cherubic'? I am just trying to think logically here, but then again, we are discussing emotions, and they seem to deny logic. Of course, I am a guy, and quite an amotionally detached guy, from what I understand. So this emotional outpouring of yours is quite alien to me and my...what are they called? Oh yeah, emotions. Whatever."

Hello Jones, I'm glad to know you are out there. Well, you seem to have mistaken my intent. You presumed that I was implying that the children's faces looked like the cherubim which God placed on guard outside of the Garden of Eden to prevent man from re-entering and eating from the tree of life while in a fallen state. (Genesis 3:24 "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.") Oh, but you are mistaken. I meant that the children's faces were full of eyes and had 4 wheels surrounding them like the cherubim in Ezekiel 10. Terribly sorry for the mix-up; I must not have been very precise in my description.

Hehehe. Anyway, I wasn't thinking so much "Hallmark" or emotional theology, I was thinking more along the lines of SAT words. As we both know, "cherubic" has other definitions that extend beyond strict theological references. You're familiar with those paintings of naked babies with wings; well, I don't know how the concept of a cherub got transformed into that in paintings, but nonetheless, the word "cherubic" now also refers to pudgy, sweet, childlike beings. As long as we know the difference between the cutsie babies and the winged, higher order angels called cherubim in Scripture, then I'm fine with using the term "cherubic" for . . . well . . . sweet, pudgy childlike beings.

Although, I've not yet read the so-called Apocryphal books (which are rather the "deuterocanonical" writings which you'll find in Catholic Bibles), I have been informed that the Book of Enoch and Books of Esdras have some angelology in them. Might be interesting to check out. Oh, and I am currently listening to Tolkien's Silmarillion on cassette tapes (thank you local library), and it's so rad. You've probably already read the Silmarillion, but I absolutely love hearing this fantastical story of the creation of the angelic beings and the earth and other cosmological whatnot. Highly recommend it to you all out there in blog land.

Oh, and I should like to share the lyrics to a Relient K song with you, my dear Watson, for you seem to be perplexed that girls, like myself, are more emotional beings than guys, such as yourself. Well . . . it's not meant to square with spiritual and psychological realities, but the song is quite funny and rings true in some ways. I wonder if you can relate.

Mood Rings
by Relient K

We all know the girls that I am talking about.
Well they are time bombs and they are ticking,
And the only question's when they'll blow up.
And they'll blow up, we know that without a doubt,
Cause they're those girls,
Yeah, you know those girls that let their emotions get the best of them.

And I've contrived some sort of a plan to help my fellow man.
Let's get emotional girls to all wear mood rings
So we'll be tipped off to when they're ticked off
Cause we'll know just what they're thinking, just what they're thinking.

[Chorus]
She's so pretty but she doesn't always act that way.
Her moods are swinging on the swing set almost everyday.
She said to me that she's so happy its depressing (stressed out that its soothing)
And all I said was someone get that girl a mood ring.

If its drama you want then look no further.
They're like The Real World meets Boy Meets World meets Days of our Lives.
And it just kills me how they get away with murder;
They'll anger you then bat their eyes,
Those pretty eyes that watch you sympathize.

And I've contrived some sort of a plan to help my fellow man.
Let's get emotional girls to all wear mood rings
So we'll be tipped off to when they're ticked off
Cause we'll know just what they're thinking, just what they're thinking.

[Chorus]

Cause when its black it means watch your back because you're probably
The last person in the world right now she wants to see.
And when its blue it means that you should call her up immediately
And ask her out because she'll most likely agree.
And when its green it simply means that she is really stressed.
And when its clear it means she's completely emotionless (and that's alright I must confess).

We all know the girls that I am talking about.
She liked you Wednesday, but now its Friday, and she has to wash her hair.
And it just figures that we'll never figure them out.
First she's Jekyll and then she's Hyde;
At least she makes a lovely pair.

Mood ring oh mood ring
Oh tell me will you bring
The key to unlock this mystery
Of girls and their emotions?
Play it back in slow motion
So I may understand the complex infrastructure known as the female mind.

(Thanks www.plyrics.com )

* That entry has been removed from public view because I decided to eleminate some of the more personal entries I had originally posted just in case an employer were to locate and peruse my blog and suspect that I might share personal things about my work life.

Australia Seeks to Breed Test-Tube Sharks

2005-08-23T18:02:00.000-05:00
Hahaha. Sorry guys, I just really like that news line. It has no intended connection with today's entry. Today I should like to type an entire devotional thought for you yet again. This time it's on one of my favorite topics: Men's relationship to women. I recently came upon a publication by Lumen Catechetical Consultants, Inc. called "Life After Sunday". This particular issue is all about topics regarding unity. The included article by John M. Capobianco entitled "Union with Women" follows:

"Most men recognize that women are pretty darn mysterious creatures. And the funny thing is that the closer you get to a woman, the more you try to enter in to a fitting, satisfying union with her, the more mysterious she becomes. This is true whether the woman in question is a spouse, daughter, mother, sister or friend. It doesn't matter. Just when you think you have figured out exactly how you can satisfy her desires and make her happy, something new arises that makes you realize--wow--she's just different! And that's a good healthy thing for men to learn. She is a pure gift from above and that's what makes her so mysterious."

"I have come to believe that the key to enjoying the quest of this mysterious and often illusive union with women is to trust what many today consider a rather unlikely source. Jesus of Nazareth is the key for men to fulfill their own desire to please and join in real heart to heart union with the women in their lives. He is the one who wants to share with us the kind of divine union that he experiences with his Father. He is the one who saves us and those we love from being crushed by the real disconnects and sorrows that separate our hearts. He is the one who makes it possible--when we honestly join our lives in union with him--for us to unite, for us to truly love beyond ourelsves, the women he places in our lives."

For many men, however, this may seem like a lot of uncomfortable, stupid 'Jesus' talk. This is especially true for many men and even boys who dismiss much of what Christ and his Church offers about human relationships. Perhaps--like many in modern culture--Christ's celibate love is so off-putting that they can't take him very seriously when it comes to putting their best moves on their women. Perhaps many fear deep down that the Jesus offered to us by the Catholic Church is not really much of an appealing ladies' man. Perhaps they believe what he really offers leads to reduced relationships with everyone and ultimately leads to a depressing life.

"The reality is that Jesus Christ presented in the Gospels, constantly present to us in Sacramental life, protected for us by the Magisterium of the Church, is much more passionate--not just toward women--but for all human relationships, than anyone or anything the culture comes close to proposing to us."

"Can you imagine if Madison Avenue turned its sexualized production talents towards the real body and soul-shaking response of the women in Christ's life and proposed it to our young men today? They could start with an image of a woman slipping into a crowded room and pouring oil (of all things) on Christ's feet in front of a house full of guests (cf. Luke 7:38). Or they could show the face of a woman who cares so much for the body of her brother that she looks Christ right in the eye and challenges him to bring it back to life, right here, right now (cf. John 11:41). Or they could show the eyes of a woman whose heart and soul is penetrated forever in the simple act of being asked for a drink of water at a well (cf. John 4:6). For men united in intimacy with Christ today, approaching the mind, heart and body of a woman with his love hardly makes one half-a-man. In fact, just the opposite is true. Union with Christ makes a complete and mature man, passionate in his love for all women. In Christ, a man can crack the mystery and join in union with women in such a way that he embodies for each one the gift of self in love."

"I have tried to impress upon my sons the importance of this union with Christ and how he makes it possible for us to love beyond ourselves. Their desire to be authentic men, their desire to learn how to really love women, begins now in our home in their adolescent years. It begins with how they take care of their mother, how they appreciate their grandmothers, and how they respect their sister. Remember, I tell them, Christ knew how to love and take care of his mother. He took care of her while he was nailed to the cross (cf. John 19:25). Now that is love. That is how you care for a woman to the end. That is the power of a man united to a woman undeterred by the challenge of suffering and death. This kind of union takes lots of grace and practice. . . and it begins right now in the home."

Hats off to John Capobianco!!!

One of my favorite chapters from Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul by John Eldredge (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.) is Chapter 10, "A Beauty To Rescue" (p.179-196). Here is all but the entire chapter for your consumption!

"Once upon a time (as the story goes) there was a beautiful maiden, an absolute enchantress. She might be the daughter of a king or a common servant girl, but we know she is a princess at heart. She is young with a youth that seems eternal. Her flowing hair, her deep eyes, her luscious lips, her sculpted figure—she makes the rose blush for shame; the sun is pale compared to her light. Her heart is golden, her love as true as an arrow. But this lovely maiden is unattainable, the prisoner of an evil power who holds her captive in a dark tower. Only a champion may win her; only the most valiant, daring, and brave warrior has a chance of setting her free. Against all hope he comes; with cunning and raw courage he lays siege to the tower and the sinister one who holds her. Much blood is shed on both sides; three times the knight is thrown back, but three times he rises again. Eventually the sorcerer is defeated; the dragon falls, the giant is slain. The maiden is his; through his valor he has won her heart. On horseback they ride off to his cottage by a stream in the woods for a rendezvous that gives passion and romance a new meaning.

"Why is this story so deep in our psyche? Every little girl knows the fable without ever being told. She dreams one day her prince will come. Little boys rehearse their part with wooden swords and cardboard shields. And one day the boy, now a young man, realizes that he wants to be the one to win the beauty. Fairy tales, literature, music, and movies all borrow from this mythic theme. Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Helen of Troy, Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra, Arthur and Guinevere, Tristan and Isolde. From ancient fables to the latest blockbuster, the theme of a strong man coming to rescue a beautiful woman is universal to human nature. It is written in our hearts, one of the core desires of every man and every woman.

". . . Our culture has grown cynical about the fable. Don Henley says, ‘We’ve been poisoned by these fairy tales.’ There are dozens of books out to refute the myth, books like Beyond Cinderella and The Death of Cinderella.

"No, we have not been poisoned by fairy tales and they are not merely ‘myths.’ Far from it. The truth is, we have not taken them seriously enough. As Roland Hein says, ‘Myths are stories which confront us with something transcendent and eternal.’ In the case of our fair maiden, we have overlooked two very crucial aspects to that myth. On the one hand, none of us ever really believed the sorcerer was real. We thought we could have the maiden without a fight. Honestly, most of us guys thought our biggest battle was asking her out. And second, we have not understood the tower and its relation to her wound; the damsel is in distress. If masculinity has come under assault, femininity has been brutalized. Eve is the crown of creation, remember? She embodies the exquisite beauty and the exotic mystery of God in a way that nothing else in all creation even comes close to. And so she is the special target of the Evil One; he turns his most vicious malice against her. If he can destroy her or keep her captive, he can ruin the story."

Eve’s Wound
"Every woman can tell you about her wound; some came with violence, others came with neglect. Just as every little boy is asking one question, every little girl is, as well. But her question isn’t so much about her strength. No, the deep cry of a little girls’ heart is am I lovely? Every woman needs to know that she is exquisite and exotic and chosen. This is core to her identity, the way she bears the image of God. Will you pursue me? Do you delight in me? Will you fight for me? And like every little boy, she has taken a wound as well. The wound strikes right at the core of her heart of beauty and leaves a devastating message with it: No. You’re not beautiful and no one will really fight for you. Like your wound, hers almost always comes at the hand of her father.

"A little girl looks to her father to know if she is lovely. The power he has to cripple or to bless is just as significant to her as it is to his son. If he’s a violent man he may defile her verbally or sexually. The stories I’ve heard from women who have been abused would tear your heart out. Janet was molested by her father when she was three; around the age of seven he showed her brothers how to do it. The assault continued until she moved away to college. What is a violated woman to think about her beauty? Am I lovely? The message is, No . . . you are dirty. Anything attractive about you is dark and evil. The assault continues as she grows up, through violent men and passive men. She may be stalked; she may be ignored. Either way, her heart is violated and the message is driven farther in: you are not desired, you will not be protected; no one will fight for you. The tower is built brick by brick, and when she’s a grown woman it can be a fortress.

". . . But when a woman never hears she’s worth fighting for, she comes to believe that’s the sort of treatment she deserves. It’s a form of attention, in a twisted way; maybe it’s better than nothing. Then we fell in love [Eldredge and his wife, that is] on that magical summer night. But Stasi married a frightened, driven man who had an affair with his work because he wouldn’t risk engaging a woman he sensed he wasn’t enough for. I wasn’t mean; I wasn’t evil. I was nice. And let me tell you, a hesitant man is the last thing in the world a woman needs. She needs a lover and a warrior, not a Really Nice Guy. Her worst fear was realized—I will never really be loved, never really be fought for. And so she hid some more.

"Years into our marriage I found myself blindsided by it all. Where is the beauty I once saw? What happened to the woman I fell in love with? I didn’t really expect an answer to my question; it was more a cry of rage than a desperate plea. But Jesus answered me anyway. She’s still in there; but she’s captive. Are you willing to go in after her? I realized that I had—like so many men—married for safety. I married a woman I thought would never challenge me as a man. Stasi adored me; what more did I need to do? I wanted to look like the knight, but I didn’t want to bleed like one. I was deeply mistaken about the whole arrangement. I didn’t know about the tower, or the dragon, or what my strength was for. The number one problem between men and their women is that we men, when asked to truly fight for her . . . hesitate. We are still seeking to save ourselves; we have forgotten the deep pleasure of spilling our life for another."

Offering Our Strength
". . . And that is how life is created. The beauty of a woman arouses a man to play the man; the strength of a man, offered tenderly to his woman, allows her to be beautiful; it brings life to her and to many. This is far, far more than sex . . . . It is a reality that extends to every aspect of our lives. When a man withholds himself from his woman, he leaves her without the life only he can bring. This is never more true than how a man offers—or does not offer-his words. Life and death are in the power of the tongue says the Proverbs (18:21). She is made for and craves words from him. . . .

"If the man refuses to offer himself, then his wife will remain empty and barren. A violent man destroys with his words, a silent man starves his wife. ‘She’s wilting,’ a friend confessed to me about his new bride. ‘If she’s wilting then you’re withholding something,’ I said. Actually, it was several things—his words, his touch, but mostly his delight. There are so many other ways this plays out in life. A man who leaves his wife with the children and the bills to go and find another, easier life has denied them his strength. He has sacrificed them when he should have sacrificed his strength for them. What makes Maximus or William Wallace so heroic is simply: They are willing to die to set others free.

"This sort of heroism is what we see in the life of Joseph, the husband of Mary and the stepfather to Jesus Christ. I don’t think we’ve fully appreciated what he did for them. Mary, an engaged young woman, almost a girl, turns up pregnant with at pretty wild story: ‘I’m carrying God’s child.’ The situation is scandalous. What is Joseph to think; what is he to feel? Hurt, confused, betrayed no doubt. But he’s a good man; he will not have her stoned, he will simply ‘divorce her quietly’ (Matt. 1:19).

"An angel comes to him in a dream (which shows you what it sometimes takes to get a good man to do the right thing) to convince him that Mary is telling the truth and he is to follow through with the marriage. Its going to cost him. Do you know what he’s going to endure if he marries a woman the whole community thinks is an adulteress? He will be shunned by his business associates and most of his clients; he will certainly lose his standing in society and perhaps even his place in the synagogue. To see the pain he’s in for, notice the insult that crowds will later use against Jesus. ‘Isn’t’ this Joseph and Mary’s son?’ they say with a sneer and nudge and a wink. In other words, we know who you are—the bastard child of that slut and her foolish carpenter. Joseph will pay big-time for this move. Does he withhold? No, he offers Mary his strength; he steps right between her and all of that mess and takes it on the chin. He spends himself for her.
". . . There, under the shadow of a man’s strength, a woman finds rest. The masculine journey takes a man away from the woman so that he might return to her. He goes to find his strength; he returns to offer it. He tears down the walls of the tower that has held her with his words and with his actions. He speaks to her heart’s deepest question in a thousand ways. Yes, you are lovely. Yes, there is one who will fight for you. But because most men have not yet fought the battle, most women are still in the tower."

Using Her
"Most men want the maiden without any sort of cost to themselves. They want all the joys of the beauty without any of the woes of the battle. This is the sinister nature of pornography—enjoying the woman at her expense. Pornography is what happens when a man insists on being energized by a woman; he uses her to get a feeling that he is a man. It is a false strength, as I’ve said, because it depends on an outside source rather than emanating from deep within his center. And it is the paragon of selfishness. He offers nothing and takes everything. . . .
". . . Pretty women endure this abuse all the time. They are pursued, but not really; they are wanted, but only superficially. They learn to offer their bodies but never, ever their souls. Most men, you see, marry for safety; they choose a woman who will make them feel like a man but never really challenge them to be one. . . . In a brilliant twist of plot, God turns our scheme for safety on us, requiring us to play the man. . . ."

It Is A Battle
"Will you fight for her? That’s the question Jesus asked me many years ago, right before our tenth anniversary, right at that time I was wondering what had happened to the woman I married. You’re on the fence, John, he said. Get in or get out. I knew what he was saying—stop being a nice guy and act like a warrior. Play the man. I bought flowers, took her to dinner, and began to move back toward her in my heart. But I knew there was more. That night, before we went to bed, I prayed for Stasi in a way I’d never prayed for her before. Out loud, before all the heavenly hosts, I stepped between her and the forces of darkness that had been coming against her. Honestly, I didn’t really know what I was doing, only that I needed to take on the dragon. All hell broke loose. Everything we’ve learned about spiritual warfare began that night. And you know what happened? Stasi got free; the tower of her depression gave way as I began to truly fight for her.

"And it’s not just once, but again and again over time. That’s where the myth really stumps us. Some men are willing to go in once, twice, even three times. But a warrior is in this for good. . . . Daniel is in the midst of a very hard, very unpromising battle for his wife. It’s been years now without much progress and without much hope. Siting in a restaurant the other night, tears in his eyes, this is what he said to me: ‘I’m not going anywhere. This is my place in the battle. This is the hill that I will die on.’ He has reached a point that we all must come to, sooner or later, when it’s no longer about winning or losing. His wife may respond and she may not. That’s really no longer the issue. The question is simply this: What kind of man do you want to be? Maximus? Wallace? Or Judah [Genesis 38]? A young pilot in the RAF wrote just before he went down in 1940, ‘The universe is so vast and so ageless that the life of one man can only be justified by the measure of his sacrifice.’ . . ."

Okay guys, I can't resist. Just one more brief portion from Eldredge's Wild At Heart:

". . . Adam bears the likeness of God in his fierce, wild, and passionate heart. And yet, there is one more finishing touch. There is Eve. Creation comes to its high point, its climax with her. She is God's finishing touch. And all Adam can say is, 'Wow.' Eve embodies the beauty and the mystery and the tender vulnerability of God. As the poiet William Blake said, 'The naked woman's body is a portion of eternity too great for the eye of man.

"The reason a woman wants a beauty to unveil, the reason she asks, Do you delight in me? is simply that God does as well. God is captivating beauty. As David prays, 'One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may . . . gaze upon the beauty of the LORD' (Ps. 27:4). Can there be any doubt that God wants to be worshiped? That he wants to be seen, and for us to be captivated by what we see? As C. S. Lewis wrote, 'The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male . . . to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve, and to both it is in the lover that the beloved tastes of her own delightfulness" (37).

*Sorry, I don't know what work that C. S. Lewis quote is from, and Eldredge does not attribute it to any specific writing.

Blessings!!!

Different tunes, but the same song

2005-08-16T05:04:00.000-05:00
Child abuse has been around since the Fall of man. It's nothing new. But it's still just as devastating and warped as ever. Here are some modern songs to help us ponder the effects of abuse, neglect, and even divorce of the young, innocent, and helpless. Cyclical patterns, hatred and rage, self-debasement, fear, insecurity, suicide . . . sin has brutal effects, especially when perpetuated against children by those who are meant to protect, guide, and love them.

Independence Day
(by Martina McBride)

Well she seemed all right by dawn's early light
Though she looked a little worried and weak.
She tried to pretend he wasn't drinkin' again
But daddy left the proof on her cheek.
And I was only eight years old that summer,
And I always seemed to be in the way.
So I took myself down to the fair in town
On Independence Day.

Well word gets around in a small, small town.
They said he was a dangerous man,
But Mama was proud and she stood her ground;
She knew she was on the losin' end.
Some folks whispered, some folks talked
But everybody looked the other way,
And when time ran out, there was no one about
On Independence Day.

(Chorus)
Let freedom ring, let the white dove sing.
Let the whole world know that
Today is a day of reckoning.
Let the weak be strong, let the right be wrong.
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay,
ItÂs independence day.

Well she lit up the sky that fourth of July.
By the time the firemen come
They just put out the flames and took down some names
And sent me to the county home.
Now I aint sayin' it's right or it's wrong
But maybe it's the only way.
Talk about your revolution,
It'sindependencee Day

(Chorus)
Let freedom ring, let the white dove sing.
Let the whole world know that
Today is a day of reckoning.
Let the weak be strong, let the right be wrong .
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay,
ItÂs independence day.
Roll the stone away. It's Independence Day.

Janie's Got a Gun
(by Aerosmith)

Janie's got a gun, Janies got a gun .
Her whole world's come undone,
From looking straight at the sun.
What did her daddy do?
What did he put you through?
They said when Janie was arrested,
They found him underneath a train,
But man he had it coming, now that Janie's got a gun
She ain't never gonna be the same.

Janie's got a gun. Janie's got a gun
Her dog day's just begun,
Now everybody is on the run.
Tell me now it's untrue. What did her daddy do?
He jacked a little bitty baby;
The man has got to be insane.
They say the spell that he was under,
The lightning and the thunder,
Knew that someone had to stop the rain.

Run away, run away from the pain.
Yeah, yeah, Yeah, yeah
Run away, run away from the pain.
Yeah, yeah, Yeayeah yeahah Yeah, yeah
Run away, run away, run, run away.............................

Janie's got a gun, Janie's got a gun.
Her dog day's just begun.
Now everybody's on the run.
What did her daddy do?
It's Janie's last I.O.U.
She had to take him down easy
And put a bullet in his brain.
She said 'cause nobody believes me;
The man was such a sleaze.
He aint never gonna be the same

Father Of Mine
(by Everclear)
Father of mine, tell me where have you been.
You know I just closed my eyes,
My whole world disappeared.
Father of mine, take me back to the day
When I was still your golden boy,
Back before you went away.
I remember the blue skies, walking the block;
I loved it when you held me high.
I loved to hear you talk.
You would take me to the movie.
You would take me to the beach,
Take me to a place inside that is so hard to reach.
Father of mine, tell me where did you go.
You had the world inside your hand,
But you did not seem to know.
Father of mine, Tell me what do you see
When you look back at your wasted life and you don't see me?
I was ten years old, doing all that I could.
It wasn't easy for me to be a scared white boy in a black neighborhood.
Sometimes you would send me a birthday card with a five dollar bill.
I never understood you then and I guess I never will.

(Chorus)
Daddy gave me a name.
My dad, he gave me a name,
Then he walked away.
Daddy gave me a name
Then he walked away.
My dad gave me a name.

Father of mine, tell me where have you been.
I just closed my eyes, and the world disappeared.
Father of mine, tell me how do you sleep
With the children you abandoned
And the wife I saw you beat?
I will never be safe. I will never be sane.
I will always be weird inside;
I will always be lame.
Now I am a grown man
With a child of my own.
And I swear I'm not going to let her know
All the pain I have known.

Sing For The Moment
(by Eminem)

These ideas are nightmares to white parents
Whose worst fear is a child with dyed hair and who likes earrings.
Like whatever they say has no bearing,;
It's so scary in a house that allows no swearing
To see him walking around with his headphones blaring
Alone in his own zone, cold and he don't care.
He's a problem child, and what bothers him all comes out,
When he talks about His f****** dad walkin' out
'Cause he just hates him so bad that he blocks him out.
If he ever saw him again he'd probably knock him out.
His thoughts are whacked; he's mad so he's talkin' back,
Talkin' black, brainwashed from rock and rap.
He sags his pants, do-rags and a stocking cap.
His step-father hit him, so he socked him back, and broke his nose.
His house is a broken home; there's no control; he just let's his emotions go.

(Chorus)
Sing with me, sing for the years, sing for the laughter, sing for the tears.
Sing it with me, just for today, maybe tomorrow the good Lord will take you away...

. . .

That's why we sing for these kids, who don't have a thing
Except for a dream, and a f****** rap magazine
Who post pin-up pictures on their walls all day long,
Idolize they favorite rappers and know all they songs.
Or for anyone who's ever been through sh** in their lives
Till they sit and they cry at night wishin' they'd die.
Till they throw on a rap record and they sit, and they vibe.
. . .

Family Portrait
(by Pink)

Momma please stop cryin, I can't stand the sound.
Your pain is painful, and its tearin' me down.
I hear glasses breakin' as I sit up in my bed;
I told dad you didn't mean those nasty things you said.
You fight about money, 'bout me and my brother,
And this I come home to, this is my shelter.

(Chorus)
It ain't easy growin up in World War III,
Never knowin what love could be.
You'll see I don't want love to destroy me like it has done my family.
Can we work it out? Can we be a family?
I promise I'll be better, Mommy. I'll do anything.
Can we work it out? Can we be a family?
I promise I'll be better, Daddy; please don't leave.

Daddy please stop yellin', I can't stand the sound.
Make mama stop cryin', cuz I need you around.
My mama she loves you, no matter what she says, its true.
I know that she hurts you, but remember I love you, too.
I ran away today, ran from the noise, ran away.
Don't wanna go back to that place, but don't have no choice, no way.

In our family portrait, we look pretty happy.
Let's play pretend; let's act like it comes naturally.
I don't wanna have to split the holidays.
I don't want two addresses. I don't want a step-brother anyways.
And I don't want my mom to have to change her last name.
In our family portrait we look pretty happy.
We look pretty normal; let's go back to that.
In our family portrait we look pretty happy.
Let's play pretend, act like it goes naturally.
In our family portrait we look pretty happy.
(Can we work it out? Can we be a family?)
We look pretty normal, let's go back to that.
. . .
Daddy don't leave. Daddy don't leave. Daddy don't leave. Turn around please.
Remember that the night you left you took my shining star?
Daddy don't leave. Daddy don't leave. Daddy don't leave. Don't leave us here alone.
Mom will be nicer. I'll be so much better. I'll tell my brother.
Oh, I won't spill the milk at dinner. I'll be so much better,
I'll do everything right. I'll be your little girl forever; I'll go to sleep at night.

Youth of the Nation
(by P.O.D.)

Last day of the rest of my life
I wish I would’ve known
Cause I didn’t kiss my mama goodbye.
I didn’t tell her that I loved her and how much I care
Or thank my Pops for all the talks and all the wisdom he shared.
Unaware, I just did what I always do
Everyday, the same routine before I skate off to school.
But who knew that this day wasn’t like the rest?
Instead of taking a testI took two to the chest.
Call me blind, but I didn’t see it coming.
Everybody was running but I couldn’t hear nothing
Except gun blasts; it happened so fast.
I don’t really know this kid though I sit by him in class.
Maybe this kid was reaching out for love
Or maybe for a moment he forgot who he was.
Or maybe this kid just wanted to be hugged.
Whatever it was, I know it’s because . . .

(Chorus)
We are, we are, the youth of the nation.
We are, we are, the youth of the nation.
We are, we are, the youth of the nation
We are, we are, the youth of the nation.

Little Suzy, she was only twelve.
She was given the world with every chance to excel.
Hang with the boys and hear the stories they tell,
She might act kind of proud but no respect for herself.
She finds love in all the wrong places,
The same situations just different faces.
Changed up her pace since her daddy left her
Too bad he never told her she deserved much better.

Johnny boy always played the fool.
He broke all the rules so you would think he was cool.
He was never really one of the guys
No matter how hard he tried. Often thought of suicide.
It’s kind of hard when you ain’t got no friends.
He put his life to an end; they might remember him then.
You cross the line, and there’s no turning back.
Told the world how he felt with the sound of a gat.

(Chorus)

Who’s to blame for the lives that tragedies claim?
No matter what you say it don’t take away the pain
That I feel inside; I’m tired of all the lies.
Don’t nobody know why. It’s the blind leading the blind.
I guess that’s the way the story goes.
Will it ever make sense? Somebody’s got to know.
There’s got to be more to life than this.
There’s got to be more to everything I thought exists

Captivated by Communion and Confession

2005-07-09T18:25:00.000-05:00
Some thoughts which I heard at recent Catholic events that captivate me:

1. Christ has married His Body, the Church, as His very own Bride. Therefore, the consummation of this marriage, the renewing of our vows, if you will, the act of becoming one flesh with Christ is in receiving Him in the Eucharist at Mass!

2. Christ, our Bridegroom, is truly present in the Eucharist. Just as we would not come to our wedding bed without having bathed and made ourselves appealing, neither should we approach our heavenly Bridegroom in the Eucharist without seeking to make ourselves clean and pleasing. This is what the Sacrament of Penance is all about. (Penance is when a Christian confesses his sins to a priest in true penitence, and the priest by the power of God forgives his sins and counsels him what to do next. Sin is a cancer to our souls and separates us from intimacy with God; a preist is a spiritual surgeon, given us by God to remove this cancer. Hence, we want to give over EVERY bit of this cancer in the confessional to have it removed.)

3. Every person has an ingrained need from our Maker to be loved and accepted unconditionally. We were designed to be known fully and desired by another. Confession provides not only for the atonement of sin, but can help us find fulfillment for this legitimate psychological need. In confession we can "spit-out" the full truth of even the worst parts about our lives and thoughts, and we receive unconditional mercy and forgiveness from Christ through His agent, the priest.

Wow!

Food for Thought

2005-06-02T23:56:00.001-05:00
So I noted in my profile that John Eldredge's book Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul is one of my favorites. I love this book because it validates so much of me that is human, that is real, that desires. So regardless of the theological and personal criticisms I have heard (from people I respect) regarding John Eldredge, he's certainly got it right about some things. Some would say, "A broken clock is right twice a day." Here's an excerpt from Wild At Heart to demonstrate those things I truly connected with . . .

"Why is pornography the most addictive thing in the universe for men? Certainly there's the fact that a man is visually wired, that pictures and images arouse men much more than they do women. But the deeper reason is because that seductive beauty reaches down inside and touches your desperate hunger for validation as a man you didn't even know you had, touches it like nothing else most men have ever experienced. You must understand this is deeper than legs and breasts and good sex. It is mythological. Look at the lengths men will go to find the gold-haired woman. They have fought duels over her beauty; they have fought wars. You see, every man remembers Eve. We are haunted by her. And somehow we believe that if we could find her, get her back, then we'd also recover with her our own lost masculinity."

Interesting, no? Seems there is something deeper going on in the midst of our very real attraction to the opposite sex. Bruce Marshall (1945) in The World, The Flesh, and Father Smith writes, "The young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God." (p. 108) (This quote is often attributed to G.K. Chesterton, but The Chesterton Society can only trace it back to Marshall.) Nonetheless, I do indeed believe that "the young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God." And I suppose, so is the 30-something year old woman thumbing through the pages of a romance novel at Half Price Books. ;-D