Little Catholic Bubble

Quick Takes: Blogger rant, those crazy kids at Planned Parenthood, and a sincere thanks to MSNBC

2012-02-17T08:28:00.000-07:00

1) I've had it with Blogger. First, last year they deleted an entire post and all the comments. (Oops!) They did this to untold blogs, but I am one of the few who never got the post restored. Next, they changed my preferred comments format to one I really dislike, which messes me all up. Then, they made it almost impossible to see that there are comments after the first 200, meaning that anyone who is not subscribed to the comments, but simply comes back to the blog to check for new ones, will not see them (unless they see the little "Load more" link which even I missed for days!). People will assume the conversation just ended, when in fact it is ongoing! And now, there is something wrong with the proper application of Blogger fonts, and apparently people are seeing my posts in SCRIPT?? I would not put entire posts in script, people!

I need help! Anyone out there know how to seamlessly transfer this whole stinking Bubble, comments and all, to a new home base? For cheap? Email me if you have the solution to all my bloggy headaches!

2) Modern feminists are so sadly misguided. There are bedrock fundamentals that they simply do not understand, and two quotes say it all, in my opinion.

Reader/commenter extraordinaire LJP (Love, Justice, Peace, in that order) summed things up nicely:

"Suppression of what is distinctly woman = oppression of women"

Think about that for a minute! Imagine if the feminists understood it. And, consider a quote I saw on facebook, attributed to one Marilyn Dickstein Kopp:

Many feminists insist that abortion is necessary for women to participate freely and equally in society. Anyone who disagrees, they argue, has merely adopted patriarchal standards and accepted women’s ‘place’ in society. Yet this argument demonstrates how deeply the roots of sexism run in our culture. Its premise is a sexist one—that women are inferior to men and that in order to be equal, we have to change our biology to become like men—wombless and unpregnant at will. What other oppressed group in history has had to undergo surgery in order to be equal?

Indeed. Again, women on the left are forever at war with their own biology, their own feminine nature. Why do they disdain their own bodies so much? What is it like to fight one's own nature so vehemently? I'll never understand.

3) Which brings me to one of the best of many excellent commentaries about the now-infamous HHS contraception/sterilization/abortifacient mandate. It comes from Patrick Thornton of CatholicVote.org:

Women's Health = Not Having Babies

A fun sampling:

Women’s Health™ (yes, I’m going to keep writing it like that and in fact, every time you read it I want you to go “Ahhh” in your head in a kind of a sing-songy way like a chorus of angels would if the clouds had just parted and a powerful beam of sunlight was shining down upon the word) is different from regular health.

And it’s actually much more important.

We have been told repeatedly by our esteemed Commander in Health that it is so important that EVERY insurance program should cover it. No matter what.

Not only should they cover it, but they should cover it WITHOUT a co-pay.

Because, you know, asking women to pay $20 for a prescription is evil and horrible and mean and most likely, (cringe) Republican.

These women are healthy. You can tell because they are not having babies.

Now, say your child has an ear infection or pneumonia, you can pay $20 for that because it’s not a Women’s Health™ issue, it’s just a plain-old, regular health issue.

If a young mother has a heart condition and needs medication, well she can pay $20 for that too because it is not a matter of Women’s Health™ (“Ahhh…”). It’s just a matter of regular health.

If that same young mother wants to have sex without having a baby, well she damn well better not have to pay $20 for that! Because as well know, that is a matter of Women’s Health™.

Read the rest, and find out what is not covered (surprise!!) under the umbrella of Women's Health™, here.

4) Those crazy kids at Planned Parenthood are at it again! If the late night comedians were not all abortion advocates, they would have endless fodder for their monologues. Here's a sampling from the past couple of days, just begging for some parody:

In the article, "Bill mandating abortion coverage in maternity insurance passes Washington State House" (yes, mandating abortion coverage is next), we hear the remarkable thoughts of local Planned Parenthood official Dana Laurent:

“Just as no one anticipates breaking their leg, no one anticipates needing an abortion. It should be covered just as any other common medical procedure."

When I read that truly … um ... incredible statement, I crazily wondered on facebook why a woman engaged in the baby-making act wouldn't anticipate that babies might be made during that act? But All You Who Hope straightened me out: "You mean you've never gotten a high fever and cough and found out you needed an emergency abortion? Happens all the time." Yeah, I guess it does! Thanks, AYWH!

And for more Planned Parenthood humor (because with PP, you either have to laugh or cry), check out their tweet about Ohio college students having to choose between birth control and food. Yes, you read that right. If these poor Ohio students are not provided with free contraception, they risk malnutrition and starvation. You know, I sympathize. It was not so many years ago that I was in college, and I remember what it's like. I can envision a very sad scenario playing out right now at Ohio State:

‎"Hey, Orville, before we go back to the dorm so we can use each other for a quick hook-up (man, I haven't had sex since Thursday and I'm feeling weak), can you buy me some chicken wings? See, I can't actually afford food because no one will pay for my contraception -- hang on, I'm getting a call on my new iPhone; isn't it pretty? -- so, if you spring for dinner before sex, I can get at least one meal in today."

I know. It's tragic. These are brave young women, having to choose between sex and food. Thanks, Planned Parenthood, for championing their noble cause and introducing us to their unthinkable plight. Who wouldn't be willing to give up their religious liberties to ease these poor girls' burdens?

5) But in all seriousness, this ludicrous HHS mandate has helped to galvanize the faithful, bringing all stripes of Christians and non-Christians together. I was heartened to get this email from a dear Protestant friend:

Leila: I was just telling my sons last week that even though the pope is not the head of our church, he is in the ecumenical sense as he never backs down, Ever. And the day the Catholic Church backs down is the day we should all be very afraid. He always holds the line. Even if we do not agree with his line, he always holds it, and that fights evil and survives politics and changing mores. This current mandate for abortion will not even be the biggest fight; that is yet to come. But it is the pivotal one, for if we cannot agree that all created life has intrinsic value, how do you even get to the other issues? ...my two cents...

Yes, it's going to be a difficult battle, but we're amassing some wonderful allies. :)

6) As we take in the troubling absurdity of the past few weeks and think ahead, part of the battle is going to be supporting our priests as they (finally?) begin to educate their congregations. For several decades, Catholics in the pews have heard nary a peep from the pulpit about the issue of contraception. I am blessed to have two parish priests who do not shy away from the topic. If you crave a good homily on the subject, sit back and listen to my own Fr. Oliver Vietor's homily of two Sundays ago, here. For those inclined to shout "White male celibate!" right about now, keep in mind that Fr. Vietor, a former Episcopalian minister, has a wife and six children.

And if after that fortifying homily you desire a Scripture that seems particularly relevant for Catholics these days, pray over Matthew 10:16-39. You'll understand when you read it.

7) Finally, a huge thank you to MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski! Who'd have thought that we'd get this refreshing defense of Rick Santorum's personal stand on contraception from a host on that network? Check it out:

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing that [that contraception is wrong], I really don’t. I don’t think that means he’s going to ban birth control across the board. Those are his personal beliefs. And I think that as a father, and a man who’s held public office, he’s lived up to them, it appears.

Which makes it interesting for the conversation, and it’s a conversation probably every family should have, about birth control and its role in society with their own kids. He’s got his own, and he stands by them, and I think he’s an interesting part of the national conversation in terms of where our society is going.

And there is a lot of risky behavior out there that happens to be connected to birth control. So there’s a whole other side to this conversation. And not once did I say should it be banned, or should it not be covered by health insurance. But I think it’s OK to have those beliefs or those concerns.

Can I just say WOW, and God bless Ms. Brzezinski! I mean, what she says is common sense, but it's heartening to see it on a liberal cable news network.

+++++++

Well, whew, that was kind of a long Quick Takes! Maybe I should have called them Slow Takes?

Thanks to Jen (whom I miss, but I cannot wait for that book!), for hosting!

Here's the almost-L.A.Times article...

2012-02-13T10:50:00.000-07:00

So, last week I received a friendly email from an editor at the Los Angeles Times, asking me if I would write an editorial for the paper. I wouldn't have chosen the topic given, and I hate working with word count limits, but I agreed. In the end, it wasn't what she wanted, and I was not willing or able to make the accommodations requested. C'est la vie. But I didn't want my work to be totally wasted, so here is the piece as I submitted it, for whatever it's worth.

+++++++

My blog title, Little Catholic Bubble, is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I love my faithful Catholic friends, but I also enjoy engaging the left, mostly secular humanists, in cultural debates. Three main frustrations, however, make it hard to talk to liberals.

The first frustration is the tendency by many liberals to duck out early. I take a pseudo-Socratic approach to dialogue, asking a series of questions in an attempt to follow an argument to its logical conclusion, and often my opponent quits right at that threshold. It might look like this:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?
Abortion Advocate: No, I don't.
Me: What do you think they are?
AA: They are potential humans.
Me: At what moment do they become fully human?
AA: At viability. {Other answers include: brainwaves, heartbeat, the second trimester, birth, three months after birth, sentience, etc.}
Me: Is that objectively true, or is that simply your opinion?
AA: After deep inquiry and thought, that's my conclusion.
Me: Okay, well, how do you pinpoint the exact second that humanity begins, so that we don't accidentally kill any innocent people?
AA: We can't pinpoint an exact second, but it's a good estimate.
Me: Isn't that arbitrary and subjective?
AA: Well, we have to draw the line somewhere.
Me: Why do we have to draw the line anywhere? Death is irrevocable. If we might be killing innocent people, shouldn't we always err on the side of life?

Suddenly, silence. One of numerous unanswered questions on my blog.

If a thread doesn’t end in silence, it might end in the next frustration, which is an irrational explosion of raw emotion, either offensive (“You racist, sexist, patriarchal, judgmental, pedophile-protecting, bigoted, homophobic fetus-lover! You hate the poor, you rape the earth, and you don’t care about children after they’re born!”) or defensive (“You think I’m evil! You don’t think I have any morals! You are calling me a monster!”). Not to mention myriad other choice phrases and obscenities that cannot be printed here.

The third frustration is when I encounter the “jaw droppers” -- statements that are so bizarre, illogical or disturbing that I want to confirm, “Do you actually believe that?” and then ask the heavens, “How did we get here?” Some Alice-down-the-rabbit-hole moments:

Many secularists proclaim that, except for genitalia, there is no difference between men and women. At all.

I’ve been told often that mothers and fathers are "interchangeable" to a child, so having both is not needed.

A sex educator informed me that she and her husband leave out “judgmental words like ‘marriage’” when teaching underprivileged school children.

I’ve been scolded by a recent college grad who has a “big issue” with my “assumptions about women, that their bodies were made to breed and sustain other people”. (Biology, anyone?)

A science major told me that although “it’s true” she started life as a single cell, “that zygote that I started out as wasn't me”.

A college atheist couldn't say whether a fully-formed baby girl aborted in the third trimester deserved love or was literally a piece of trash. She looked at the dead girl’s photo and said she would need to know the “circumstances”.

Two undergraduates told me that torturing, raping and killing a six-year-old girl to spare the lives of fifty people “would be the only moral thing to do” (though “moral principles aren't necessarily easy to live out”).

An abortionist mocked me for imposing my "mystical, spiritual beliefs", after I presented strictly secular pro-life arguments based on biology and civil rights.

A homosexual activist and his boyfriend staged a "mock civil union" on campus to challenge traditional marriage laws, yet when I asked him to define "marriage" he admitted he'd never thought about it.

But there is another category of discussion that I can respect, even as I recoil: When a liberal is consistent, willing to push his idea all the way to its logical conclusion.

Take for example the young atheist wife and mother who admits that since love is “just a series of random chemical reactions in the brain”, she and her (currently beloved) husband should, and will, divorce should those chemicals shift.

Or the academic who conceded when pressed that adult siblings (gay or straight) should be allowed to marry: “If two siblings really, really want to get married and enjoy a happy relationship - then go right ahead.”

Or, famously, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, a supporter of both abortion and infanticide who rightly argues that the two acts are not different, and that birth is an arbitrary line drawn by abortion proponents to make themselves feel a distinction where none exists. Singer understands that “birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line” when it comes to killing infants.

Aside from those rare cogent moments, the frustration in dialogue remains. I pray my interaction with those on the left can move past the silences, the emotional outbursts, and the jaw droppers towards a mutual search for clarity and truth. Though chances of that seem slim, there is wonder and fruit in the Little Catholic Bubble nonetheless: Fence-sitters email me behind the scenes, thankful to have found their way to objective truth by watching the debates unfold. For that reason alone, I will gratefully keep talking to liberals.

+++++++

There you have it! The piece I never wanted to write, with time I really didn't have, for a paper that is not known to embrace conservative ideas anyway. I have written editorials for the "mainstream media" before, with Kim Manning. There are pros and (plenty of) cons in doing so. And there's a lot to be said for being my own boss here in the Bubble. :)

To lukewarm Catholics: This is your moment. Defend your mother.

2012-02-10T00:19:00.002-07:00

You cannot have God for your Father
if you do not have the Church for your Mother.

-- St. Cyprian, third century Christian martyr

To every lukewarm, confused or dissenting Catholic out there:

I get you, I really do. I was a lapsed and lukewarm Catholic once, too, with one foot out the door. You probably think the Church is wrong on contraception and you want your birth control for free. I understand. I am one of "the 98%" of Catholics who have used contraception at some point in their lives.

But even then, as a tepid, contracepting Catholic, I would have seen something like this HHS mandate as a defining moment.

As it stands, this is your defining moment.

Mother Church -- your mother -- is under attack. You may think she is old and out of touch, even a doddering old fool. You may feel she doesn't understand you. But she is still your mother.

As much as you may want her to change her mind on contraception, she won't. She will never change her moral teachings, no matter how unpopular they are, no matter how many of her own children reject them. She is stubborn that way, when it comes to objective truth. It's part of what makes her your mother, and frankly, it's something to be admired.

The federal government issued its mandate just a few short weeks ago, imposed by a man who apparently thinks he's a king. But your mother, the Church, has her own mandate to follow, one which was given some 2,000 years ago, by a true King. It was a mandate to hold fast to the truth and teach it faithfully, until the end of time. Christ's eternal mandate supersedes and annihilates all temporal ones.

Now, because Mother Church will never give in to the government's attempted violation, there will be painful fallout in the resistance. You are a child of the Church, even if a bit distant from her, and you have a duty to defend her in this battle. Rouse your irrevocably baptized soul and come to her aid. It's sadly true that we sometimes kick around our own family members, but we don't allow outsiders to come in and do the same!

The government has made a breathtaking power play, kicking around your mother in her own home. She has responded with a firm and resounding, Get out of our house!

Get up, and help her shut the door.

For [Catholic] is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, "As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it", and all the rest), and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children.

-- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, circa 350

**Update: Obama "shifts" the mandate to insurance companies who are paid by Catholic institutions. Don't be fooled and don't let your guard down. Nothing has changed.

.

Just Curious: Access to contraception?

2012-02-08T23:33:00.000-07:00

So, King Obama deprives Catholics of religious liberty because the administration is "committed to giving women access to contraceptives".

Now, see, there's a head-scratcher for me.

Do any of you know of any situation where a woman does not have "access to contraceptives" unless the Catholic Church provides it for her?

Truly, I'm just curious.

Because I can't think of a single situation where that is the case.

Seems like something else may be afoot here. Hmmm….

.

Time for courage, Catholics! Be kind, not "nice"….(and UPDATE)

2012-02-02T23:41:00.000-07:00

Many of you have seen this post before, but in light of recent events (both Obama's outrageous HHS mandate forcing Catholics to violate their consciences, as well as the unholy backlash after Susan G. Komen for the Cure wisely cut ties with Planned Parenthood), it's good for Catholics to revisit the directive to be kind but not "nice". If you've spent any time on facebook lately, I think you know what I'm talking about!

I hope the wisdom of Bishop Thomas Olmsted, Blessed John Paul II, St. Paul, and Jesus Christ Himself will bolster and refresh you!

+++++++

Providential encouragement came to me well over a year ago, in the form of a local crisis pregnancy center's newsletter. It contained excerpts from a speech that our beloved Bishop Thomas Olmsted had recently delivered at a pro-life luncheon. Anyone who knows Bishop Olmsted knows that he is a gentle, kind and holy soul. Not loud, bombastic or combative, but joyful, peaceful and caring. I daresay he is one of the "nicest" men you'll ever meet. He entreats us Catholics:

Do not be "nice"; instead, tell the tough truths. At no place in the Sacred Scriptures does it say: Be nice! However, popular portrayals of Christianity would lead us to think that the first and greatest commandment is niceness.

The English word "nice" comes from the Latin word "nescius" --meaning "ignorant, knowing nothing." In English usage of the 13th century, "nice" meant "foolish, stupid, senseless." Today, it means hurting no one's feelings, without regard to what is true or good or right. Garrison Keillor said, You taught me to be nice, so nice that now I am so full of niceness, I have no sense of right and wrong, no outrage, no passion.

St. Paul writes to Timothy (2 Tim 4:2-4), Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths....

John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae (#58): The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.

....So what to do? Should we not recall Jesus' charge: Remember, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. He knows what He is doing.

....Love our enemies. Love is not "nice." Love is kind; it is patient; love does not rejoice in what is wrong, but rejoices in the truth.... Love is best illustrated by Jesus on the Cross, where He forgave those who put Him to death, where He died so that we sinners might have forgiveness and new life. Love is not cowardly but it is fair, while relentlessly opposing all threats to the dignity of human life.

....So, do not be "nice"; be kind and tell the truth. Love your wives, your husbands, your children. Love your enemies. Do not be discouraged.

It was not till later that I realized (duh!) that the word "discourage" has "courage" as its root. We need courage to counteract our dis-courage-ment. And courage just might be the virtue most lacking today among Christians.

A couple of years ago, Danya approached Bishop Olmsted and asked him how we Catholics can best dialogue about the contentious, unpopular and controversial teachings of the Church, especially when we know we will be met with mockery, hostility and personal attacks. This meek and humble man responded that at those times, we must set aside our own fears, anxieties and dread, and we must simply speak the truth.

+++++++

In the wake of recent events, the need to speak the truth becomes even more urgent. We Catholics will be misunderstood, mocked and derided for our beliefs, but that shouldn't worry us. As Christ said to us in Matthew 5:11:

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven….

I say, Bring it.

Courage, friends.

Be kind, but not "nice".

Do not be silent, do not fear, and pray unceasingly.

UPDATE: Looks like Komen has caved to the abortion fury. Now someone tell me how to take back my donation.

.

To our Protestant friends: Fight with us!

2012-01-30T22:23:00.000-07:00

The lovely and courageous Rebecca, at Shoved to Them, wrote a post that I am compelled to reprint. We need our Protestant brethren to become fellow warriors as we push back against the federal government's attempt to quash our basic religious liberties. Hard to believe it's come to this in our own beloved America, and yet here we are.

A Call to Arms, My Brothers!

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-- Martin Niemöller

This past week, the Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama Administration violated the First Amendment's Religion Clause by preventing Catholics in the United States from freely practicing our religion. To a practicing Catholic, our faith is more than the church service we attend on Sunday mornings or the ashes we wear at the beginning of every Lent. Our faith is the governing force by which we live our lives.

With its Contraception/Sterilization Mandate, the Obama Administration has taken direct aim at the Catholic Church through our foundational beliefs in the value of every human life and in the supremacy of God over us, which are the driving forces behind our stance on these controversial issues. The administration's demand that Catholics provide access to medical procedures and pharmaceuticals which we hold to be intrinsically evil, and certainly against the very roots of the faith we profess, is an affront to every American.

This unconstitutional mandate has left American Catholics in the position of choosing between obedience to God and obedience to the State.

How have we arrived at a place where United States citizens are confronting the dilemma of choosing between their faith and being American? This is the country raised on the tales of the Pilgrims' flight from England in order to escape religious persecution. The American colonies were begun with the ideal that all men had a right to practice their faiths according to the actual tenets of those religions and not according the whims and permissions of the government. We were revolutionary in the concept that our inalienable rights were derived from our Creator and not from the largesse of a sovereign or legislature.

President Obama has, through his Department of Health and Human Services, turned his back on almost 400 years of American history. With this one Mandate, he has trampled upon the intentions of our Founders who so fervently believed in the rights of people to worship (or not worship) and to believe (or not believe) as they saw fit that it is the first right enshrined in the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I have heard many people say "I do not agree with the Catholic Church's stance on contraception." No one is asking for you to do so. It is sufficient enough that we believe it.

Those who would frame this as a debate on reproductive rights are being misled or are attempting to mislead. This attack by the Obama Administration is not about sexual rights. It is about our religious freedom and the very Liberty which every American considers his/her birthright. With this decision, the United States Government has granted itself authority and jurisdiction over every church, synagogue, mosque and cathedral and allowed itself the power to enforce its own secular worldview upon all believers.

It is in light of this that we call upon you, our brother Americans, to stand with us against this unjust and breathtaking power grab. Do not be deceived into thinking that it ends with us or with this ruling. The very Right of Religious Freedom is at stake.

+++

What can you do to help? Contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them that government oppression is intolerable [reference the HHS contraceptive mandate and ask them to support the Freedom of Conscience Act]. Call the US Department of Health and Human Services and tell them that their power grab will not succeed. Call the White House and remind them that the United States threw out one tyrant with King George and we won't hesitate to do it again!

Click the Facebook "F" or the Twitter "T" below to spread the word! Thank you and God bless!

Thank you, Rebecca! It's time for all Christians, all people of faith, and anyone who loves the Constitution to come together at this moment in history.

You can sign a petition directly to the White House, here. Spread the word! Protestants, please alert your pastors about this disheartening move by President Obama.

And for additional inspiration, don't miss Bad Catholic's passionate response to Obama's unconstitutional power grab, here.

I am so over Mike Clancy and the Arizona Republic

2012-01-28T23:21:00.002-07:00

Mike Clancy's latest piece for the Arizona Republic is painful to read (as usual), partly because of its falsehoods and distortions about the Catholic Church and Bishop Thomas Olmsted, but also because it's embarrassing for Clancy. His facts are so consistently wrong and his bias so obvious that it actually makes me cringe.

Now, of course I don't expect our local paper to fawn over the bishop or whitewash the Church, but is fact-checking and fairness too much to ask?

You can read the entire article, here, if you have the time and the stomach for it.* But as I did last time, allow me to comment on a couple of glaring snippets. Clancy says of the Catholic Church:

The church has taught that birth control is 'intrinsically wrong' since 1968, around the time the pill came into widespread use.

The statement is shocking.

It is absolutely no secret and easily ascertained that the Church has taught the intrinsic evil of contraception not merely for the past four decades, no, but since the establishment of the Church approximately 2,000 years ago.

Not once (meaning "never") has the Church taught anything different.

Clancy is alluding to Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which simply reiterated, against the backdrop of the sexual revolution, the unbroken, unchanging teaching of the Church since her inception.

How can a veteran religion reporter exhibit such a weak grasp of basic Church doctrine, the Church he's been covering for years and years? It's also troubling that he doesn't seem to have adequate knowledge of modern cultural history, either. For not only has the Catholic Church always taught that contraception is "intrinsically wrong", but until the 1930s, every Protestant denomination taught the sinfulness of contraception as well. When a committee of Anglicans was the first to abandon Christian principles on this well-established point of the moral law, even the secular world was shocked, as an editorial in the Washington Post makes clear:

Carried to its logical conclusion, the [Anglican] committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous. -- March 22, 1931 edition.

Call me crazy, but I think a reporter should know this stuff, if he's going to be reporting on this stuff.

And later in the piece, Clancy repeats something he said in another article (that I also I critiqued), which continues to baffle me (emphasis mine):

….Olmsted ousted the hospital [St. Joseph's] from the Catholic family after a dispute about a medical procedure that Olmsted considered an abortion.

In the last article, he chose the words "...a lifesaving medical procedure that the bishop deemed an abortion…"

"Considered"? "Deemed"?

Seriously?

If it was not an abortion, what was it? What was this mystery medical procedure? To this day, Clancy has never actually named it. What was it? How does one train for it? What special tools are used? If it was not an abortion, then how could this mystery medical procedure result in an automatic excommunication? Why would the bishop pretend an abortion took place if it didn't? So many unanswered questions.

Including why the Arizona Republic allows this type of reporting to stand.

In the meantime, here is the full text of Bishop Olmsted's letter, in which he tells his flock:

"We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law."

Oh, how I love our shepherd! He is a gentle, humble soul, but he has courage in abundance! A true disciple of Christ!

And for those still needing the basic facts about the HHS contraceptive mandate at the heart of this fight, go here to get informed:

The HHS Mandate for Contraception/Sterilization Coverage:

An Attack on Rights of Conscience

The battle for basic religious liberty has come to our doorstep, folks.

*Be warned that the comments following the article are vile and bigoted. If such comments were directed at Jews or Muslims, the Republic would never let them stand.

(UPDATE: Be sure to read JoAnna's excellent comment, below!)

Quick Takes: Things that entertain (and boggle the mind)

2012-01-27T00:00:00.000-07:00

1) Stop everything you are doing. You have to read the following article. No, seriously, you do. You don't have to read it right now, but click it open and then keep it at the bottom of your screen, or minimize it, or whatever, until you have a quiet few moments later to read it all. Jen Fulwiler (yes, the hostess of Quick Takes and the most insightful atheist-turned-Catholic that I know) has really nailed the problem. What problem? The problem! The reason why we Catholics and the purveyors of human abortion cannot even speak the same language. It's as if we live in two different realities, and this is why:

A Sexual Revolution

Oh, all right, here's a sneak peek, from somewhere in the middle:

All my life, the message I had heard loud and clear was that sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential…. This mind-set became the foundation of my views on abortion…. I thought of unplanned pregnancies as akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street—something totally unpredictable and undeserved that happened to people living normal lives.

My pro-choice views (and I imagine those of many others) were motivated by loving concern: I just did not want women to have to suffer, to have to devalue themselves by dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Since it was an inherent part of my worldview that everyone except people with “hang-ups” eventually has sex, and that sex is, under normal circumstances, only about the relationship between the two people involved, I was lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history….

And… you'll just have to read the article to find out what that lie is. :)

2) I do love a great quote from a brilliant mind, to be read slowly:

‎We live in a culture where our marketers and entertainment media compulsively mislead us about the sustainability of youth; the indignity of old age; the avoidance of suffering; the denial of death; the nature of real beauty; the impermanence of every human love; the oppressiveness of children and family; the silliness of virtue; and the cynicism of religious faith. It’s a culture of fantasy, selfishness, sexual confusion and illness that we’ve brought upon ourselves. And we’ve done it by misusing the freedom that other — and greater — generations than our own worked for, bled for and bequeathed to our safe-keeping.

-- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia from “A Thread for Weaving Joy”

(Archbishop Chaput makes me swoon!)

3) And now, how 'bout a quote from a not-so-great mind? I have to reprint for you all one of the dumbest things ever said to me. It came during one of my myriad time-sucking facebook debates, from a young male atheist who thinks I'm stupid:

"I don't care if god is real... I care about whether there is evidence of his existence. If there is not, then it makes absolutely no difference if he's real or not." [emphasis mine]

Now, how can I argue with something like that?

4) The annual March for Life and the annual media blackout that accompanies it was actually pretty fun this year! If you read Bad Catholic's smackdown, you can't help but smile:

Media Stupidity at the March for Life

Also, I was originally going to link to the positively reedonkulous "coverage" of the March from CBS news, but they had so many negative comments about their bogus slide show (with ZERO shots of the hundreds of thousands of pro-life marchers, but numerous shots of the same eleven pro-"choice" folks) that they had to go in and add actual photos of the March itself!

Under hail of criticism, CBS relents, adds some photos of pro-lifers to March for Life album

When you look at the CBS slide show, note that the first six photos there now were not there a few hours earlier, nor was the last photo. And even though CBS was shamed into adding those seven photos of the pro-life marchers, the bias still jumps right out: The pro-life side and the pro-"choice" side each gets seven photos? A sea of young, vibrant marchers as far as the eye can see, from all over the nation, hundreds of thousands strong…. versus a handful of protesters that no one even noticed (save the liberal press)? Methinks they missed the story even on their second try!

It is so laughable, and very entertaining, but the big question still remains: Why would anyone trust the MSM these days?

5a) Planned Parenthood, keeping it classy, as usual! Check this out:

Planned Parenthood's cheeky new ad campaign

Ah, those crazy kids! What crude and degenerate thing will they think of next to corrupt our culture?

(Be sure to read the comments! Some creative pro-lifers thought of their own ad slogans for PP's new campaign.)

5b) It's all over the news that "abortion is safer than giving birth", but of course that's another pro-"choice" obfuscation. Let's look at the facts and see through the spin:

Rehash of Abortion Safety Claim Ignores All Inconvenient Evidence to the Contrary

Word to the wise: Those who make their living killing human beings do not always live by an honor code of truth-telling.

6) Okay, this is serious! I need you all to tell me if you know of any good, eligible Catholic young men who are looking for a bride. There just don't seem to be as many good men out there as there are young women who are looking for them! Please, email me (look under my picture) if you know of any decent, faithful, emotionally stable men between the ages of about 24 and 34. I've got women who want to meet them!

7) Still don't have much to update on my sister's condition, other than one amazing turn of events which has lifted a 10-ton weight off our shoulders: Her first diagnosis of advanced pancreatic cancer was wrong. I cannot begin to describe the emotions that come from believing your only sibling has four months to live, then having the imminent death sentence rescinded. She still has a long road to diagnosis and treatment, so please keep those prayers coming. She has been most grateful for them, as have I!

Thanks, Jen, for hosting!

.

As far as the eye can see

2012-01-24T22:21:00.000-07:00

A beautiful sight:

Marching for the missing 1/3 of their generation, lost to abortion.

Thanks, St. Blogustine, for showcasing this and other great shots of the throngs! Hundreds of thousands of mostly young people braved the rain and cold to attend the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. this year.

And on the West Coast, some 50,000 brave souls took up the cause of life in what has become one of the centers of the Culture of Death, San Francisco. Check out those amazing photos, here.

Of course, there were all the local marches and gatherings across the nation as well, including the 700 or so who marched in my own city.

The pro-abortion mainstream media almost never report on the marches, or if they do, report only ~~lies~~… er, inaccuracies. But we know the truth, don't we, friends? We know that the pro-life movement is young and vibrant and peaceful and joyful! Very different from the opposition, who seem to thrive on shocking vulgarity and nastiness.

Of course, none of these marches can bring back the 50+ million innocent lives taken by abortion since 1973, but they certainly prove that we pro-lifers are here to stay. In fact, the movement keeps growing and growing and growing, looking younger and more radiant every year.

Life will always trump death.

Deo gratias!

Over 50 million "choices"?

2012-01-22T00:40:00.005-07:00

Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973: The birth of "choice"

Doesn't "choice" sound so appealing, so pleasant, so desirable? I think so. Personally, I love to choose. After all, I chose where I went to college, I chose my spouse, my wardrobe, the names for our children, and even the drapes in my home (well, with Danya's help!). Choice is super-cool! Good golly, who doesn't love choice? Heck, everyone loves choice!

Well, except the "choice" to shred little babies in their mothers' wombs. In that case, we all understand that "choice" is merely a euphemism, no?

Here's the definition of euphemism, from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

The substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.

See, they substitute "choice" (agreeable, inoffensive) for "willful, direct killing of unborn human children" (offensive, unpleasant).

Get how that works? Isn't that something?

Jill Stanek has encouraged pro-life bloggers to call out abortion advocates on their pretty little euphemism of "choice".

So I turn to pro-"choicers" who have embraced the soothing euphemism: What do you mean by "choice"? You demand a "woman's right to choose", but why don't you finish the sentence? A woman's right to choose… what?

What do you mean by "choice"?

*Heartbreaking testimony about "choice", here, from my friend Karen Williams.

Not quite a Quick Takes

2012-01-20T13:59:00.001-07:00

+++++++

1) First, I can't thank you all enough for the kind words, support, and especially prayers for my sister and our whole family. Currently, she has a team of doctors working to find out exactly what we are dealing with. I can't say much more because so much is still unknown, but the word "bizarre" doesn't begin to cover the last eight days. Please keep praying.

2) So glad to see that Catholics have been responding to the popular but deeply flawed video, "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus". My personal favorite response, by a rapping priest:

And if you want to go further, check out Fr. Barron's response:

The funny thing in all of this is that the "hate religion" guy subscribes to sola scriptura (the idea that the Bible is a Christian's only authority), but yet he does not grasp the fact that the very New Testament he quotes is a product of the Catholic religion! He would not have the Bible in his hands if the Church had not written, preserved, copied, canonized, protected and preached that Bible for 20 centuries. Ah, the irony.

3) I just saw this, and now I'm fuming:

Obama Admin Decides to Require Religious Institutions to Cover Free Contraception

Seriously, my head is going to explode. Does the Obama Administration think us Catholics fools? Maybe we are if we don't bombard him with emails and phone calls and lawsuits. I want to fight. Here is part of the response from Archbishop Dolan and the U.S. Bishops:

In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences. To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.

What kind of man did we elect to the presidency of the United States?! Obama must be defeated in November.

4) Turns out I am a homeschooling mom again (schooling only one this time around). So many myths about homeschooling, and this hilarious young man's video about those myths deserves a wide audience! Too funny! I want to shake his mama's hand:

(Gosh, maybe I shouldn't have said I was homeschooling. The Obama administration might soon declare it illegal and come after me. I'm only half joking.)

Have a great weekend!

Life is precious

2012-01-14T16:32:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Danya, for saying what I couldn't.

Prayers for my sister Pauline are much appreciated.

"For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." -- Romans 8:24-25

Parenting: What I've done right!

2012-01-11T00:54:00.001-07:00

~

Now that my parenting faults, flaws and deficiencies are out there for all to see, first going international* and then becoming legendary, I thought I'd switch it up a bit and tell you what I think I've done right as a parent.

Yes, this will be much more fun!

So, after mulling over my 20+ years of parenting and asking my older kids for their thoughts, I have come up with my three indispensable keys to effective parenting:

Moral formation is the top priority.
What I teach must make sense.
Nothing is off limits for discussion.

Let's take them one at a time:

Moral formation is the top priority

When I say "top priority", I mean that with every fiber of my being, and my kids know this. It really doesn't matter what else I do as a parent, because if I fail in the kids' moral formation, I not only fail them, but I also fail society and God. Fail at virtue training = fail as mother.

I have a suspicion that the average American parent no longer places "moral formation" at the tippy-top of the priority list. Seems to me that "academic/career/financial success" or "popularity" have taken the lead. Or a general philosophy of "Whatever makes my child happy!"

Oy, vey.

If we don't raise our children to be moral first and foremost, then we miss the point of parenthood entirely. We have enough financially successful, popular and "happy" degenerates out in the world already. What we can never have enough of is saints.

Now, it goes without saying that a child can be properly formed and still go off the rails, as there is that pesky little thing called "free will". But woe to me if my child crashes into the ditch because I never placed and secured the rails in the first place.

I can't stress enough and I even risk redundancy here: Nothing supersedes moral formation as our top parental priority! Got it? Good. That brings us to:

Our beliefs and principles need to make logical sense

Please understand this! We live in an age of non-stop information. Not knowledge, not wisdom, just information. All of these conflicting bits of info are competing with us for the souls of our children. If we don't explain to our children why our Catholic Faith is logical, coherent, cohesive, consistent and beautiful, they will have no reason to stick with it when the rest of the world says it's stupid, superstitious, oppressive and irrelevant.

Young people really do want to transcend the noise and chaos and sin and find the straight path. They really do want their world to make sense, and our job is to show them that it does.

To that end, here's what we must never say to our inquisitive children:

"I have no idea why the Church is against [fill in the blank], or why we believe [fill in the blank]. You just need to follow the rules!"

No, no, no, no! What we say instead is, "Well, honey, I am not sure exactly why the Church teaches that, but I am going to find out and get right back to you. The Church always has a good answer."

(That's when you email me and I hook you up with some nice resources or a killer Bubble post, heh, heh, heh.)

Here's something else (worse!) that we must never say to our kids:

"Look, the Church teaches a lot of outdated stuff that no one really believes, including me, but we're Catholic and that's where we're staying."

Um, yeah… try that with teens and they'll be going. Right out of the Church. That kind of attitude lacks integrity and is nonsensical, and our confused kids will soon be seeking truth elsewhere. Can we blame them? Of course not! So, we must learn our faith well, live it without exception or apology, and pass it along simply and clearly. It's a beautiful thing to lay out the tapestry of truth before a child and hear him say, "That makes sense."

Which leads us to:

Nothing is off limits for discussion

And I do mean nothing. Sex, drugs, death, hell, crime, whatever. Age appropriate, of course, but nothing is forbidden.

My kids know that whatever they ask me will be answered. I am approachable, and I want them coming to me before they even think about going to anyone else about these matters.

Just two days ago, for example, my middle-schooler came to me with a one-two punch of shocking questions regarding things he had heard, things I could never repeat here. My face stayed relaxed, I met his gaze, and I calmly gave him the explanations and information he needed.

I worry when I hear even conscientious, devout Catholic parents say that they avoid such discussions, or don't have them at all. They tell me they don't know what to say. I say, too bad. You have to do it. That's your job. They are your children, and you need to take them seriously, look them in the eye, and tell them the truth. They want to hear it from you, and they will absorb your wisdom on these matters. Don't let them down.

When my middle-schooler and I finished our talk, he left the conversation relieved and satisfied, and so did I. The straight talk we had was informed by our Faith, which [refer to second bullet point] made sense to him. And the discussion was a catalyst for [refer to first bullet point] deeper moral formation.

See how seamlessly that all works? Man, I love our Faith!

So, there you have it. I still cannot cook, sew, or throw a party. But I can form, teach and talk till the cows come home. My kids may not have clean sheets, but they know the value of a clean soul! ;)

*That's Portuguese, not Spanish!

.

Just Curious: Are you a child of divorce?

2012-01-08T16:07:00.000-07:00

Growing up in the 1970s, I attended a public elementary school. All the kids in my class during those years had married parents, with the exception of one girl who lived with her very young mom and her grandma. She didn't speak of a father at all, except to tell us (once) that he was dead. (I am certain now that she had simply been born out of wedlock -- though I wonder if even she knew that at the time.) But other than that, all the kids lived with their married moms and dads.

We live in a different culture now.

My middle school and high school children attend a public charter school where the parents are generally well-educated and involved. Yet, divorce is commonplace. My sixth grader came home early in the school year and told me, "So many of the kids in my class have parents who are divorced! They talk a lot about how they have to switch houses during the week." I asked him how they felt about that, and he said that they seemed sad, except for the extra toys they got. My son seemed sad, too.

It hit me how much has changed in just three decades.

So, I am just curious: Are you from a divorced home? And if so, how did it affect you? Do you view marriage differently now, and how does the experience you lived through shape your own marriage?

.

My blogging crisis

2012-01-05T23:51:00.000-07:00

I cannot tell a lie.

I have been avoiding you.

It's really not you, though. It's me.

I am in a bit of a slump if you can't tell. I have a million half-written blog posts waiting to be finished up, polished up, and published. I have a zillion more ideas just floating around in my brain. No lack of passion here, I promise. I have in no way lost my zeal.

But for some reason, I am not in the mood to actually write this stuff down.

I think one reason is what I'll term "secular burn-out". Engaging secularism on a regular basis is draining. It can enervate and exhaust even a deeply fortified, prayerful soul (which I am not). I have often grown weary, even disheartened. Not in the sense that I doubt the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Faith, because I am more convinced than ever that Jesus Christ is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life.

Without the grace of Christ, the human condition is dark and cold and without hope.

I have seen this in the combox debates. Even the obvious, even things we never used to fight about as a culture, are no longer common ground starting points.

Lately, I wake up with the feeling that I don't want to start something, because I'm peaceful and joyful and I don't want to go there today.

I don't want to hear more of what I've heard.

For example:

I've had real people, thoughtful people, tell me that they cannot for the life of them see a difference between men and women.

I've had a real person, a thoughtful person, tell me that mothers and fathers are simply "interchangeable" in the life of a child.

I've had real people, thoughtful people, tell me that acts of sodomy and masturbation are beautiful, healthy and good, and no different from the sexual union between husband and wife.

I've had a real person, a thoughtful person, tell me that she couldn't say whether or not the little girl in this casket deserved love or was a piece of trash to be discarded with yesterday's coffee grounds.

I've had real people, thoughtful people, tell me that it would be clearly the moral choice to torture and kill a six-year-old girl in order to spare the lives of fifty people.

These and countless other discussions have left me with an unsettled, almost eerie feeling that I cannot quite describe. But it looms. And it insinuates. And it disquiets.

Incessant engagement with secularism tends to take the mind away from the higher things -- lighter, lovelier, worthier, holier, more beautiful and transcendent things upon which the mind should be focused:

[W]hatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. -- Philippians 4:8

And yet, Christians cannot retreat from the conversation that is so desperately needed, now more than ever.

I'm trying to find that line. I want to do this right.

I'm pretty sure the answer is prayer.

Thanks for hanging in there with me.

Quick Takes: End-of-year random

2011-12-30T23:42:00.000-07:00

Wrapping up the Old Year with some randomness for you to savor.

1. Looooooved this article about introverts, and all you sassy little extroverts out there need to read it and digest!

10 Myths About Introverts

I especially love #2. I could scream it from the rooftops: "INTROVERTED DOES NOT MEAN SHY!!" If I had a dime for every extrovert who has said to friendly, talkative me, "Whaaaat?? No way! You're not an introvert!" even though I am about as classic an introvert as they come, I would have at least 37 dimes. Yes, I am an introvert, and introverts are not necessarily shy. Introverts can even be the life of the party. If they feel like it. Tell your friends.

2) Y'all have probably seen this one, but it's just so… right.

The Death of Pretty

Here's a peek. See if it doesn't resonate with you:

Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue. And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty.

By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.

Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well.

Read it all, and with apologies to Justin Timberlake, let's bring pretty back!

3) Here is family law attorney Rebecca Kiessling who should have never been born:

Mother of five

Well, at least according to most folks. You see, Rebecca, like many other people in this world, was conceived in rape. A violent rape by a serial rapist. She is only alive today because abortion was illegal when she was conceived. For everyone who says, "I am pro-life, except in cases of rape", I hope you will read her story and those of the others like her, and never say those words again. I applaud their courage, as it must feel pretty yucky living in a culture that believes you should have been killed. There are stories, as well, from courageous mothers who gave birth to their children conceived in rape.

4) I saw from Betty Beguiles that some bloggers are ending their year with links back to their favorite 2011 posts. Well, I am notorious for linking certain of my posts all over the blasted universe, but some of the lesser known ones would be fun to revisit. Many of which I'd forgotten I'd written!

2011, you had your moments. There was...

My correspondence with a sex educator (in three parts)

and also...

Answering "L": The Culture War and more

Oh, and this was a good one...

The power of a nun in a habit

…which in turn made me think of this next post to which no secularist or pro-"choicer" even responded (other than to suggest these women were lying). The total silence from the left honestly shocked the heck out of me:

Laughing at dead babies and the avenging conscience

And then...

Who is obsessed with sex?

And of course this one is becoming scarily more true by the day:

Catholics: Your misguided compassion will come back to bite you in the rear

So, let's end with a funny one that makes me smile:

Motherhood: It ain't all wine and roses

5) Speaking of funny, Andrew Centrella (who let several of us bloggers ~~hog tie~~ ~~whip his butt~~ lovingly mother him back into the Church) made a funny comic for me a few weeks ago. I especially love the way he incorporated the new mass translation confusion into the strip. Am I the only one who loves Catholic humor?? Cracks me up, I tell you!

(Why yes, that is Danya's left ear in the third frame!)

Thanks, Andrew! And the world thanks you for not going with your original idea of drawing me in a trashy-looking superhero bikini costume.

6) No words needed. Just read it:

A martyr's love letter

See, we Catholics have real superheroes.

7) So excited! Tomorrow we will meet my daughter's boyfriend Carter, who arrives in town to stay with us for a week! We will be trying desperately to convince him that we are normal. But the fun part is that he and my daughter were introduced a year ago by a fellow blogger, the lovely Mary at the Screllos (now private). The Catholic bloggy world is amazing, people!

Happy New Year, and thanks to Jen for hosting!!!

.

Can non-Catholics be saved?

2011-12-28T01:03:00.000-07:00

The short answer is yes. Non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums it up this way:

1260 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This is known as the "baptism of desire", an extra-ordinary way of salvation that occurs outside of the sacramental system. The Catechism also says:

1281 [A]ll those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.

Now I'll attempt to explain this in my own words. Catholics may correct or clarify what I am about to say, but Feeneyism (the belief that only card-carrying Catholics can be saved) will not be accepted. That is a heresy, and we don't do heresy here in the Bubble. At least not on purpose. :)

First, the foundation.

Every human soul is made for one end: Union with God for all eternity. However, as we've discussed before, union with God cannot be achieved without the grace of Christ, which was won for us on the Cross.

There is no salvation except through Christ Jesus, and it is simply impossible for anyone to get to Heaven without Him.

(That's the basic, immovable ground rule for the rest of what I have to say, so if you forget that as we go along, I will refer you back to it.)

Human beings are hardwired for God. Every man is expected in his lifetime to seek truth, and to do the will of God as best he understands it. People who daily strive to discover what is true, good and beautiful, and who risk great suffering to conform their minds, hearts and lives to God, are rightly called men of good will. During this Christmas season, we should recall the words of the angels who announced Christ's birth (correctly translated in Catholic Bibles but mistranslated in some Protestant Bibles*):

Glory to God in the highest;

and on earth peace to men of good will.

-- Luke 2:14

As we discussed recently, God gives everyone the actual grace to seek Him and to desire to do His will. An open heart will naturally search for truth, and as Jesus promised: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you." -- Matthew 7:7

Those who were raised up in the Catholic Faith have easier access to the fullness of truth than others, with a quicker route to sanctifying grace. That is a blessing beyond words. However, "to whom much is given, much will be required". Those who know more will be accountable for more. To know God's will and yet neglect our duties as Catholics is to act in bad faith, and we become men of bad will. (We should tremble at the thought!)

But non-Catholics who are sincerely ignorant of the necessity of baptism or who have never heard the Gospel are not responsible for the things they -- through no fault of their own -- do not know. After all, God is perfect Justice. He reads each human heart and knows who is truly seeking Him (even if that person hasn't quite found Him yet), and who desires to do His will (even if that person has it wrong at the moment).

This is the soul who would without hesitation ask to be baptized if he knew that baptism was the will of God. This is the soul who might never actually hear the name of Jesus Christ on this earth, but will see Jesus upon his death and say, "It is You! You were the One I was seeking all my life!" He will know Jesus, and Jesus will know him.

So yes, non-Catholics can be saved. And when these "men of good will" reach Heaven, when they are counted among the saints, every one of them (and us) will be of one mind and heart, one big Catholic family, professing Jesus Christ as Lord of all.

*Many Protestant translations are built upon bad theology, and thus many of their Bibles read: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. As you can see, that changes the meaning completely!

What I learned on my Advent vacation!

2011-12-26T01:20:00.000-07:00

Hello?

Anyone still out there?

I'm baaaack!

I missed you!

I thought I'd jump back in by telling you what I learned on my Advent vacation (and other random thoughts), in no particular order:

1) I really enjoyed the time off, and I realized I can live without the blog quite happily. But at the same time, I truly missed what we do here, and I'm excited to be back in action!!

2) Okay, actually, I didn't take time off in quite the way I should have: For a couple of weeks I simply moved all the debates over to my (and others') facebook pages! Ack! When will I learn? I need to be able to walk away from contention sometimes. "Leila, put the controversy down on the ground, raise your hands in the air, and slowly back away. Do that, and no one will get hurt."

3) I discovered that I use the Bubble as a way to avoid repeating myself. The same old stuff (atheist and Protestant objections to the Church; challenges to the moral law; misunderstandings of Church teaching, etc.) comes up on facebook and everywhere else on the web, and I like that I can just link 'em to something I've already written. Do they read what I link? Eh, probably not. But I'm lazy and it saves me time. Besides, who knows? Maybe the detractors (or some lurkers) will providentially take a peak and start to think a little deeper about these things.

4) I have learned that I need to be more disciplined in ~~every area of my life~~ contributing to the comments on my own blog. I love engaging in fruitful discussions, especially for the lurkers, but it's crucial that I learn to identify those rabbit trails that need not be followed. Many of you have commented on my "patience" in going over and over certain ideas, but I don't think it's been patience at all. I think it's been a combination of incredulity ("Wait, does he/she really believe that?!") and my own stubborn pride (I'm like a dog with a bone). I do wish I had a minder who could keep me away from fruitless discussions and rabbit trails, but since I don't, I will try to be strong and disciplined on my own.

5) I have to chuckle when I think of how desperately some atheists want to rid public places of Nativity scenes. I mean, think about it: Christmas is a government holiday. The Nativity depicts the first Christmas. The Nativity is the historical event behind the very Christmas that we celebrate as a federal holiday (yes, I am being redundant). So, it's bizarre that atheists want Nativity scenes banished, but they don't seem to be lobbying for a revocation of the actual federal holiday that is called Christmas, which is commemorating the Nativity. Do you get how silly that is?

6) I occasionally add new "Bloggers' Faith Stories" at the top of my blog. The newest ones are at the end of the list. Check 'em out!

7) A few days ago I was shocked to learn that a dear friend had passed away. She and I had never met in person (much like the great blogger friends I have made in the past two years), but we had a special friendship nonetheless, which spanned almost ten years. She hadn't let me know that she was fighting cancer for the past year and a half. I will keep her name anonymous, but you all can read her words (in blue) in this Bubble post about scrupulosity. May God rest her soul. She was a dear woman with a deep love for Christ who leaves behind a grieving family. Thank you for your prayers.

8) During Advent and Christmas I put a metallic "Keep Christ in Christmas" decal on the back of my Suburban. However, I like what I read on Brent Stubb's Almost Not Catholic blog even better:

Keep "Mass" in Christ-mas

Christmas is, literally, the Christ's Mass. It is the Mass that commemorates the Nativity of the Lord. Anyone celebrating this holy day (i.e., "holiday") is celebrating a Feast Day of the Catholic Church, and the Church is so pleased that they do! The Lord Jesus came to save everyone, and it is right and just that all Christians -- and all humanity, frankly -- would celebrate His birth. But Christ and the Mass go together, so don't take one without the other. ;)

9) Just a reminder that although most of the world believes that the Christmas Season is now over, the reality is quite different: The Advent Season -- our time of waiting, penance and preparation -- has just ended, and finally Christmas begins!

10) And on that note, the Millers are not at all late in wishing you a very merry Christmas!

Why yes, it does look like the baby is giving a Papal blessing! Future Pontiff, perhaps?

Advent Break

2011-11-30T22:18:00.000-07:00

Yep, I've decided.

I am taking an Advent break from blogging. If I want to prepare for Christ carefully and properly this year, I have to step away from the Bubble. I may actually even get my Christmas cards out this year! (I skipped last year for the first time in decades.)

When I told one of my sons about the break, he told me that I had to do a Christmas post, at least. Well, I think I will refer you to the highly personal one that I ran last year, here.

And then my son said that, really, the most important thing was to remind people to "keep Christ in Christmas". So, consider yourselves reminded, people!

I will still be reading the blogs, and I will still be responding to comments on this blog, but except for that (and my ubiquitous presence on facebook), I will see you all in January!

Blessed Advent to all!

Understanding the two kinds of grace

2011-11-27T22:21:00.000-07:00

This is a bit of a rerun. What follows is the modified answer to a Doctrinal Quiz Show from back in February (omitting the fun stuff like the bonus question and Bubble Awards!). It's a good prelude to my next (half-written) post that, God willing, will be fully written before you all forget there ever was such a thing as a Little Catholic Bubble! Okay, here we go….

There are two kinds of grace: sanctifying grace and actual grace.

Sanctifying grace is the very life of God (let that sink in!). It is interior grace, which dwells in the soul and transforms it, making it holy. The ordinary way we receive sanctifying grace is through the sacraments.

Actual grace is supernatural help from God (like nudges). It is external grace, working on us from the outside only; it does nothing to change the state of our soul. Everyone receives actual grace, and it comes to us when we need it. We have the free will to cooperate with it or ignore it.

Let's go into a little detail about each.*

Sanctifying Grace

I'll start with an analogy that was very helpful to me: We all know that our human nature is not equipped to live in the ocean. We will die there unless we have something outside of (or above) our nature to sustain us. Scuba gear is the apparatus that allows us to transcend our human nature and live underwater. Similarly, our human nature is not equipped to live in Heaven. Sanctifying grace is the "apparatus" that allows us to transcend our human nature and live in Heaven. We need sanctifying grace, for in our merely human state, we are simply not equipped to live in the presence of God.

When God created our first parents, Adam and Eve, He immediately infused them with the extraordinary gift of sanctifying grace (i.e., a sharing of His divine life). This undeserved gift elevated them above their own human nature and allowed them to live in the direct presence of God. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve threw away this supernatural gift when they "fell from grace" by choosing to sin. Without sanctifying grace, they were now separated from God, and Heaven was closed to them.

Since the Fall, humans are no longer given the gift of sanctifying grace at their creation. However, thanks to Jesus Christ and His atoning death, we are able to receive the gift of sanctifying grace through the sacraments of His Church. At our baptism, our souls are infused with sanctifying grace (God's very life!), and we become fit for Heaven. Assuming we continue to live in God's friendship and not commit mortal sin, this grace can continue to grow in our souls throughout our lives (through our prayers, acts of mercy and love, penance, etc.), making us increasingly holy. We hope to die in a state of grace.

Actual Grace

Actual grace is like little nudges from God. These nudges can take many different forms and come to us from many different places (and people). Actual grace could come in the form of your mother reminding you not to miss Mass on Sunday, or a friend telling you that you should get to confession. It could be a catastrophic event which leaves you on your knees before God, when before you wouldn't have gone near Him. It could be the promptings of your own conscience when confronted with your sins. It might be a class you took or a book you read which compelled you in the direction of justice or righteousness or humility. It could be the unexpected presence of a holy person or the feeling of awe you get when you look at a coastal sunset. It could be just about anything which moves you closer to the Lord.

Actual grace can be acted on or it can be ignored; but just like a train, there will always be another "nudge" coming around soon. God never abandons anyone, and every human being on the planet receives as much actual grace as is necessary to prompt one to seek out salvation. Unlike sanctifying grace, actual grace does not touch the interior of a person, but only works from the outside. Actual grace does not change the state of a person's soul, but is merely the agent that pushes a soul to seek out and receive sanctifying grace.

Stay tuned for a related topic next time. :)

*When I taught myself the Catholic Faith in the mid-90s (before I had internet), I bought a great set of little tracts from Catholic Answers. They were chock-full of practical, easy-to-understand information, and much of what you are reading here is from those tracts. You can find all of that today on their website.

Just Curious: Any easy meals to help my pathetic self?

2011-11-21T21:43:00.000-07:00

It's time for an utterly selfish "Just Curious" (because this is much more about me than you)!

While I take a lovely hiatus from fighting the Culture of Death (don't worry, I'll be refreshed for the battle again soon), I need your help with something.

As you are well aware, I am not a cook. I've analyzed why preparing a meal is so stressful and difficult for me in particular, and I have concluded that it's all about my utter inability to multi-task. The best way I can describe it is that I am completely linear in my thinking and in my execution of tasks. I am not spacial (as opposed to special, ha ha), and I think that most good cooking requires spacial thinking.

So, today I am going to coin a phrase and ask if you have any "linear meals" to share with me? I will make it easy and give you an example of a linear meal, one that we use at the Miller home. Please note the number of ingredients and steps:

"Amazing Beef"

(which we have dubbed "Spicy Beef")

Small roast
32-oz. jar of pepperoncini peppers
Crushed garlic

Place the roast in the crock pot. Dump the entire jar of peppers and liquid over it. Add garlic. Cook all day on low.

The end.

Oh, I almost forgot: Serve over rice.

Okay, so do you get the picture? That's what I am looking for. I'm "just curious" if you all have any linear meals to share with me. If so, kindly put the recipe in the comments, which won't take long and will fit nicely in the little box, because it will be so short and linear, right?

Bless you!

Quick Takes: Proud Mama Edition

2011-11-18T23:41:00.000-07:00

And in the nick of time….

1. I am one proud mama! At the wonderful Bioethics Defense Fund event this evening, my younger daughter gave a short testimonial to those in attendance. It was her first shot at public speaking, and she did an amazing job! Poised and eloquent. I think the girl may have found her calling!

That's my girl!!

What an honor that our beloved Bishop Thomas Olmsted was in attendance:

Why, yes! That is the same red dress I wear to every event now!

2. The week started out fantastically as well, with an awesome blogger meet up last Sunday! Alison from Matching Moonheads flew in to town, and Danya (He Adopted Me First), JoAnna (A Star of Hope) and I got to have a fun girls' lunch together! As usual with these blogger meet-ups, we could have gabbed for hours!!

Life is good when you blog!

3. Loved the fact that sweet Alison, above, who looks like she is about 19, has her Ph.D (as does her dear, fresh-faced husband)! We've got a highly educated group of Catholic blogger ladies around these parts, as there are at least two more Ph.D's in our midst (I'm thinking of Stacy at Accepting Abundance, and Wheelbarrow Rider). You go, girls! Who says we devout Catholic women are uneducated, unenlightened and oppressed?

4. What do I do now? I had a few more quick takes semi-prepared, but they are just too dang depressing to include with the joyful stuff. I don't wanna include them anymore! So, as my (then) six-year-old said happily when in the middle of a family play with his cousins, I might go random….

5. My favorite sport is baseball. I love baseball. I love it so much that the very first research paper ever I wrote was on the history of the Negro Leagues. (The second one I wrote was on the history of demonic possession! I should post that one on the Bubble, but I don't want to scare y'all!)

6. My elder daughter has this quote from Saint Augustine on her facebook page, which I love:

I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden.

His yoke is easy, His burden is light. Thank you, Jesus.

7. I love bamboo sheets. Have you ever heard of bamboo sheets??? Neither had I, until I bought some a few years ago. It is like a foretaste of Heaven to sleep on those sheets. They are calling me…. See ya!!

Thanks to Jen for hosting!

A journalist's loaded words, a nun's proud dissent, and a bishop's humble faith

2011-11-13T23:18:00.001-07:00

We all know that some things, like death and taxes, are inevitable.

And we Catholics know that misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs by the mainstream media is also inevitable.

And in Phoenix, we Catholics know it's inevitable that an article by Michael Clancy of the Arizona Republic will be biased against the Catholic Church.

Consider the recent piece Clancy wrote about Sister Margaret McBride, the nun who excommunicated herself last year when she authorized the abortion of an 11-week-old unborn child at St. Joseph's, which was then a Catholic hospital:

Phoenix nun speaks about censure

Let's hone in on the first part of the second sentence (emphases mine):

Sister Margaret McBride, who was targeted by Bishop Thomas Olmsted for her role in a lifesaving medical procedure that the bishop deemed an abortion…

Whoa, whoa… hold up.

Does anyone see anything fishy here? "Targeted"? Bishop Olmsted "targeted" a nun?

In reality, the bishop was made aware of Sister's approval of a direct abortion at a Catholic hospital in his diocese. The bishop later confirmed that, by her own actions, Sister had excommunicated herself. How does this constitute a "targeting" of the nun, exactly?

Seasoned journalists such as Clancy choose their words carefully. So, ask yourself why he would choose the loaded word "targeted" in this instance? Could it be that he'd chosen a side and wished to sway the reader? And, is that the job of a local religion reporter?

Now, on to the next curiously chosen word. "Deemed"? The bishop "deemed" the "lifesaving medical procedure" an abortion? Ummmm, no. The procedure wasn't deemed an abortion, it was an abortion. If it weren't an abortion, there would be no issue at all.

Again, ask yourself why the reporter would choose a word that implies deceit or pretense on the part of the bishop? Clancy leads us to believe that in fact some other procedure --a good and healing and moral "lifesaving medical procedure"* -- took place. Yet this mystery procedure is never actually named in the article. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's the bishop who is being deceptive here.

So, while the first part of his sentence tells us a lot about reporter Michael Clancy, this second part tells us something about Sister McBride:

…[Sister McBride] will be honored this weekend by Call to Action, a national group that supports a married priesthood**, women priests, gay marriage and other positions that the church opposes.

Call To Action (CTA) is a notorious group of Catholic dissenters that has been trying to remake the Church in its own image for decades now. Its members are embarrassed by Church teaching (especially on human sexuality) and disdain the institutional Church. They have an open contempt for faithful clergy, from the Holy Father on down. It's no surprise that these folks would honor a "progressive" nun who authorized an abortion in a diocese with a faithful bishop --the kind of bishop that CTA cannot stand.

After one courageous bishop, Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, publicly excommunicated the members of CTA in his diocese, the Vatican approved the action and stated:

[T]he activities of ‘Call to Action’ in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic Faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint…. Thus to be a member of this Association or to support it, is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic Faith.

When this organization that is incompatible with the Catholic Faith offered Sister McBride the Call to Action 2011 Leadership Award, she was thrilled to accept. She was, in her own words, "very proud to be receiving this award".

'Nuff said? It is for me.

While Sister McBride is being feted by the those who despise the Catholic Church, and while reporter Michael Clancy continues to promote the "Victim-Hero Nun vs. Mean and Heartless Bishop" narrative that the public loves***, Bishop Thomas Olmsted has been faithful and humble through it all, finding his identity in Jesus Christ alone. Listen:

Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great.

Matthew 5:11-12

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

John 15:18

*Direct abortion of a child is never a cure for any medical condition. However, there may have been a truly lifesaving treatment available for the mother and her child: A doctor in Milwaukee has a 100% success rate in saving both patients in the case of pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy.

**For the record, the Church does not "oppose" married priests. The Latin Rite has a longstanding discipline of priestly celibacy that has served the Church well, but there are occasional exceptions to that discipline, including my own associate pastor who is married with six children.

***Check the vicious anti-Catholic comments that follow almost every Michael Clancy story on the Church. If such raw bigotry and hatred were directed at Muslims or Jews, how fast do you think the Republic would move to close down the comment box?

.

The most important question in the gay "marriage" debate

2011-11-08T07:12:00.001-07:00

I am thrilled to have stolen one of Joe Heschmeyer's posts to present as a guest post today in the Bubble. If you don't read Joe's blog, Shameless Popery, you need to rethink your priorities, people. His attorney mind always impresses me. Joe, take it away….

The Most Important Question in the Gay Marriage Debate

A lot of people, even a growing number of Christians, have trouble understanding opposition to legalized gay marriage. After all, if the whole "marriage is one man plus one woman" thing is based on religious values, why force views those on other people? And what's the deal about destroying the sanctity of marriage? How is a heterosexual couple's marriage damaged in any way by gay marriage? For me, a single question helped clear up all of this...

“What is marriage?”

I. The Traditional View of Marriage, and Why Society Should Protect It

A. What Traditional Marriage Is

It seems to me that there are basically two views of what marriage is. The first is the traditional view. A good working definition comes from the Code of Canon Law, which says that marriage is that institution “by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring” (Can. 1055 §1).

This view of marriage isn't unique to Catholicism, or Christianity, or even religion. Cultures across the world (with all sorts of religious views, or none at all) have understood marriage to be something very near this for as long as marriage has existed. What's fascinating about this is that even with the diversity of marriage customs and norms, much remains the same. Even cultures which permitted or encouraged polygamy recognized that the polygamy was heterosexual, and tied to procreation. A man might have two wives, but he's just committing himself to caring for two families as a result. And even cultures which encouraged homosexual and pedophilic sex (like Ancient Greece) never thought of those sexual and even romantic relationships as marriage-potential.

Perhaps more striking, the thing that gets overlooked is: all of these cultures have marriage. Many of the cultures punished premarital or extramarital sex; others simply declared that premarital sex acted as a marital covenant. If marriage is simply a social construct, it's certainly striking that all of these cultures across the globe, in both the New World and the Old, independently enshrined this construct at the heart of their cultures.

B. The Importance of Family

The reason for this universally-accepted tradition of marriage is obvious: family. Parents are the primary educators of children, and they pass on the culture's values. Children raised in this environment are statistically better citizens: more law-abiding, less violent, and so on. We're born with our own desires. It's largely through education, much of it at the feet of our parents, that we learn how we're supposed to act.

Even animals understand this instinctively. You don't see birds just leaving their chicks to raise themselves, or be raised by some other bird, or by “the village.” A great many species mate for life, and even amongst those that are effectively polygamous, there's a real sense of family tied to the biological parents of the animal youth. Obviously, this isn't true of all animals, but it's remarkable that it's true of any. Now-Secretary Hillary Clinton wrote a book, It Takes a Village. Former-Senator Rick Santorum's response came with a more accurate title: It Takes a Family. Both sociologically and even biologically, he's right.

So “family” is critical to society. And traditional marriage is critical to family. The logic of it is obvious. Our sexual desires are often fleeting, but when we act on them, and a child is conceived, that's a lifelong consequence. In the absence of marriage, women in particular are vulnerable, since they're ones (biologically) who are left to raise the child if the man splits. By tying heterosexual, potentially-reproductive sex to marriage, society ensures that a family is formed.

Given this, it makes absolute sense for society to enshrine traditional marriage into its laws and norms. We want (and even need) a society in which there aren't a lot of children conceived out of wedlock, and that those children conceived out of wedlock are still raised in a family (thus the popularity of "shotgun weddings" and the like). Enforcing this as the norm by law through legal recognition of the institution of marriage, and the thousands of incentives tied to marriage, is absolutely sensible. It's a principle that virtually everyone in history has understood (including those who freely engaged in non-reproductive sex outside of marriage).

II. The View of Marriage Behind Gay Marriage

A. The “Romantic” View of Marriage

Almost without exception, those in favor of gay marriage approach the question through a common lens. You can discover this quickly, by asking, "Why should gays be able to marry other gays?" The answer will nearly without exception be that “these two people love each other.” And for about two hundred years in the West, we've really harped on this notion that marriage is the result of romantic love.

Let's be clear a couple of things. First of all, romantic love is ideal: I wish every married couple was romantic towards each other. The biological and spiritual purpose behind eros and romance is to help get through the rough patches in marriage, to make marriage joyful, and to remind us of the incredible love God has for us. But let's be clear about something else: romantic love isn't necessary for marriage. The canon law view calls it a "partnership," and in selecting the word, carefully avoided anything suggesting that romance was necessary for marriage.

Plenty of married couples find the spark dimmed or dead, and marriage can be rough-going sometimes. When you swear your allegiance to another human being "for better or for worse" for the rest of your life, you're knowingly pledging that even though marriage might seem awful, you'll stick to it. If marriage wasn't hard sometimes, so bad you wanted to quit, you wouldn't need to promise you wouldn't quit. No one has to pledge to keep doing something they're obviously going to do, and enjoy doing, like eating or relaxing. They'll just do those things without provocation.

So the problem with gay marriage is actually something distinct from the problem with homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong because it perverts sex from something reproductive into something non-reproductive. But homosexual marriage goes a step further, and turns the bedrock of society, marriage and family, into something fleeting and pointless.

Here's what I mean. If romance is the critical factor in marriage, just consider that married couples often don't feel romantic towards each other, even if they did at the outset. It's easy to love the other person on your wedding day. It's harder when they've let themselves go physically, there's a screaming baby, and the house is a mess. Meanwhile, there may be someone else -- a co-worker, a friend, whoever -- who you do feel that "spark" with. The New York Times caused a minor controversy in December when it ran in its marriage section, "Vows," a blurb spotlighting a couple who met while married to other people. The story was told as if it was romantic to do the forbidden and abandon your families for a new fling. But this is absolutely consistent with this view of marriage. So is the sky-high divorce rate in America, and the massive amount of infidelity, homosexuality, and premarital sex. We're a culture taught to follow our hearts and our hormones, and those are fickle things.

B. Peering Over the Precipice

So here's my point. Because the heart is fickle, don't condition marriage on romance. If you're serious about being open to having children with this person, and working with them to raise children, and staying together until death, whether things are wonderful or awful, great. If not, wait to marry until you get to that point with someone. Marriage is one of the single most important decisions most people will make in their lives, and it rarely gets the serious treatment it deserves.

More importantly, even if individuals want to stupidly declare, in a fit of romantic passion, that they'll be together for better or worse (while closing their eyes tightly to what "worse" might mean), as a society, we need not indulge that madness. Society has a huge vested interest in family, and by extension, traditional marriage. Society has no interest whatsoever in just-romantic marriage without a connection to family.

Interestingly, even many gay marriage advocates recognize this. Alan Dershowitz at Harvard argued that the solution to the gay marriage debate is to end governmental recognition of marriage altogether. Time Magazine agreed, arguing that marriage is just a religious or spiritual practice. This is the sort of end-point of the campaign to redefine marriage: leave "marriage" something so vague and meaningless, an idea whose meaning is unique to the person declaring him- or herself "married," that it ceases to be a protectable institution at all. Of course, the consequences of trying to become the first society without marriage are ones that we can't even fathom.

The point is clear. Society, including the state, has a clear interest in protecting marriage, if marriage means what it always has meant. But if "marriage" becomes an amorphous and individualistic romantic concept, what role could society possibly have in regulating or promoting that? So the end point of the gay marriage debate is necessarily the implosion and unraveling of the institution of marriage, even if individuals still declare themselves "married" in non-recognized ceremonies.

III. Conclusion

Understanding this clash of visions explains nearly everything. When opponents of gay marriage say that it destroys the sanctity of marriage, what they mean is that gay marriage is incapable of being marriage, as that term has been traditionally understood for thousands of years. So a government that embraces gay "marriage" is a government that discards marriage (as traditionally understood) in favor of something much more volatile and dangerous. Likewise, if the government started to declare business merges "marriages," the term marriage would be deprived of its meaning until it meant something vague and sort of meaningless.

To imagine that a culture that drains marriage of its meaning, or tries to substitute (in its place, or in addition) something foreign as a new form of legally-sanctioned "marriage", can do so without it having far-ranging unintended consequence is naivety to an astonishing degree.

My point is that gay marriage is a sort of "point of no return" in a much broader fight that most Americans have somewhat disconnected from. Rather than viewing this as a battle over "gay rights" or anything else, this needs to be understood as a battle of the definition of what "marriage" actually means, and whether marriage is a thing that society and government can and should fight for.

*Be sure to read Joe's follow-up post, "What's the State Interest in Promoting Gay Marriage?"

.

Quick Takes! Marie Bellet, Norwegian wisdom, and a little tiger

2011-11-04T00:03:00.000-07:00

1) You may not have noticed, but I am not churning out the posts the way I used to. To avoid blogger burnout (I'd hate to see the Bubble burst!), I've had to slow way down. I hope I won't lose any of you if I publish only once or twice a week, but I have to find balance, especially coming into the holiday season. Of course, it's not as if the action stops when the posting slows, since there is still quite the discussion going on under the last post. We are well into the second page!

2) The fallout from the post entitled ~~"Leila's sins and shortcomings on public display"~~ "Why I never should have had eight children" has been too much fun!

For starters, Marie Bellet emailed me! If you don't know who Marie Bellet is, then I am thrilled to be the one to introduce you! When I was just a wee lass with four children (probably around the same time I was pondering that fifth child), Marie was my constant companion. Her first album, What I Wanted To Say, was written when she had seven small children (she has nine now), and the songs were so incredibly synchronized to my own life and feelings that I often told people it was like she was singing me spiritual direction. I could write a whole post on each of her songs and its meaning to me. Marie added more albums through the years, and I love them as well. Lo and behold, she emails me words of encouragement after having read "that post" and then sends me copies of her brand spanking new album, Everything Changes, which fits perfectly with the time of life and motherhood she and I have reached today. Moms in their forties and fifties with some grown children will especially relate!

I really could go on and on, but I will end by saying that I have two copies of her new CD that have not been spoken for, and if you tell me why you want one, you may be a lucky recipient! As those of you who have yet to receive your Bubble onesies know, it may take me some time, but I will get them mailed eventually. I plan on a random drawing if we have more than two takers.

3) More great responses from "that post" included emails from Catholic brothers and sisters as far away as Portugal and Brazil (LifeSite has an edition in Portuguese!), the gift of a wonderful book from the Jeub family, Love Another Child (which they do well, as they have 15 kids!), and this remarkable video sent by the Schweitzer family, made by their son Josiah about his little sister with Down Syndrome:

Wasn't that cool?

4) Switching gears now, JoAnna found a quote from a pseudonymous Norwegian blogger reprinted on John C. Wright's blog yesterday, and it eloquently states what I have often pondered but didn't know how to say:

I never fail to be amused by how sex transforms liberals from hard-headed sociobiologists into velvet-minded romantics. From a strictly biological perspective, the ultimate purpose of sex is procreation alone, and the pleasure we derive from it is simply nature’s little stick and carrot. Why, then, this irrational and adamant defense of non-procreation and anti-natalism from people who otherwise jump at any opportunity to smugly wax prosaic about man being just another animal or the Darwinian origins of everything from organized religion to the nuclear family?

The reason, I believe, is duplicitous. To liberals, sexual hedonism is not valuable because it brings pleasure, but because it serves, Rousseau-style, to tear down the deleterious influence of civilized society. Had liberals really been friends of sexual joy and pleasure, they would have realized that sex is more valuable when it is limited or mystified by things such as pre-marital chastity or modest clothing. These things turn sex into the best it can be — a sacred ritual — rather than simply a biological act no different than defecation or sleep.

Thoughts?

5) Last year I met JoAnna in person at the Bioethics Defense Fund "Passion for Life" benefit, and this year I'd love to have more blogger meet ups! The Witness for Life Honoree for 2011 is Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, and that alone is worth the price of admission. This annual event is one of the most inspiring nights of the year, benefiting one of the most important pro-life organizations out there, whose work is not typical but is desperately needed. Sign up here, and I'll see you there on November 18!

6) My little tiger! The cute baby fingers just kill me… ahhhh!!!

7) Get prepared. My next post is a guest post by the brilliant Joe at Shameless Popery, "The Most Important Question in the Gay Marriage Debate", and it's a great follow-up to One Man's post about gay "marriage" and civil rights. I can't stay away from that topic for too long, because it's too important culturally to let go. Join us, as it's sure to get interesting….

Have a great weekend, and thanks to Jen for hosting!