I despise politics, mainly because it is so messy. I vote, clearly recognizing my civic responsibility. And I pay attention to the issues and the players so that I can make an informed decision because voting without knowing who you are voting for is just as irresponsible as not voting.

But my choice in this fall’s election was decided quite a bit ago. One man thinks abortion is okay and would not even vote to protect the life of children born alive and suffering the wounds of a botched abortion. The other man thinks that life, and our duty to protect it, begins at conception.

Case closed.

But I marveled that I spent all day yesterday checking the news wires for the big announcement. I even checked Drudge, my husband’s favorite site, but one I rarely peruse. The VP candidate won’t change my vote, but he might change the vote of those who don’t pay attention to the issues.

Biden is “Catholic.”

He also possesses gravitas in foreign affairs and comes from a working class background. He’s a really good pick for Obama who needed strengthening in these areas with big pockets of Americans who can’t relate to him.

But it’s the “Catholic” thing that gets me. The only thing worse than a pro-death politician is a pro-death, Catholic politician. I guess it’s good that Congress is closed on Sunday; we wouldn’t want morality to come into play at the office.

Today was a good day to read this homily written before the VP pick was announced. Of course, if a Catholic attends Mass with Biden, it probably won’t make a difference.

Father Farfaglia writes:

The bottom line is this: if abortions continue our country will collapse. If you want America to survive well into the future, we must end abortion. This is the issue.

Are we a better nation than we were 40 or 50 years ago? I’m not one to wax nostalgic, and I very much favor modern technology (like dishwashers and air conditioning and computers). I don’t mean that way. I mean, are we nice to each other? Divorce, child abuse, road rage, and just general courtesy like eye contact with a sales clerk: compared to days gone by, do we treat each other with respect? Why have we changed? It’s not cell phones and text-messaging that have made us self-centered. It’s a general disregard for human life beginning with the killing of our most defenseless members.

And pertinent to the VP pick, although Father Farfaglia didn’t know who that would be when he wrote it:

Everyone recognizes that we are caught in the middle of a culture war here in America. However, at the same time, we find ourselves in the middle of civil war going on right within the Catholic Church. How can we expect good results from the elections if our own Catholics, be they the clergy and the laity, are themselves profoundly divided and even polarized on the most fundamental issues of life? If the Church in America is still struggling with scandalous clergy and rebellious people in the pews, how can the Catholic Church provide the spiritual leadership that is so desperately needed in these chaotic times?

If we cannot recognize and protect an innocent child’s right to live, then there is no point in fussing over any other issue. To worry about Social Security or taxes when a million babies are killed every year would be like a resident of the town of Dachau in the 1930’s thinking the town needed a strong mayor who could take the federal government to task for running and offloading trains at night when people were trying to sleep.

A society that is not completely repulsed by the death of a million children a year has no business being upset at the price of gasoline.

Thanks to Donna-Marie for the homily link.

Moving one step closer to godhood.

And, no, this didn’t happen in the Netherlands, it happened in Colorado.

I just wonder how bad it has to get before there is outrage.

Hurdle 1: ignorance (no idea that such things are happening).
Hurdle 2: apathy (it doesn’t affect me).
Hurdle 3: denial (we’re not falling down the slippery slope).
Hurdle 4: acceptance (there’s nothing I can do about it).
Hurdle 5: the new world order (it’s better for us all).

There is no middle ground, folks. Either human life is precious, or it’s not. Once we start equivocating over the beginning and end of life or personhood for others, we will begin to see that scope getting wider. Think I’m being silly? When was the last time you saw a child with Down’s Syndrome, especially compared to how many you saw 20 years ago? Almost all babies diagnosed with Down’s are aborted. The few you might see either missed diagnosis or were lucky enough to have pro-life parents. How long before parents are encouraged to go ahead and have that baby with Down’s so that her kidneys or other organs can be given to another child? Wouldn’t that be such a noble act?

What do a communist election and euthanasia have in common? In the practical application, you are left with only one “choice.”

Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon’s state-run health plan for help.

Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup’s request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup’s pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.

Next up, doctors deciding who lives and who dies with no regard for the wishes of the patient or the family. After that, we’ll start targeting people with pricey conditions.

Mr. Jones, I regret to inform you that you have diabetes. Please call this number to schedule an appointment with a Life Planning Agent who will help you and your family arrange for your Afterlife Procedure. Be sure to bring all financial documents with you. They will also help you make a will, if needed, and other arrangements. We have some nice package deals with Sunnyside Funeral Home (they put the FUN in funeral!).

I’ve been feeling pretty badly for Kate Wicker who is taking lots of heat for having the nerve to feed her baby the way God intended.

I’m also angry that that statement would be viewed as controversial. I do not care what your personal choice is, nor do I mean to disparage those who could not breastfeed. But having the technology to safely raise healthy babies (intelligence and creativity being wonderful gifts from God) does not negate the fact that we are mammals and mammals feed their young with mother’s milk. I have had my own difficulties in breastfeeding (you can search my blog for my many posts on this topic), and I am grateful for bottles, formula and safe drinking water that got me and my daughters through several rough months.

You can read all about Kate’s issues on her blog. It started here (long post), continued here with a link to her column at Inside Catholic (this really got the fire going), and has more here and here.

If you have time, I also recommend this article which talks about the Vatican calling for more images of the Blessed Virgin breastfeeding the baby Jesus. Kate linked to it as well.

What’s the hullabaloo? Kate confessed that she nurses her babies at Mass.

And now she’s getting hate mail. Apparently, she is a stumbling block of sin for those attending Mass with her. I wrote about stumbling blocks of sin one other time. I think I need to expand on that topic.

If you read no other works by G. K. Chesterton, I suggest at least that you read his Father Brown mysteries. Father Brown is a Catholic Sherlock Holmes, solving crimes with reason, humor and, above all, with charity. Packed in each short story are lessons in Church teaching as well as the practical application of the virtues.

In Hammer of God, which I quote in the header of my blog, Father Brown is investigating the death of an evil man, crushed with incredible force by a blacksmith’s anvil.

But it isn’t the blacksmith who committed murder, it was the dead man’s brother, a pastor, who loathed his brother’s arrogant sins.

After a moment he resumed, looking tranquilly out over the plain with his pale grey eyes. “I knew a man,” he said, “who began by worshipping with others before the altar, but who grew fond of high and lonely places to pray from, corners or niches in the belfry or the spire. And once in one of those dizzy places, where the whole world seemed to turn under him like a wheel, his brain turned also, and he fancied he was God. So that, though he was a good man, he committed a great crime.”

Wilfred’s face was turned away, but his bony hands turned blue and white as they tightened on the parapet of stone.

“He thought it was given to him to judge the world and strike down the sinner. He would never have had such a thought if he had been kneeling with other men upon a floor. But he saw all men walking about like insects. He saw one especially strutting just below him, insolent and evident by a bright green hat–a poisonous insect.”

Rooks cawed round the corners of the belfry; but there was no other sound till Father Brown went on.

“This also tempted him, that he had in his hand one of the most awful engines of nature; I mean gravitation, that mad and quickening rush by which all earth’s creatures fly back to her heart when released. See, the inspector is strutting just below us in the smithy. If I were to toss a pebble over this parapet it would be something like a bullet by the time it struck him. If I were to drop a hammer–even a small hammer–“

Wilfred Bohun threw one leg over the parapet, and Father Brown had him in a minute by the collar.

“Not by that door,” he said quite gently; “that door leads to hell.”

Bohun staggered back against the wall, and stared at him with frightful eyes.

“How do you know all this?” he cried. “Are you a devil?”

“I am a man,” answered Father Brown gravely; “and therefore have all devils in my heart. Listen to me,” he said after a short pause. “I know what you did–at least, I can guess the great part of it. When you left your brother you were racked with no
unrighteous rage, to the extent even that you snatched up a small hammer, half inclined to kill him with his foulness on his mouth. Recoiling, you thrust it under your buttoned coat instead, and rushed into the church. You pray wildly in many places, under the angel window, upon the platform above, and a higher platform still, from which you could see the colonel’s Eastern hat like the back of a green beetle crawling about. Then something snapped in your soul, and you let God’s thunderbolt fall.”

In Catholic catechism, we learn the Spiritual Works of Mercy:

• instruct the ignorant
• counsel the doubtful
• admonish sinners
• bear wrongs patiently
• forgive offenses willingly
• comfort the afflicted
• pray for the living and the dead

Too often, it seems that good, holy men and women are willing to stand up and do the first three, but are less noticeable in their practice of the latter four. It seems that those most upset at the concept of women nursing during Mass took personal offense that a woman might arouse lustful thoughts by her actions. Sinner! they admonished. Did they stop to pray first, both for Kate and for themselves that their words would be of the Holy Spirit? Did they patiently accept that Kate was wrong and hope to soften her heart to the Truth, or did they blaze on ahead in full confidence of their position and with no regard for Kate’s feelings and those of other mothers?

Good evangelization meets someone where she is and shows her the direction to go. This can never be accomplished in the comments section of an article or blog post. This requires dialogue. Kate, don’t you think it would be better to go to the restroom? Aren’t you concerned about someone seeing your breast? Aren’t you distracted from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? What about those around you?

Interestingly enough, I didn’t notice any anecdotal arguments. Nobody said they saw a woman nursing her child and was distracted. Nobody said their teen aged son was gawking at a woman breastfeeding. I wonder if any of these complainers have ever actually seen a woman nurse her child discreetly. My guess is that they have, they just don’t know it.

Personally, the few times I am able to attend Mass without the distraction of my own little children, I hardly notice the antics of others. My focus is on the ambo or the altar, or my head is bowed in reverence. I am not looking around, at least I shouldn’t be. If I am, it is my problem, and it is up to me to refocus. Yes, the screaming child is difficult to ignore. Yes, the toy banging on the pew is irritating. So, too, are the women whispering through the consecration as they make plans for after Mass. So, too, is the man with the hacking cough. So, too, is the altar serving snoozing through the homily. Deal with it. You can let the distractions keep you from worshipping God by festering anger in your heart toward those around you, or you can thank God for the opportunity to offer an even greater sacrifice than simply your attendance at Mass.

As for me, I did not nurse my first child at Mass. I spent the majority of Mass in the bathroom where there was no chair. I balanced against the wall, holding the baby in my fatigued arms.

I did not nurse my second child at Mass. I went to the bathroom, and my older son threw a fit because mommy was gone. On the frequent weekends when my husband was off serving the country, I tearfully did not attend Mass at all, because I would have to wrangle a screaming infant and a toddler by myself.

I nursed my third child in the pew, and everybody was happy.

To not nurse during Mass means that I miss Mass. And I would have missed most Masses for the last ten years. That just doesn’t seem right. In fact, I have been commanded by God and the Church to attend Mass with no excuse for nursing a baby that I see mentioned. Does not that command trump my obligation to avoid causing others the near occasion of sin?

There must be something about the month of July that gets people all in a dander about breasts. Perhaps they recoil from too much skin at the pool, and they take it out on nursing mothers. Last year, there was furor over a magazine cover. I wrote about it here (pretty good stuff, if I do say so myself). I’m tired of the Puritan mindset which seeks not only to label every innocent act as sinful, but which also places the blame of personal sin on the behavior of others. Although I need to be discreet in nursing, I should not have to shut myself off from society to take care of my child. The casual observer has an obligation to put my child’s legitimate need for food above his personal standard of modesty. Look away, say a prayer, and get a grip.

And how does one admonish sinners without becoming a stumbling block of sin oneself? That is the power of the virtue of humility. Once we can stop looking down from on high at the annoying bugs committing sins, we can direct our friends’ attention to the glory up above.

Maybe I’m biased, but I think a website that asks for Allah to “curse more American soldiers” should be considered “hate speech.” But I don’t believe that the government should have the right to ambiguously determine what is hateful or not. I despise the whole “hate crimes” mentality. Aren’t most victims of violence victims of hate in some form or another? Why should a dead Catholic’s killer get more time than the dead agnostic’s killer, all other things being equal? So, as long as Samir Khan isn’t telling lies or slandering others, he has my “blessing” to continue to do what he is doing.

I’ll pray for him. Heh. That’s the best revenge anyway.

Mr. Khan is fortunate to live in the US, where the soldiers he curses die to defend the Constitution and its Bill of Rights which protects his freedom to create such a website. Woe, though, to those who live in Europe. In Belgium, a bishop was tried for homophobia for saying he agreed with Sigmund Freud “that homosexuality is the result of hindered sexual development.”

The bishop was acquitted, but even he recognizes that they are falling down that slippery slope: “I know very well that in a few years, I could be imprisoned for holding this position…”

Historians like to talk about the swinging pendulum. The 1920s and 30s and 40s found homosexuals rounded up and put in death camps. Perhaps the 2020s or the 2030s or the 2040s will fill the prisons with anyone who dares to think homosexuality is abnormal. Beware the Thought Police.

I just hope those cursed American soldiers are still around to liberate Europe once again.

This year, they’ve calculated a stay-at-home mom’s “worth” to be nearly $117,000 a year (if we could get paid). Working mothers would get an additional $68k for their “part-time” duties. They didn’t calculate a homeschool mother’s worth. Nor did they mention that dads do a fair amount of taxiing kids, sports team coaching, and middle-of-the-night vomit cleaning. Equal invisible pay for equal work? Bill thinks working dads should get more than $68k, because men always get paid more than women.

Of course, it really doesn’t matter. This is not real money we’re talking about. It won’t pay the mortgage or buy the groceries, no matter how many duties or job titles we add to our resumés.

There are few employers who really “own” you quite like a family. A parent is on call 24/7/365. What person in their right mind would work long for a company that required you to respond at a moment’s notice and gear your entire life (even your social and religious activities) around its needs? Many jobs (firemen, doctors, police) require on call status, even round the clock, but at some point you are on your own. You can go where you want when you want and without accounting for your activities.

But I can think of one other employer where you are on duty all the time. An employer who can call you in the middle of the night and expect you to do something. An employer who requires knowledge of your whereabouts at all times and demands being able to reach you even if you are on vacation. An employer who is fickle and erratic and doesn’t necessarily care if there is time in the schedule for you to attend Sunday Mass. And that would be the US military.

Arguably, one of the hardest jobs in the military is that of First Sergeant. Here’s a day in the life of. High in responsibility, high in work load. I often view myself as the 1SG of our home: Bill issues the orders, I execute them (the orders, not the children!). Base pay for a First Sergeant with 16 years in is a mere $47,640.

The bottom line is that our true worth is seldom related to our paycheck. Most salaries are determined by market forces (the notable exception being government jobs, and, while I’m not saying an E8 should make more, I am saying that US Senators should make much less). While a six-figure income may impress the neighbors, if you need it to impress yourself, the stay-at-home career might not be for you.

…the price of the edible clay has risen over the past year by almost $1.50. Dirt to make 100 cookies now costs $5, the cookie makers say.

This is why the save-the-environment folks have egg, er, pie on their faces.

What are we going to do about this? Clinton? Obama? McCain?

h/t Loco Laura

Is Angelina Driven to Be a Compulsive Mother? (h/t Danielle Bean)

Several months ago I saw a meme where you bolded the sentences that were true for you. One of them was: People who dress like me are portrayed accurately in movies. I guess they were looking for stereotypes – a goth look or a skaterat look or whatever. I dress like most other moms (T-shirts and comfortable shoes), but I don’t think we have a uniform so to speak. But even if we all dressed exactly alike, I don’t think Hollywood is capable of portraying us or any other normal group of people accurately. I don’t think they have any idea what normal people are really like. This article, which basically addresses Jolie’s role as a mom, is proof of that.

***

“Following a bout with depression, the compulsion to have kids can be a way of self-medicating,” California psychologist Lara Honos-Webb told ABCNEWS.com. “In essence — a distraction and diversion from the inner feeling of emptiness.”

Having kids…at least having more than one or two…is a compulsion. It’s disordered.

***

Studies from NYU’s Center for Advanced Social Science suggest that children from large families don’t fare as well because “parental resources are a fixed pie, and children do better when they get more attention [and money].”

Sure, they do. Rich, spoiled brats are the epitome of well-balanced. It’s all those poor kids who have had to spend their whole childhood sharing and taking turns that grow up to have inner feelings of emptiness.

***

Jolie is not the first Hollywood celebrity to display her children like jewels.

I mean, my goodness, it’s one thing to have children, and quite another to actually spend time with them. Get a nanny for goodness sake!

***

Psychologists say depression is not uncommon among Mother Earth types like Farrow and Jolie. Mother Teresa, the giver of all givers, suffered from clinical depression most of her life, according to a recent story in Time magazine.

“Just as reports revealed a severe 25-year long case of depression for Mother Teresa, any person who rescues others so much so that they neglect or abandon their own spirit, might be headed for a similar state of overwhelm and depression,” said Honos-Webb, who wrote about the topic in her book “Listening to Depression” and has written several books about depression, parenting and the psychology of pregnancy and birthing.

Self-centeredness is the key to true happiness.

***

Having babies can sometimes keep personal problems at bay.

“[It] keeps you busy — if not through adoption, than in pregnancy, you get the oxytocin [often called the ‘hormone of love’] bursts,” said Honos-Webb. “You get attention from other people and you define your own role — all those things manage depression.”

And this is bad. Drugs are a much better way to handle depression. Drugs and therapists. If having babies and raising children makes you happy, you need help.

***

Having children to find happiness is a “recipe for a mental health disaster,” according to Honos-Webb, who coins the phenomenon a “Mother Theresa complex.” The result can be a failure to attach emotionally, causing eating disorders and depression in the children.

“There is such an imbalance to give and not to take,” she said. “On the one hand, Mother Theresa was a saint, but on the other hand, it was a perfect formula for major depression.”

Sainthood ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. Really, is eternal happiness worth a few decades of depression? You can’t give, give, give all the time. What’s in it for you? Altruism is so very unhealthy.

***
But, said Honos-Webb, “any psychologist can tell you appearances have nothing to do with a person’s state of mental health. Having a parent who is emotionally disturbed will definitely show up in ways that you won’t see on camera.”

Again, let’s look at Mother Teresa. She looked like she handled her life with joy, but she was depressed. The world is a better place for her labors, but so what? Her personal happiness suffered, and that is the tragedy.

***

Meanwhile, psychologists say Jolie may, indeed, have a real spirituality to her that motivates her to help others.

“That happens being a mother and it’s not pathology,” said Honos-Webb. “It’s a good thing, but it has to be balanced with everyday concerns and attending to your own health.”

“In some ways,” she said, “saving the world is easier than facing our own inner world of emptiness.”

Yes, some amount of giving and self-sacrifice is part of motherhood, but please keep in mind that your personal mental health is paramount. Be sure to retain a certain amount of time and energy to do things just for you. It’s not being selfish, it’s being healthy.

***

Christians call it dying to oneself. Realizing that it’s not all about you.

Hollywood calls it deranged.

Note: depression for mothers is real and not funny. Nowhere in that article does it state as a fact that Angelina Jolie has depression of any kind. The idiots interviewed are speculating that she might be depressed based on her “compulsive” desire to have a lot of children. Women who are depressed should seek counseling from someone other than a celebrity columnist. No mother should feel guilty for having personal time away from her children, especially if it gives fathers more time with them.

My friend, Rachel, emails me: “P.S. Did you hear about the Christian sex toys thing on NPR?” No link, no other info. Well, goodness, who could resist googling that?

Here‘s the story, and here‘s the NPR blog post with the comments ranging from medieval “Christians” who think sex is a necessary evil to secularists who think sex is the Ultimate Good. Eventually, it just became the latest web-based pressure-release valve for anti-Christian vitriol.

Reading through, I’ve noticed that many people on both extremes have swallowed a few fallacies about good, Christian living.

Myth #1: It is immoral for Christians to make money. Folks, there is no manna falling from heaven. God expects us to provide for ourselves and our misfortunate neighbors, too. Unless you own a farm, the best way to do that is with cold hard cash. It is immoral to hoard your money, it is immoral to steal someone else’s money, it is immoral to practice unfair lending. But it is not immoral to make money.

Some commenters criticized the company for selling the exact same products as any other sex toy supply store. A dildo is a dildo is a dildo. Making one with a “Christian” theme would be blasphemous (think: The Exorcist), don’t you think? One person complained that the company used the same immoral suppliers as all the other stores and suggested that these people should be manufacturing their own supplies. Gee, I guess they just didn’t have a few spare million dollars to get that idea off the ground.

Then there were the people who thought it was all a gimmick. If by that they mean that these people have come up with a marketing tool to distinguish themselves from all the other sex toy suppliers, then they are right. But that’s not immoral. It’s all part of doing business. If by gimmick they mean “false advertising,” then we’d need some evidence that these people aren’t Christian. Like maybe membership cards for the local Satan worshipper’s church.

Myth #2 Sex is immoral. No, lust is immoral. But if you’ve never experienced sex within the context of a loving, selfless marriage, then I can’t blame you for being confused.

I guess this is why so many commenters had problems with the idea of praying regarding your sex life (kind of like praying that your planned bank heist went smoothly). One person actually mused that Jesus had bigger concerns to deal with and others felt (snarkily) that Christians should spend their time praying for world peace instead of satisfaction. It’s no wonder that they don’t believe in God. That God they describe is so small, so limited. The Christian God is capable of caring about all things from world hunger to that annoying hangnail on your little toe.

Myth #3 Sex is only about making babies. Being “open to life” is not the same thing as restricting sex for fertile times only. Christopher West writes:

This is how husbands and wives build an authentic spirituality: by loving one another according to the Holy Spirit in and through their bodies. Marital love is shown in numerous ways, but spouses who are filled with the Spirit realize “among the possible manifestations of affection, the singular, or rather, exceptional significance of [the conjugal] act” (Nov 21, 1984). They come to understand that their sexual union “bears in itself the sign of the great mystery of creation and redemption” (Nov 14, 1984). In a word, they come to understand that their union is “Eucharistic.”

Sex is primarily about union. Children are the fruit of that union.

Myth #4 Sex toys are immoral. It’s all how you use them. Onanism is immoral. Lust is immoral. Orgasms are most definitely not immoral. Within the context of foreplay, if a couple requires a little assistance, it is not immoral to get some.

Of course, finding assistance is difficult. As the NPR article wrote, the couple who started the business wanted to buy massage oil without viewing pornographic images. Hence, their store.

I wish them good luck.

Polling station at Mass. Catholic church won’t cover crucifix

The local municipal building wasn’t structurally sound, so the town decided to use a church. Nine churches and synagogues are used in the area, but this Catholic church had the audacity to have a crucifix in its “community room” where the polling would take place. Somebody raised a stink, and, for a time, the town considered ordering everybody to cover all religious statues, symbols, etc.

I guess as a Catholic it’s difficult to understand the issue. In my experience, there are two kinds of Catholics (I’ve been them both). One kind votes after carefully considering a politician’s views and how they fit into the Church’s teachings on issues of morality and social responsibility. These voters don’t need a crucifix to remind them how to vote. The other kind of Catholics vote the way they want to vote with little or no regard for morality. They wouldn’t be likely to even notice the crucifix, and, if they did, wouldn’t trouble their minds in the least with silly questions like WWJD.

I suppose the main concern was for non-Catholics who might not be comfortable with overt religious art. I’m curious if these people have every been in an art museum. The National Gallery of Art – federally funded and part of the Smithsonian – has more images of Christ and the saints than any church I’ve ever been in (in America). Religious art is okay in a museum, but is offensive in a church?

I guess the town eventually saw things the way I do, and decided that if anybody were truly uncomfortable with a statue of the crucified Christ staring at you in agony as you pull the lever for “Catholic” twice-divorced, abortion-is-okay-with-me Rudy Guiliani, then they could get an absentee ballot or request a different polling station. Or perhaps the fear that all churches would decide they would rather not help out with the polling convinced them to be reasonable.