Well, Cecilia is in the depths of teething. Sunday afternoon and most of yesterday, especially yesterday morning, she was in misery. She sat on the living room carpet crying while I ran around like a chicken with my head cut off trying anything and everything I could think of to make her feel better. I had given her Tylenol, refridgerated teething rings, frozen washclothes, ice water in a sippy cup, diluted apple juice in a bottle, my fingers, teething toys, nursing, music, etc. It was only after about 2 hours of this that she calmed down sitting in my lap gumming on my keys. Poor thing fell fast asleep after three hours awake. Last night she woke almost constantly. At least once every hour my poor little angel was fussing at her face and whimpering. I even gave her Tylenol before bed and again at 3am.
Needless to say I am quite tired. She is as well. She was yawning this morning on the way to Mass even though she usually doesn't take a nap until we are heading home from Mass. My daughter's agony has left the theologian in me wondering WHY. Why would God permit such agony to the most innocent? No one is harming her. It is no one's fault. And yet there seems to be so little I can do. Granted not all babies agonize so much over their teeth. But here my little sweetheart, only 6 months old, is often in misery though she has done nothing wrong. It cannot be so she will learn the unfairness of life for she will not remember this. It cannot be so she can offer her pain in atonement for sins for she is too young to understand anything of any purpose to suffering or any value in it and hence is unable to offer it up. It seems to me that the pain and discomfort of teething in an infant is of no value whatsoever to the infant.
This leads me to believe that God permits such misery in teething not for the sake of the infant, but that of the parents. Perhaps, as her mother and the one who made promises for her at her Baptism, I can offer up her sufferings for her. But perhaps the greater reason is that it is indeed a hard lesson as a new parent that there will be pain and discomfort and harshness in life from which no parent can protect their child. It introduces me to the agony of seeing my little girl suffering from a fallen world when I can do so little to help her. I've reflected a few times lately of what the Father must have felt watching His Son agonize in misery at the hands of those who hated him by the betrayal of His own friends and then die the shameful and painful death of a slave on a cross and not do anything to aid his Son. Even though His Son understood why everything had to happen as it did, as a parent, it has become an intimate reflection on the reality of parenting and the pain a mother or father feels being greater seeing their own child suffer than if they had to suffer themselves.
Perhaps it should also be a reflection of how the Father feels seeing any of us hurt, especially in sin. And while He is never powerless to help us, we often refuse to let Him and so his hands become tied just as much as if he were powerless. A Father who surrenders his power for the love of His children and yet still agonizies in their misery, never severing his heart from theirs.
While I have begun offering each daily Eucharist for my little baby and her teeth and pray for her in this regard daily, I cannot say that her misery has been completely for nothing. When I would do anything for her and yet can do so little to ease her pain, I have to feel sympathy and shame for the times I and others have put our Heavenly Father in the same position, not by involuntary teething, but by our own free choice.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
The Female "Ordination" Theme Song
This was just too funny not to share. ...
Father Z. has posted these lyrics by Tim Ferguson, to be sung to the tune of the Gilligan's Island theme.
Come sit right back
and you’ll hear a tale,
a tale of some heretics
That started from a Pittsburgh port,
aboard a tiny ship.
The mate was a fan of labyrinths
The skipper was a nun
10 other women were on board
for sacramental fun.
(for sacramental fun)
The liturgy was getting rough,
The litany was long,
Invoking Lilith, Gaia too,
Seemed just a bit too wrong
(though not to Bishop Spong)
The ship set ground in a strange new world,
uncharted heresy
With lesbians And feminists
An acting deacon’s wife
Peace activists
And the rest
Here on Womanchurch Isle
So this is the tale of the priestesses
There here for a long, long time.
They’re sure to make a mess of things
And bitch and moan and whine.
No pope! No men! No canon law
Not a dime to Peter’s Pence!
Like Lollard, Hussites, Bogomils,
They’ve left out common sense.
So join us here each year my friend,
There’s sure to be more fun,
With a hearty shout, “non serviam!
My will, not Thine be done.”
H/T to Gerald Augustinus at The Cafeteria is Closed.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
For the Love of a Letter
I'm sure many people remember not so long ago before email and websites when people wrote each other letters. Growing up I was never fond of writing letters. I thought my penmanship was awful. I still don't think it is very good. I have to wonder why truly beautiful and elegant penmanship is not something taught and sought after more, but I digress. I find it interesting how much I enjoy waiting for the mail. I usually forget to get it and James usually ends up doing so, but still. I enjoy looking through the mail and get excited when I receive something. Unfortunately, as no one writes me letters, my hope can only be satiated by a few catalogues and ads (based on their mailings, Lenox must think I worship them). There is something exciting and romantic in receiving letters from friends, acquantences, etc.
But perhaps it is not simply letters. Perhaps it is that anticipation in waiting that makes anything one waits so anxiously for so exhiting and satisfying. My computer has been slowly dying over the past 6 months. Each time it messes up or my screen turns pink or my F key fails to print an F I look forward to a new computer. I figure by the time I get it I will be so happy to have keys that work and a screen that is white they wait will be well worth it.
Perhaps that is a major setback of modern progress. Everything now is so immediate - emails, overnight shipping, cell phone calls, etc. - that it becomes difficult for our natural human desires to fully appreciate the fulfillment of them.
It is a shame we cannot start Letter Circles where people could simply write letters to each other, chit chatting, but simply to experience the joy of receiving a letter in elegant handwriting. (Of course, in my case, once I get down the elegant handwriting part.)
This leads me to another question: Has the speed and immediacy of our current society made us less impatient people in general? I simply look at the way people drive or shop at Christmas or eat and would have to say yes. It makes me wonder how people might be different if we relaxed a bit more and rushed a bit less.
But perhaps it is not simply letters. Perhaps it is that anticipation in waiting that makes anything one waits so anxiously for so exhiting and satisfying. My computer has been slowly dying over the past 6 months. Each time it messes up or my screen turns pink or my F key fails to print an F I look forward to a new computer. I figure by the time I get it I will be so happy to have keys that work and a screen that is white they wait will be well worth it.
Perhaps that is a major setback of modern progress. Everything now is so immediate - emails, overnight shipping, cell phone calls, etc. - that it becomes difficult for our natural human desires to fully appreciate the fulfillment of them.
It is a shame we cannot start Letter Circles where people could simply write letters to each other, chit chatting, but simply to experience the joy of receiving a letter in elegant handwriting. (Of course, in my case, once I get down the elegant handwriting part.)
This leads me to another question: Has the speed and immediacy of our current society made us less impatient people in general? I simply look at the way people drive or shop at Christmas or eat and would have to say yes. It makes me wonder how people might be different if we relaxed a bit more and rushed a bit less.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
What do you say when your preschooler asks about homosexuality?
In the June 2006 edition of Parenting there was an article on answering sexual questions little children ask titled "The Birds and the Bees and Curious Kids." It covered topics like when a little girl asks why her little brother is different than her and other such questions. However, among such simple and common circumstances was included the following:
"Your child tells you her classmate has two mommies. 'How can that be?' she asks."
The magazine's response is as follows:
"Homosexuality may seem like a conusing subject--especially for kids who haven't even gotten the concept of heterosexuality down yet. But your explanation doesn't have to be complicated: 'In Ginny's family, her two mommies love each other the way that Daddy and I do. So they live together, and both take care of Ginny.' The topic may also come up after your child hears a homosexual slur. Christi Cole's daughter Caitlyn, 6, said a boy at school had been telling kids in her class, "You're gay"--so of course she wanted to know what that meant. The Augusta, Georgia, mom explained that sometimes boys fall in love with boys and girls fall in love with girls but that the boy in Caitlyn's school probably didn't really understand what he was talking about. Then she reminded her daughter that calling people names isn't nice and might hurt someone's feelings."
Where do I begin with this?
First of all it is a sad testimony to our society that homosexuality is so public and promoted that a small child would be asking about it. However, as we live in a society that often cannot tell dog from God, I can well see such a question arising. (One more reason we are going to homeschool.)
1. I find it ironic that the magazine proposes to explain homosexuality as normal and natural to small children as heterosexuality and yet the author herself, Margaret Renkl, recognizes homosexuality to be much more complicated that heterosexuality. Why? If it is so normal and natural, why is it more complicated? It would seem Mrs. Renkl herself knows there is something unnatural about it even if she propogates parents trying to convince their children it is not. Interestingly enough, in a subsequent question about intercourse, Mrs. Renkl encourages a very frank explanation about eggs and sperm and says, "A penis is made to fit into a vagina sort of like an arm fits into a sleeve." Well, saying first that mommies with mommies is the same as mommies with daddies and then saying that daddy is designed to fit with mommy in order to make babies (including Ginny) would confuse anyone!
2. Secondly, as homosexual acts are the inverse of heterosexual acts, they are quite different from the way that Mommy and Daddy love each other. As Holy Matrimony is a sacrament ordained by God, homosexual acts, regardless of whether intended as such, mock the conjugal union of a man and a woman joined in marriage. I would be outraged and take personal offense at anyone who told any child of mine that any homosexual relationship was the same as my relationship to my husband.
3. It was pointed out in the August edition by a woman who wrote in that not all parents agree with the author. "I was shocked when I read your advice about how to answer a child who has a question about two mommies. A homosexual relationship is not just like the one I share with my husband. There are a number of people who feel homosexuality isn't right, and we would never tell our children that it is." The reader from Kentucky points out that this issue of homosexuality is, generally speaking, a pretty divided one and for the magazine to try to propogate it and pretend it is not divisive is quite narrow-minded and ignorant regarding its readers. When it comes to divided issues like this, a general parenting magazine should know better than to take such a stand or risk losing part of its readers.
Now, if my daughter had asked me the same question, here would have been my reply:
Some people believe that a family doesn't need a mommy and a daddy but God told us that that is not true. Every child should have a mommy and a daddy and it is not good or right to try to replace a mommy with another daddy or a daddy with another mommy. Some people think doing that is okay but it causes confusion and does not make God happy so we should always pray for such people. However, Ginny did not choose to have two mommies so you should not be mean to her but remember that because she does have two mommies, she might think different things than you do.
Of course I would also severely limit any interaction my child might have with Ginny as I cannot in good conscience permit such influences as her "mommies" might have given her.
Maybe in the September issue Mrs. Renkl can come up with a sweet explanation to give children when they ask what an abortion is when mommy went from having a baby in her tummy to not!
Needless to say I will not be resubscribing to Parenting.
"Your child tells you her classmate has two mommies. 'How can that be?' she asks."
The magazine's response is as follows:
"Homosexuality may seem like a conusing subject--especially for kids who haven't even gotten the concept of heterosexuality down yet. But your explanation doesn't have to be complicated: 'In Ginny's family, her two mommies love each other the way that Daddy and I do. So they live together, and both take care of Ginny.' The topic may also come up after your child hears a homosexual slur. Christi Cole's daughter Caitlyn, 6, said a boy at school had been telling kids in her class, "You're gay"--so of course she wanted to know what that meant. The Augusta, Georgia, mom explained that sometimes boys fall in love with boys and girls fall in love with girls but that the boy in Caitlyn's school probably didn't really understand what he was talking about. Then she reminded her daughter that calling people names isn't nice and might hurt someone's feelings."
Where do I begin with this?
First of all it is a sad testimony to our society that homosexuality is so public and promoted that a small child would be asking about it. However, as we live in a society that often cannot tell dog from God, I can well see such a question arising. (One more reason we are going to homeschool.)
1. I find it ironic that the magazine proposes to explain homosexuality as normal and natural to small children as heterosexuality and yet the author herself, Margaret Renkl, recognizes homosexuality to be much more complicated that heterosexuality. Why? If it is so normal and natural, why is it more complicated? It would seem Mrs. Renkl herself knows there is something unnatural about it even if she propogates parents trying to convince their children it is not. Interestingly enough, in a subsequent question about intercourse, Mrs. Renkl encourages a very frank explanation about eggs and sperm and says, "A penis is made to fit into a vagina sort of like an arm fits into a sleeve." Well, saying first that mommies with mommies is the same as mommies with daddies and then saying that daddy is designed to fit with mommy in order to make babies (including Ginny) would confuse anyone!
2. Secondly, as homosexual acts are the inverse of heterosexual acts, they are quite different from the way that Mommy and Daddy love each other. As Holy Matrimony is a sacrament ordained by God, homosexual acts, regardless of whether intended as such, mock the conjugal union of a man and a woman joined in marriage. I would be outraged and take personal offense at anyone who told any child of mine that any homosexual relationship was the same as my relationship to my husband.
3. It was pointed out in the August edition by a woman who wrote in that not all parents agree with the author. "I was shocked when I read your advice about how to answer a child who has a question about two mommies. A homosexual relationship is not just like the one I share with my husband. There are a number of people who feel homosexuality isn't right, and we would never tell our children that it is." The reader from Kentucky points out that this issue of homosexuality is, generally speaking, a pretty divided one and for the magazine to try to propogate it and pretend it is not divisive is quite narrow-minded and ignorant regarding its readers. When it comes to divided issues like this, a general parenting magazine should know better than to take such a stand or risk losing part of its readers.
Now, if my daughter had asked me the same question, here would have been my reply:
Some people believe that a family doesn't need a mommy and a daddy but God told us that that is not true. Every child should have a mommy and a daddy and it is not good or right to try to replace a mommy with another daddy or a daddy with another mommy. Some people think doing that is okay but it causes confusion and does not make God happy so we should always pray for such people. However, Ginny did not choose to have two mommies so you should not be mean to her but remember that because she does have two mommies, she might think different things than you do.
Of course I would also severely limit any interaction my child might have with Ginny as I cannot in good conscience permit such influences as her "mommies" might have given her.
Maybe in the September issue Mrs. Renkl can come up with a sweet explanation to give children when they ask what an abortion is when mommy went from having a baby in her tummy to not!
Needless to say I will not be resubscribing to Parenting.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Dear Catholic Priests...
James found this on a website and I just had to post part of it here as I couldn't agree with her more...
Thank you. For hearing the call to priesthood and then for following through to devote your life to god and the Church.
Really, I know I don’t say this nearly enough – Thank you.
I tend to be a Catholic who never interacts with priests (seriously – never). I never talk to priests outside of a confessional (and rarely there), mostly because I am scared of you and unlike some people I know I am not adept at making friends with priests through baked goods. But even so, I really do appreciate all that you do.
However, I do have a request. Can you please, please, please wear clerical clothing?
And no, a golf shirt with the name of your order embroidered on it does not count.
I won’t be greedy and ask for cassocks (though that is what all the cool priests are wearing). Just a Roman Collar would be good.
Now, I understand that everyone needs some time ‘out of uniform’ as it were. Running errands, family social events, and casual time off – perfectly reasonable to not be wearing a collar.
However, is it too much to ask that at Church functions you wear a collar and clearly identify yourself as a priest?
There are certainly benefits to wearing a clerical collar. I know that I am naturally nicer and more automatically respectful to priests. For example, one day at work I saw a slightly bewildered looking priest who was clearly lost in the maze that is O’Hare. I walk past many lost and confused people at O’Hare all the time but that collar ensured that I stopped and helped him to his gate.
Also, if there is an emergency, it would be nice to know if there is a priest around. That Roman Collar is a clear sign to those all around that God is present in his servant the priest. That can be incredibly comforting, even when you as a priest don’t even realize that people around you are taking comfort in that fact.
Priests in clerical garb are also excellent for recruitment - both to the Church and to the priesthood. I mean, if young boys and men never see a priest except at the front of the church then how can they envision living life as a priest. We as lay people need to see and know that there are priests out in society, living with us wherever we are. So often we live in a society that denies the importance of religion and faith. A priest dressed in clerical garb is a bold statement to the world that Yes – the Catholic Church is still here, vibrant and contributing to our society. I really think that is an important statement for a priest to make, and clerical clothing makes it without saying a word.
I can’t quite figure out why priests wouldn’t wear a collar. Are you ashamed of being a priest? Do you want to ‘blend in’ with the group? Or, as my sister in law theorizes, is it to be deceitful and try to trip us up by masquerading as lay people (I don’t think that is the case, but she is adamant).
...
I will say this to all the priests out there. When I see you in clerical clothing it personally makes me happy. I just feel comforted by the very fact that you are there, in the world. So please, please, please do wear clerical clothing. It really is a good thing.
Dear Catholic Priests,
Let me start by saying – thank you.Thank you. For hearing the call to priesthood and then for following through to devote your life to god and the Church.
Really, I know I don’t say this nearly enough – Thank you.
I tend to be a Catholic who never interacts with priests (seriously – never). I never talk to priests outside of a confessional (and rarely there), mostly because I am scared of you and unlike some people I know I am not adept at making friends with priests through baked goods. But even so, I really do appreciate all that you do.
However, I do have a request. Can you please, please, please wear clerical clothing?
And no, a golf shirt with the name of your order embroidered on it does not count.
I won’t be greedy and ask for cassocks (though that is what all the cool priests are wearing). Just a Roman Collar would be good.
Now, I understand that everyone needs some time ‘out of uniform’ as it were. Running errands, family social events, and casual time off – perfectly reasonable to not be wearing a collar.
However, is it too much to ask that at Church functions you wear a collar and clearly identify yourself as a priest?
There are certainly benefits to wearing a clerical collar. I know that I am naturally nicer and more automatically respectful to priests. For example, one day at work I saw a slightly bewildered looking priest who was clearly lost in the maze that is O’Hare. I walk past many lost and confused people at O’Hare all the time but that collar ensured that I stopped and helped him to his gate.
Also, if there is an emergency, it would be nice to know if there is a priest around. That Roman Collar is a clear sign to those all around that God is present in his servant the priest. That can be incredibly comforting, even when you as a priest don’t even realize that people around you are taking comfort in that fact.
Priests in clerical garb are also excellent for recruitment - both to the Church and to the priesthood. I mean, if young boys and men never see a priest except at the front of the church then how can they envision living life as a priest. We as lay people need to see and know that there are priests out in society, living with us wherever we are. So often we live in a society that denies the importance of religion and faith. A priest dressed in clerical garb is a bold statement to the world that Yes – the Catholic Church is still here, vibrant and contributing to our society. I really think that is an important statement for a priest to make, and clerical clothing makes it without saying a word.
I can’t quite figure out why priests wouldn’t wear a collar. Are you ashamed of being a priest? Do you want to ‘blend in’ with the group? Or, as my sister in law theorizes, is it to be deceitful and try to trip us up by masquerading as lay people (I don’t think that is the case, but she is adamant).
...
I will say this to all the priests out there. When I see you in clerical clothing it personally makes me happy. I just feel comforted by the very fact that you are there, in the world. So please, please, please do wear clerical clothing. It really is a good thing.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Update
Well, I've been pretty busy.
I've primarily been busy with Cecilia. Her naps are anything but regular so it is difficult for me to plan too much.
Unfortunately, the only progress I've made in my Bible reading is that I have finished Joshua and am on Judges. It has gotten more difficult to read now that Cecilia can figure out the book is behind her and never tires of trying to grab it.
We had some car trouble. The Escape kept stalling. Ugh. In fact it was so bad we couldn't drive it anywhere. We did get it fixed but for $800. Talk about expensive carbon build up. I'm sure it would have been cheaper to take it to anywhere but the Ford Dealership that we did, but since it was across the street and we weren't sure how far the Escape could get without stalling, we took it there. We are also currently trying to sell James' Mustang. Say a prayer we do. It is in good condition even if it is 8 years old. It has about 20,000 fewer miles on it than the Escape which is only 5 1/2 years old. It is just silly to keep it and keep paying insurance on it when all three of us cannot fit in it.
At the same time as Bible reading I am also working on putting together a family Recipe book, typing each one's ingredients and directions one page at a time and then printing them and putting them in a binder. Some we haven't even tried yet, but they sure do look good on Food Network. I am also working on sewing a few new patches onto my Bookbag and a few other projects....I do a little here, a little there, between cooking and cleaning while Cecilia naps.
I've also researched doing a couple of day tours into D.C. We were going to do two on Monday and Tuesday but as the highs are supposed to be 98 degrees F. both days, we are postponing it temporarily. We do want to go in July though so we can see the Houses while they are session.
I'll try to update regularly but as Cecilia keeps me busy, I don't seem to get too much done too quickly.
NOTE: I apologize for any missing Fs in my posts....that key on my laptop is fickle.
I've primarily been busy with Cecilia. Her naps are anything but regular so it is difficult for me to plan too much.
Unfortunately, the only progress I've made in my Bible reading is that I have finished Joshua and am on Judges. It has gotten more difficult to read now that Cecilia can figure out the book is behind her and never tires of trying to grab it.
We had some car trouble. The Escape kept stalling. Ugh. In fact it was so bad we couldn't drive it anywhere. We did get it fixed but for $800. Talk about expensive carbon build up. I'm sure it would have been cheaper to take it to anywhere but the Ford Dealership that we did, but since it was across the street and we weren't sure how far the Escape could get without stalling, we took it there. We are also currently trying to sell James' Mustang. Say a prayer we do. It is in good condition even if it is 8 years old. It has about 20,000 fewer miles on it than the Escape which is only 5 1/2 years old. It is just silly to keep it and keep paying insurance on it when all three of us cannot fit in it.
At the same time as Bible reading I am also working on putting together a family Recipe book, typing each one's ingredients and directions one page at a time and then printing them and putting them in a binder. Some we haven't even tried yet, but they sure do look good on Food Network. I am also working on sewing a few new patches onto my Bookbag and a few other projects....I do a little here, a little there, between cooking and cleaning while Cecilia naps.
I've also researched doing a couple of day tours into D.C. We were going to do two on Monday and Tuesday but as the highs are supposed to be 98 degrees F. both days, we are postponing it temporarily. We do want to go in July though so we can see the Houses while they are session.
I'll try to update regularly but as Cecilia keeps me busy, I don't seem to get too much done too quickly.
NOTE: I apologize for any missing Fs in my posts....that key on my laptop is fickle.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Sooooo Tired...
Well, last night's sleep was an improvement from the previous night. But not by much. Cecilia's sleeping at night has just seemed to get worse and worse the last 2 weeks or so hitting bottom Sunday night. After the 4th or 5th time she woke up I thought it must at least be 3 or 4 am. It was 12 midnight! She let me sleep only in little spurts...not even one hour solid the whole night. I was so tired. And then she was up and ready to go at 5am. Last night was an improvement with her waking no more than once an hour. I'm still catching up though.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Update
Well, we are back from vacation. First we drove to Dallas and East Texas to visit friends and family, then we drove to South Florida again to visit friends and family and then we spent a week at Disney World with family. Hopefully we will get some pictures up on Cecilia's site soon!
Cecilia was fantastic despite all the driving but she certainly seems happy to be home. So am I. I can't wait to sleep in my own bed tonight! And I'm so looking forward to home cooked food again.
Cecilia was fantastic despite all the driving but she certainly seems happy to be home. So am I. I can't wait to sleep in my own bed tonight! And I'm so looking forward to home cooked food again.
Monday, June 12, 2006
The Pentateuch - Review
Well, now the Bible is no small book. And since I will not remember the early books very well by the time I finish Revelation, I figured I'd review them in sections. Since it took me two weeks to read the Pentateuch, it seemed like a good point to write a review of it.
Pentateuch - The Pentateuch consists of five (hence, "penta") books, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Genesis concerns just that, the genesis or beginning.
Most are pretty familiar with the stories in Genesis. Adam and Eve, Noah, and Abraham are all well known, so there isn't too much unfamiliar about the book. I did find it mildly amusing that God gives only plants to mankind to eat at creation but after the flood gives him animals as well. So are we therefore mandated to be carnivores and not vegetarians? I can't say as I would find this argument a strong one even if someone wanted to use it, but I did find it amusing. I was also happy to read about Rebekah, who I feel is a most overlooked strong female character in the Old Testament. Unlike her husband Isaac, with whom God has his covenant, she alone understands God's plan for her twin sons. It could be considered deception that she aids Jacob in taking the blessing of the first born, but Genesis 25:23 says that the LORD said to her that she had two nations struggling within her womb and "the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger." Here God does not reveal his plan to Isaac but only to Rebekah, to a woman. And so she acts accordingly. Isn't it fantastic that for all those feminists who faint at the word [whispering] "patriarchy," here you have, in the heart of the beginning of the patriarchs of the Old Testament (OT) there is a woman blessed to not only hear the voice of God but be told of his plan as well. I must say it made her one of my favorite females in the Pentateuch.
Exodus follows God's freeing of his people from Egypt and forming his covenant with them. I noticed as I progressed to Exodus, after God uses Moses and frees the Israelites from Egypt that what was considered morally acceptable by God gets narrowed and fine-tuned. What was acceptable for Abraham doesn't necessarily please God by the time Moses is in charge. While I certainly knew the Israelites were an unruly bunch, I was pleasantly surprised at how often Moses not only pleads on behalf of his people, but in fact prostrates himself and begs for mercy on their behalf even while God is offering Moses his own kingdom if he will let God destroy the Israelites. I had to sympathize with Moses as the people argue and complain nonstop even after seeing pillars of smoke and fire, walking through the Red Sea, seeing the plagues God brings on Egypt and seeing water flow from rocks. They are like children whining and complaining no matter what is done for them. Of course, I cannot criticize them but remember that this was a different time and a more primitive way of thinking about life and about God. Overall I enjoyed Exodus except for all those specifications on the building of the ark, the tent of meeting, the lampstand, etc. that read like stereo instructions. Ugh.
Leviticus focuses primarily on the order of priests that is set up for Israel in its covenant. I found Leviticus somewhat boring at all the specifications of offerings, etc. All I will say is every priest today should thank God that he is not a priest from the Old Testament. If anyone thought the rules of the RCC today to be tough, imagine the ones of then not to mention how bloody and violent all those sacrifices were! Yuck!
By Numbers I found myself pleasantly surprised. Numbers did include some of the repitition of the offerings, etc. But overall I found it quite enjoyable continuing the history of Israel and all their grumblings in the desert. It read very much like a historical novel but with the significance of truth in God's love for his people. I also loved Balaam's donkey. I want a talking donkey now! Imagine if when you left your house your dog always diverted you from danger and then when you got frustrated proceeded to talk to you about what it was doing. Too cool.
Deuteronomy I found to be probably the most difficult book in the Pentateuch to read. It was like a recap of the previous three books. I felt like I was reading the Cliff's Notes to the previous three books. It also seemed to not only repeat the previous books, but repeat itself a few times. Out of all five books, this one took me the longest to read and gave me the hardest time.
Overall I found the Pentateuch quite enjoyable and despite its slower parts, it should be read by everyone at least once. It is a testament in itself to God's love for man and his aching desire for us to be one with him in trust and virtue. Trusting God and faithfulness in Him are central themes of the whole Bible that spans from the beginning unto the end and I think if people could get this much from the Bible, the rest would fall into place.
Pentateuch - The Pentateuch consists of five (hence, "penta") books, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Genesis concerns just that, the genesis or beginning.
Most are pretty familiar with the stories in Genesis. Adam and Eve, Noah, and Abraham are all well known, so there isn't too much unfamiliar about the book. I did find it mildly amusing that God gives only plants to mankind to eat at creation but after the flood gives him animals as well. So are we therefore mandated to be carnivores and not vegetarians? I can't say as I would find this argument a strong one even if someone wanted to use it, but I did find it amusing. I was also happy to read about Rebekah, who I feel is a most overlooked strong female character in the Old Testament. Unlike her husband Isaac, with whom God has his covenant, she alone understands God's plan for her twin sons. It could be considered deception that she aids Jacob in taking the blessing of the first born, but Genesis 25:23 says that the LORD said to her that she had two nations struggling within her womb and "the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger." Here God does not reveal his plan to Isaac but only to Rebekah, to a woman. And so she acts accordingly. Isn't it fantastic that for all those feminists who faint at the word [whispering] "patriarchy," here you have, in the heart of the beginning of the patriarchs of the Old Testament (OT) there is a woman blessed to not only hear the voice of God but be told of his plan as well. I must say it made her one of my favorite females in the Pentateuch.
Exodus follows God's freeing of his people from Egypt and forming his covenant with them. I noticed as I progressed to Exodus, after God uses Moses and frees the Israelites from Egypt that what was considered morally acceptable by God gets narrowed and fine-tuned. What was acceptable for Abraham doesn't necessarily please God by the time Moses is in charge. While I certainly knew the Israelites were an unruly bunch, I was pleasantly surprised at how often Moses not only pleads on behalf of his people, but in fact prostrates himself and begs for mercy on their behalf even while God is offering Moses his own kingdom if he will let God destroy the Israelites. I had to sympathize with Moses as the people argue and complain nonstop even after seeing pillars of smoke and fire, walking through the Red Sea, seeing the plagues God brings on Egypt and seeing water flow from rocks. They are like children whining and complaining no matter what is done for them. Of course, I cannot criticize them but remember that this was a different time and a more primitive way of thinking about life and about God. Overall I enjoyed Exodus except for all those specifications on the building of the ark, the tent of meeting, the lampstand, etc. that read like stereo instructions. Ugh.
Leviticus focuses primarily on the order of priests that is set up for Israel in its covenant. I found Leviticus somewhat boring at all the specifications of offerings, etc. All I will say is every priest today should thank God that he is not a priest from the Old Testament. If anyone thought the rules of the RCC today to be tough, imagine the ones of then not to mention how bloody and violent all those sacrifices were! Yuck!
By Numbers I found myself pleasantly surprised. Numbers did include some of the repitition of the offerings, etc. But overall I found it quite enjoyable continuing the history of Israel and all their grumblings in the desert. It read very much like a historical novel but with the significance of truth in God's love for his people. I also loved Balaam's donkey. I want a talking donkey now! Imagine if when you left your house your dog always diverted you from danger and then when you got frustrated proceeded to talk to you about what it was doing. Too cool.
Deuteronomy I found to be probably the most difficult book in the Pentateuch to read. It was like a recap of the previous three books. I felt like I was reading the Cliff's Notes to the previous three books. It also seemed to not only repeat the previous books, but repeat itself a few times. Out of all five books, this one took me the longest to read and gave me the hardest time.
Overall I found the Pentateuch quite enjoyable and despite its slower parts, it should be read by everyone at least once. It is a testament in itself to God's love for man and his aching desire for us to be one with him in trust and virtue. Trusting God and faithfulness in Him are central themes of the whole Bible that spans from the beginning unto the end and I think if people could get this much from the Bible, the rest would fall into place.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Movie Review: Where Angels Go, Troubles Follow
I don't usually review movies. With a brother studying film, I don't usually need to. However, in this case I felt compelled. I've been a fan of the first film, "The Trouble with Angels" staring Rosalind Russell as Mother Superior and Haley Mills as the unruly Mary Clancy, ever since I first saw it several year ago. So I was curious to see the sequel "Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows," and when it was available for free on Comcast, I put it on. I was gravely disappointed. The first film balances quite nicely the difficulties changes in America put on young girls and the challenges those confused young girls place on the religious sisters who strive to educate them academically as well as in matters of conduct, behavior and life. The second film begins with a bishop telling Mother Superior, again played by Rosalind Russell, that times are changing and they have to change to and so tells her she should lead a bus of girls from her all-girls Catholic school across the country to a peace rally in California. A desire for the trip is lead by a young sister named Sister George. Overall I must say Sister George must be one of the worst sisters I've ever seen. To her fellow sisters she is condescending, rude, bossy and quite obnoxious. To Mother Superior she is disobedient and defiant. She enjoys being friends with the girls so much she seems to be one of them but merely in a habit. She arranges to have the sisters and girls stay overnight at an all boys school. But it is easy to tell this movie was made before the whole sex scandal (fortunately, otherwise the director would have been far more out of line) as a poster in the boys' school says, "Spend time in the chapel sometime, Father Chase gets lonely." Sister George seems to be intended to represent so much "modern" thinking about the Catholic Church. When the bus breaks down in the desert, she advises removing their "medieval" habits to cool off and oh so wittingly remarks that it is no secret that they have legs. Mother Superior tries a few times to instruct Sr. George on being considerate of the other sisters and of the need to worry more about what is best for the girls than on being their best friend but Sr. George is very determined in her liberal mindframe. In the end Mother learns that "the cloister isn't always a place, but it can also be a state of mind." (awe, let's all hug!) the girls to me seem ridiculously unrealistic. When they reach the boys' school they all shout in unison, "Boys!" as though they had never seen one before and had practiced to scream altogether the same.
You never actually see them reach the rally. In the end the sisters try to remove their minds from "the cloister" as they shorten their veils, show their hair and wear habits resembling business suits with skirts. As heartfelt as the first film is, that is how political this one was.
I will say one thing. At least I never paid to watch it.
You never actually see them reach the rally. In the end the sisters try to remove their minds from "the cloister" as they shorten their veils, show their hair and wear habits resembling business suits with skirts. As heartfelt as the first film is, that is how political this one was.
I will say one thing. At least I never paid to watch it.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
What is a good baby?
I've had several people ask me if Cecilia is a "good" baby. I know what they mean. They mean, "Does Cecilia sleep several hours at a time at night?" and "Does she eat a lot?" and "Does she not cry much?" Now the honest answers to these questions are sometimes, a reasonable amount, and depends. What they are getting at is a simple inquiry as to if Cecilia is doing well or thriving. The answer to this would be yes. But I find myself hesitating if someone asks me if she is a "good" baby. Perhaps it is the theologion and philosopher in me, but when I think of a person as good or bad I think of their choices, their intentions and the moral state of their life. My daughter is almost 4 months old and a bit young to know enough to make any choice. All she has right now are desires and the instinct to want those desires met whether they be hunger satisfied or the ability to move about on her own accomplished. So I don't think of Cecilia any more as a good baby than I think of her as a bad baby. She is a baby. She nurses and smiles and coos and burps and spits up and drools. These are what a baby does. Yes, she is a very good baby in the sense she is good at acting like a baby, but I know of no baby that isn't. She nurses and smiles and coos and burps and spits up and drools very well.
So, as I think about the question more each time I am asked it, I find it, in reality, to be a bit of an odd question, but I know what people mean when they ask it.
So my definitive answer to, "Is Cecilia a good baby?" is:
She is a wonderful, amazing, intelligent, inquisitive, gentle, happy, precious angel of a baby and good doesn't begin to describe her.
So, as I think about the question more each time I am asked it, I find it, in reality, to be a bit of an odd question, but I know what people mean when they ask it.
So my definitive answer to, "Is Cecilia a good baby?" is:
She is a wonderful, amazing, intelligent, inquisitive, gentle, happy, precious angel of a baby and good doesn't begin to describe her.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Support Po-Life!!!
Make your homepage Prolifesearch.com. It is powered by Google and donated 100% of its ad sales to the Pro-Life Movement.
Congratulations to Melanie and Isabella!!!
James and I both follow the blogs of Melanie and her husband Dom and are happy to celebrate the birth of their first child Isabella Marie. You can read more about her here. Isabella Marie was born yesterday, May 18, 2006 (also the birthday of John Paul II) by necessary C-Section but am happy to report both mom and baby are doing very well!
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Next Reading Project
Well, I have been trying to decide what book off my list I should read next. Here is my dilema. I will be going on a long trip including driving through more than a dozen states. So I need to find something that I won't read through in 4 hours and won't be the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. After pondering my list, I think I've got it. I've certainly read many parts of it, but never the whole thing all the way through. SO....
I'm going to read the Bible.
My only remaining question is which edition to bring. Since James and I are students of Theology, we have The Catholic Study Bible (NAB with lots of commentary), The New Jerusalem Bible, The St. Joseph NAB, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (NRSV) and a pocket NAB Bible ("pocket" being mildly amusing since it is as long as my hand and the only people I know with pockets that big are farmers in baggy overalls and nuns). We may have more but I'm not going to go digging for them. The pocket NAB would certainly be the easiest to pack being smaller and lighter than all the others, but hence it also has the smallest print. While the NRSV can be a better translation it also tends to drift into inclusive language, so I think I will take a NAB version. Since my only hesitation in taking the pocket version is the size of the font, I am going to start reading it before we leave and see if it bothers my eyes or head to read so much in such a small font. If so, I'll bring the St. Joseph Medium Size NAB, if not, pocket we go.
I have no idea how I will review The Bible. It is too long to give a plot summary, I dare not criticize its author, and people have written for milleniums on its significance. Oh well, I'll figure that out when I'm done. In the mean time, wish me luck!
UPDATE: James bought me a revised RSV by Ignatius Press, so it should be a good translation and I'm going to aim to read that version.
I'm going to read the Bible.
My only remaining question is which edition to bring. Since James and I are students of Theology, we have The Catholic Study Bible (NAB with lots of commentary), The New Jerusalem Bible, The St. Joseph NAB, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (NRSV) and a pocket NAB Bible ("pocket" being mildly amusing since it is as long as my hand and the only people I know with pockets that big are farmers in baggy overalls and nuns). We may have more but I'm not going to go digging for them. The pocket NAB would certainly be the easiest to pack being smaller and lighter than all the others, but hence it also has the smallest print. While the NRSV can be a better translation it also tends to drift into inclusive language, so I think I will take a NAB version. Since my only hesitation in taking the pocket version is the size of the font, I am going to start reading it before we leave and see if it bothers my eyes or head to read so much in such a small font. If so, I'll bring the St. Joseph Medium Size NAB, if not, pocket we go.
I have no idea how I will review The Bible. It is too long to give a plot summary, I dare not criticize its author, and people have written for milleniums on its significance. Oh well, I'll figure that out when I'm done. In the mean time, wish me luck!
UPDATE: James bought me a revised RSV by Ignatius Press, so it should be a good translation and I'm going to aim to read that version.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
My First Mother's Day
Well, I had a lovely Mother's Day.
We began by sleeping in an hour (granted it was fragmented with Cecilia stirring, but it was still an extra hour) and going to 7:30am mass. Cecilia was very good until the homily and then I walked her around the back of the Church while she sucked and gummed my thumb. After mass a number of people wished me a Happy Mother's Day and came by to see Cecilia and try to get her to make her razzberry sounds.
Cecilia took a wonderful 3 hour and 15 minute nap giving me time to clean the dining room and James time to start cooking. James single-handedly made us a homemade from scratch French Onion soup, Chicken with a white wine cream sauce (also made from scratch) and corn on the cob and fresh garlic mashed potatoes (yep, made from scratch), and to top it all off a chocolate soufflee for dessert (also from scratch). Yummy. I'm stuffed!
We began by sleeping in an hour (granted it was fragmented with Cecilia stirring, but it was still an extra hour) and going to 7:30am mass. Cecilia was very good until the homily and then I walked her around the back of the Church while she sucked and gummed my thumb. After mass a number of people wished me a Happy Mother's Day and came by to see Cecilia and try to get her to make her razzberry sounds.
Cecilia took a wonderful 3 hour and 15 minute nap giving me time to clean the dining room and James time to start cooking. James single-handedly made us a homemade from scratch French Onion soup, Chicken with a white wine cream sauce (also made from scratch) and corn on the cob and fresh garlic mashed potatoes (yep, made from scratch), and to top it all off a chocolate soufflee for dessert (also from scratch). Yummy. I'm stuffed!
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Lewis Carroll's Classic tales - Reviews
AAIW follows
TTLG follows
Both stories are well-written with cleverness and wit that entertains adults as well as children. The characters so unique they have become known for generations. The poetry, even if occasionally requiring a dictionary, is fantastically fun, especially the mouse’s tale. Anyone and everyone should read these classics. They are wonderful fun for adults and children alike and look forward to being able to read them to Cecilia.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Celebrating Divorce?
I caught a couple of episodes of the latest reincarnation of Family Feud. The second episode was really more of the Anti-Family Feud.
When the show began in the 1970s, it was based off the concept of having two families compete to try and guess the most popular answers average Americans gave to specific questions. The show passed from Richard Dawson as host in the '70s to Ray Combs in the '80s. It was then reborn in 1999 with Louis Anderson hosting quite poorly and being replaced by Richard Karn in 2002. I have always enjoyed the show. I remember watching it in the '80s. It was always fun to try to guess the top survey answers. It was also a wonderful show in cerebrating family. Not many shows made possible the fun of game show competition for the whole family!
The episode I saw this morning was not of two competing families. Rather it was, excitingly announced, ex-wives verses ex-husbands. A game invented for the fun of competing families became a game for the demolished debris of families. Each ex-couple was announced with witty quips such as, "he's a writer and she's written him off," or "they went from first date to soul mates to court date." These couples made seemingly worthless vows and now celebrate the hollowness of their own words. I don't know if any of them have children, but I wondered if their children were so amused by the quips about the shattering of their families.
Certainly, and unfortunately, divorce is all too common in modern America. But I found it quite sad that a simple fun-loving game show designed around families should now appear to be celebrating divorce.
When the show began in the 1970s, it was based off the concept of having two families compete to try and guess the most popular answers average Americans gave to specific questions. The show passed from Richard Dawson as host in the '70s to Ray Combs in the '80s. It was then reborn in 1999 with Louis Anderson hosting quite poorly and being replaced by Richard Karn in 2002. I have always enjoyed the show. I remember watching it in the '80s. It was always fun to try to guess the top survey answers. It was also a wonderful show in cerebrating family. Not many shows made possible the fun of game show competition for the whole family!
The episode I saw this morning was not of two competing families. Rather it was, excitingly announced, ex-wives verses ex-husbands. A game invented for the fun of competing families became a game for the demolished debris of families. Each ex-couple was announced with witty quips such as, "he's a writer and she's written him off," or "they went from first date to soul mates to court date." These couples made seemingly worthless vows and now celebrate the hollowness of their own words. I don't know if any of them have children, but I wondered if their children were so amused by the quips about the shattering of their families.
Certainly, and unfortunately, divorce is all too common in modern America. But I found it quite sad that a simple fun-loving game show designed around families should now appear to be celebrating divorce.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Why I haven't Read The DaVinci Code
I was recently asked if I was going to see the upcoming film The DaVinci Code. It might also be asked if I have read the book by the same title. The simple answer to both is no. Here is why.
If I have foreknowledge that something is gravely anti-Catholic, anti-Christian or morally deprived, I avoid letting Hollywood or publishers think I approve or desire such material. And since the first language of such industries is the almight $$$, the simpliest and clearest way to relay this message to them is to not support them financially. Hence I will not be spending $8 to see the film or the $14.97 at Amazon.com for the book.
So, what if I could see the movie or read the book without sending any money out? I must say I have never done so with a book nor do I think I would be so inclined. A book is generally a longer commitment than any film with much more time and energy put into it. A movie you can squirm through for 2 hours and put it behind you if you have to. A book takes much more and I do not have much of a stomach for spending such time invested in something that I know is going to spew garbage at me, especially when I know there are so many better ways I could have spent all those hours I spent reading. I've been told the mystery element to the book is quite good, but I never would be able to get past all the lies it would be woven around. As far as a movie, generally I will watch it IF I can catch it on cable. The reason being that, having no control over what the stations choose to air and not being able to get only those channels I would watch, I have no say over whether or not my cable/satellite provider will be airing it and my not watching it will have absolutely no impact on their doing so again. (If we cut back our channels any further we will lose EWTN, so no lower will we go.) Also, it is a fair criticism that one cannot make a full review, and hence condemnation, of any film or book without having seen or read it themselves. So, watching such a film on cable, I can make a full personal opinion of it without contributing any $$$ that would not have been taken via my provider even if I hadn't watched it.
I have seen the films Priest, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Order, and others. My most hated had to be Dogma. I've seen each of them once and that is all I care to see of them. And as an informed parent, I can state that none of my children will be seeing any of them.
Now, there are people for whom it makes sense for them to pay to see such films or read such books. Such people might be movie or book reviewers, priests and professors. Why? Others look to them for their opinions in these media. Students need informed commentary from professors. Laity need truth from their priests on these issues. The community needs to know what is being put forth in such movies and books. The simple and real fact is that if those we trust to give us honest guidelines and recommendations regarding films and books did not do so, every individual would become an innocent pawn at the money-hungry paws of Hollywood and the media. Is there a book a parent should not read before allowing his or her child to read it? Never. How about a movie a professor should recommend without having seen it? How ridiculous!
So while I may yet see The DaVinci Code (if I can stomach it) when it comes on my tv, I will not be patroning it before then.
If I have foreknowledge that something is gravely anti-Catholic, anti-Christian or morally deprived, I avoid letting Hollywood or publishers think I approve or desire such material. And since the first language of such industries is the almight $$$, the simpliest and clearest way to relay this message to them is to not support them financially. Hence I will not be spending $8 to see the film or the $14.97 at Amazon.com for the book.
So, what if I could see the movie or read the book without sending any money out? I must say I have never done so with a book nor do I think I would be so inclined. A book is generally a longer commitment than any film with much more time and energy put into it. A movie you can squirm through for 2 hours and put it behind you if you have to. A book takes much more and I do not have much of a stomach for spending such time invested in something that I know is going to spew garbage at me, especially when I know there are so many better ways I could have spent all those hours I spent reading. I've been told the mystery element to the book is quite good, but I never would be able to get past all the lies it would be woven around. As far as a movie, generally I will watch it IF I can catch it on cable. The reason being that, having no control over what the stations choose to air and not being able to get only those channels I would watch, I have no say over whether or not my cable/satellite provider will be airing it and my not watching it will have absolutely no impact on their doing so again. (If we cut back our channels any further we will lose EWTN, so no lower will we go.) Also, it is a fair criticism that one cannot make a full review, and hence condemnation, of any film or book without having seen or read it themselves. So, watching such a film on cable, I can make a full personal opinion of it without contributing any $$$ that would not have been taken via my provider even if I hadn't watched it.
I have seen the films Priest, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Order, and others. My most hated had to be Dogma. I've seen each of them once and that is all I care to see of them. And as an informed parent, I can state that none of my children will be seeing any of them.
Now, there are people for whom it makes sense for them to pay to see such films or read such books. Such people might be movie or book reviewers, priests and professors. Why? Others look to them for their opinions in these media. Students need informed commentary from professors. Laity need truth from their priests on these issues. The community needs to know what is being put forth in such movies and books. The simple and real fact is that if those we trust to give us honest guidelines and recommendations regarding films and books did not do so, every individual would become an innocent pawn at the money-hungry paws of Hollywood and the media. Is there a book a parent should not read before allowing his or her child to read it? Never. How about a movie a professor should recommend without having seen it? How ridiculous!
So while I may yet see The DaVinci Code (if I can stomach it) when it comes on my tv, I will not be patroning it before then.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Great Homily!
Melanie at The Wine Dark Sea posted an excert from a homily by Fr. Martin Fox of St. Boniface Parish in Piqua, Ohio. It was so good I had to post the whole thing.
Today we mark the end of our religious education program until the fall. It’s an opportunity to thank our catechists, who give a lot time, and heart, to help our young people deepen their faith. In the first reading, St. Peter says to the crowd, you didn’t realize who Jesus is—so Peter makes Jesus known to them. That’s the purpose of our religious education program. But I must tell you that what we attempt to do, about an hour a week, for 30-35 weeks a year, is just not enough!
I trust you understand that, parents. But if any parent expects this to carry the weight of your child’s religious education, I must tell you—it doesn’t! It won’t! During the week, our children learn arithmetic, science, history, and they get several hours’ instruction in these subjects, every week! We don’t come anywhere close to that on Sunday morning! Our Sunday morning program presupposes parents are providing the "meat" of that religious instruction at home.
Now, maybe we wonder if our kids need as much religious instruction, as with vocabulary or mathematics, or reading. Look at the world around us. Does it look like an easy place to navigate, in terms of moral choices? I went to a bookstore Monday; you’ve seen, or heard about, what’s out there: books that claim Jesus and Mary Magdalene hooked up, that Jesus didn’t really die on the Cross, or if he did, he wasn’t resurrected; Judas wasn’t a villain, the whole thing was made up.
And you know what? A lot of our Catholics don’t know how to respond!
When folks from other religions come knocking, do you feel confident in responding? And if we can’t explain why we believe, how can we ever do as Christ commanded, in today’s Gospel, to lead others to salvation? So, yes, religious instruction is important; and what the parish provides is not nearly enough. Down the road, we’ll talk further about this: I welcome any thoughts you may have.
In the Gospel, the disciples recognized Jesus "in the breaking of the bread"—This was on that first, Easter Sunday: Luke, who wrote this Gospel, is teaching us about the importance of gathering, every Sunday, at Mass; where we have the same encounter with the Risen Lord. And, we’re doing that right now! I want to encourage and thank you for bringing your children to Mass. I know when they’re infants, they don’t always do well at Mass—as one parent put it, they have "meltdowns"! Sometimes, other sets of eyes turn like laser beams! But let me say this to anyone who is distracted: If you’re distracted at Mass, it’s not the baby’s fault—it’s not the parent’s fault. It’s your fault!
We do our best; yes, it’s considerate to turn our phones to silent; but we can’t turn off babies! But, if you want Mass without these things? Don’t come! Only when this church is empty of people will that happen! So, instead, here’s some practical advice. You’re at Mass, and there’s a noise; Don’t look: don’t think about it; just go right back to praying. I guarantee you’ll forget about it. You know what the true distraction is? Not what happens over there, but here, in our heads! It’s what we start thinking right afterward.
So, parents, don’t hold back from bringing the little ones. If you feel you can’t do both—Mass, and CCD? Then skip CCD and bring them here! They don’t have to get it here—with their heads; they will get it in their hearts. When your children were newborns, did you talk to them? Or, did you wait until they would understand the words? I’m sure you didn’t wait! They "get" it before they "get" it. Your children are never "too young" to be with you; how can they be "too young" to be with Jesus at Mass?
An infant in her father’s arms feels the heartbeat, hears a familiar voice, singing or speaking: that child connects, apart from intellect. And all of us are no more than infants in God’s arms, in our understanding of the reality that happens at Mass! See, our identity as Christians: it’s more than as individuals who believe something about Christ: we are a family. And Sunday Mass is when the family comes together—the whole family. And Jesus is made known to us in the breaking of the Bread.
Since Cecilia was Baptized there has not been a day she has missed mass. At our Church everyone has been wonderful about having a baby everyday at mass. She isn't always perfect through mass. Two days we had to go to a different Church since at our regular parish one priest was on retreat and the other having surgery. Visiting at another nearby Church Cecilia was very fussy and nothing I did would calm her very much. After mass a woman came up to me and proceeded to tell me that she could still hear Cecilia throughout mass. It isn't very easy as a new parent to try to bring your child to mass daily and strive so hard for their little one not to distract anyone from the mass. I must say I didn't feel very comfortable at the Church we visited but it certainly made me appreciate our Church more!
Today we mark the end of our religious education program until the fall. It’s an opportunity to thank our catechists, who give a lot time, and heart, to help our young people deepen their faith. In the first reading, St. Peter says to the crowd, you didn’t realize who Jesus is—so Peter makes Jesus known to them. That’s the purpose of our religious education program. But I must tell you that what we attempt to do, about an hour a week, for 30-35 weeks a year, is just not enough!
I trust you understand that, parents. But if any parent expects this to carry the weight of your child’s religious education, I must tell you—it doesn’t! It won’t! During the week, our children learn arithmetic, science, history, and they get several hours’ instruction in these subjects, every week! We don’t come anywhere close to that on Sunday morning! Our Sunday morning program presupposes parents are providing the "meat" of that religious instruction at home.
Now, maybe we wonder if our kids need as much religious instruction, as with vocabulary or mathematics, or reading. Look at the world around us. Does it look like an easy place to navigate, in terms of moral choices? I went to a bookstore Monday; you’ve seen, or heard about, what’s out there: books that claim Jesus and Mary Magdalene hooked up, that Jesus didn’t really die on the Cross, or if he did, he wasn’t resurrected; Judas wasn’t a villain, the whole thing was made up.
And you know what? A lot of our Catholics don’t know how to respond!
When folks from other religions come knocking, do you feel confident in responding? And if we can’t explain why we believe, how can we ever do as Christ commanded, in today’s Gospel, to lead others to salvation? So, yes, religious instruction is important; and what the parish provides is not nearly enough. Down the road, we’ll talk further about this: I welcome any thoughts you may have.
In the Gospel, the disciples recognized Jesus "in the breaking of the bread"—This was on that first, Easter Sunday: Luke, who wrote this Gospel, is teaching us about the importance of gathering, every Sunday, at Mass; where we have the same encounter with the Risen Lord. And, we’re doing that right now! I want to encourage and thank you for bringing your children to Mass. I know when they’re infants, they don’t always do well at Mass—as one parent put it, they have "meltdowns"! Sometimes, other sets of eyes turn like laser beams! But let me say this to anyone who is distracted: If you’re distracted at Mass, it’s not the baby’s fault—it’s not the parent’s fault. It’s your fault!
We do our best; yes, it’s considerate to turn our phones to silent; but we can’t turn off babies! But, if you want Mass without these things? Don’t come! Only when this church is empty of people will that happen! So, instead, here’s some practical advice. You’re at Mass, and there’s a noise; Don’t look: don’t think about it; just go right back to praying. I guarantee you’ll forget about it. You know what the true distraction is? Not what happens over there, but here, in our heads! It’s what we start thinking right afterward.
So, parents, don’t hold back from bringing the little ones. If you feel you can’t do both—Mass, and CCD? Then skip CCD and bring them here! They don’t have to get it here—with their heads; they will get it in their hearts. When your children were newborns, did you talk to them? Or, did you wait until they would understand the words? I’m sure you didn’t wait! They "get" it before they "get" it. Your children are never "too young" to be with you; how can they be "too young" to be with Jesus at Mass?
An infant in her father’s arms feels the heartbeat, hears a familiar voice, singing or speaking: that child connects, apart from intellect. And all of us are no more than infants in God’s arms, in our understanding of the reality that happens at Mass! See, our identity as Christians: it’s more than as individuals who believe something about Christ: we are a family. And Sunday Mass is when the family comes together—the whole family. And Jesus is made known to us in the breaking of the Bread.
Since Cecilia was Baptized there has not been a day she has missed mass. At our Church everyone has been wonderful about having a baby everyday at mass. She isn't always perfect through mass. Two days we had to go to a different Church since at our regular parish one priest was on retreat and the other having surgery. Visiting at another nearby Church Cecilia was very fussy and nothing I did would calm her very much. After mass a woman came up to me and proceeded to tell me that she could still hear Cecilia throughout mass. It isn't very easy as a new parent to try to bring your child to mass daily and strive so hard for their little one not to distract anyone from the mass. I must say I didn't feel very comfortable at the Church we visited but it certainly made me appreciate our Church more!
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Modesty
I decided to reflect a bit on modesty. To begin, here is the dictionary definition as it pertains to this reflection:
1. Having or proceeding from a disinclination to call attention to oneself; retiring or diffident. See Synonyms at shy.
2. Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress.
3. Free from showiness or ostentation; unpretentious. See Synonyms at plain.
Now, while I suppose it would apply I am not speaking of neon pants or red polka dots on a yellow shirt. So I am going to focus on definition 2 and with regards to dress - observing conventional proprieties, what is considered appropriate or proper, in dress.
I have gone to the theater and I've seen women from 20 to 70 years of age wearing plunging necklines. In a restaurant I've seen men with their shirts half unbuttoned. I've seen young men and boys seemingly quite confused about the purpose of pants to cover their underwear. And then there is my favorite young woman or girl wearing shorts that reveal the bottom of her buns or bearing a top that is sleevless so as to sometimes reveal her bra-covered chest.
What has become more scary is that, as young girls so admire the elders of their sex and seek to copy them, I am seeing girls younger and younger dressing like those who are 10, 15 or 20 years older than them. Yesterday I went to the Cheesecake Factory to pick up a To Go order (it is easier in case I have to hold or walk Cecilia while I am eating) and while I was waiting there were two separate families waiting to be seated. Each had a little girl about 7 years old. Each little girl was dressed in white shoes, a white wreath or tiara and veil, and a white ornate First Holy Communion gown. One little girl was wearing red lipstick and the other's dress was sleeveless. A seven year old wearing lipstick! Now some might argue that allowing girls so young to dress as such humors them in their anticipation to grow up. But do we really want them growing up so fast? God has us grow up slowly for a reason. If we jumped from 5 to 15 years old we would not be able to handle it. And so neither can these young girls. And because they jump 10 years in clothing and makeup and nail polish and piercings, they think they should act 15 or 20 and so they try to act as they see 15 or 20 year olds act on tv or in music videos. And in the end you wind up with a young woman who missed her entire childhood spending it trying to be an adult. We should not be encouraging little girls to grow up so fast. They deserve to have every opportunity to be little girls. I am already amazed at how fast my little girl has grown since she was born and she is 3 months old! Young girls are being robbed of their childhood by modern clothing stores and parents who think it will make their daughters happy to dress 10 years older than they are.
Some might also say that sleeveless is not immodest. I disagree. I can't tell you how many boys in high school loved when the cheerleaders wore their uniforms all day on pep rally days. Their uniforms were sleeveless and sitting only a few feet away in class, it was quite easy for them to steal glances through the sleeve holes. For those who would say a girl of 7 has nothing to see, I say first of all that she is young and impressionable and should be taught correctly from the beginning and second there are enough perverts and pedophiles out there that she should not be exposed in such a manner.
These two girls were dressed to receive communion. Whether Catholic or not, as a solemn religious event, it was hardly an occassion to be dressed inappropriately. But what about casual events? Shouldn't a girl or woman be dressed modestly then as well? Shouldn't she preserve her integrity? Why sell it for the cheap price of a boy or man's peeking eyes? Is a woman so worthless as to be selling her body for attention? For that is what she is doing when she wears skirts so short her underwear is revealed or shorts that reveal her bottom. Is that the price women and girls today place on themselves? All I can say is that it is time we taught our daughters better.
1. Having or proceeding from a disinclination to call attention to oneself; retiring or diffident. See Synonyms at shy.
2. Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress.
3. Free from showiness or ostentation; unpretentious. See Synonyms at plain.
Now, while I suppose it would apply I am not speaking of neon pants or red polka dots on a yellow shirt. So I am going to focus on definition 2 and with regards to dress - observing conventional proprieties, what is considered appropriate or proper, in dress.
I have gone to the theater and I've seen women from 20 to 70 years of age wearing plunging necklines. In a restaurant I've seen men with their shirts half unbuttoned. I've seen young men and boys seemingly quite confused about the purpose of pants to cover their underwear. And then there is my favorite young woman or girl wearing shorts that reveal the bottom of her buns or bearing a top that is sleevless so as to sometimes reveal her bra-covered chest.
What has become more scary is that, as young girls so admire the elders of their sex and seek to copy them, I am seeing girls younger and younger dressing like those who are 10, 15 or 20 years older than them. Yesterday I went to the Cheesecake Factory to pick up a To Go order (it is easier in case I have to hold or walk Cecilia while I am eating) and while I was waiting there were two separate families waiting to be seated. Each had a little girl about 7 years old. Each little girl was dressed in white shoes, a white wreath or tiara and veil, and a white ornate First Holy Communion gown. One little girl was wearing red lipstick and the other's dress was sleeveless. A seven year old wearing lipstick! Now some might argue that allowing girls so young to dress as such humors them in their anticipation to grow up. But do we really want them growing up so fast? God has us grow up slowly for a reason. If we jumped from 5 to 15 years old we would not be able to handle it. And so neither can these young girls. And because they jump 10 years in clothing and makeup and nail polish and piercings, they think they should act 15 or 20 and so they try to act as they see 15 or 20 year olds act on tv or in music videos. And in the end you wind up with a young woman who missed her entire childhood spending it trying to be an adult. We should not be encouraging little girls to grow up so fast. They deserve to have every opportunity to be little girls. I am already amazed at how fast my little girl has grown since she was born and she is 3 months old! Young girls are being robbed of their childhood by modern clothing stores and parents who think it will make their daughters happy to dress 10 years older than they are.
Some might also say that sleeveless is not immodest. I disagree. I can't tell you how many boys in high school loved when the cheerleaders wore their uniforms all day on pep rally days. Their uniforms were sleeveless and sitting only a few feet away in class, it was quite easy for them to steal glances through the sleeve holes. For those who would say a girl of 7 has nothing to see, I say first of all that she is young and impressionable and should be taught correctly from the beginning and second there are enough perverts and pedophiles out there that she should not be exposed in such a manner.
These two girls were dressed to receive communion. Whether Catholic or not, as a solemn religious event, it was hardly an occassion to be dressed inappropriately. But what about casual events? Shouldn't a girl or woman be dressed modestly then as well? Shouldn't she preserve her integrity? Why sell it for the cheap price of a boy or man's peeking eyes? Is a woman so worthless as to be selling her body for attention? For that is what she is doing when she wears skirts so short her underwear is revealed or shorts that reveal her bottom. Is that the price women and girls today place on themselves? All I can say is that it is time we taught our daughters better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
