I hate birthdays. Don't mind getting older, but if there is one day in the year when I can count on being disappointed, stressed, and downright miserable, it is October 28.
This year was no different.
Nevertheless, some good stuff happened.
This year, my birthday was on a Tuesday - that means Chorale night. And as I was driving up the road toward that city wherein Chorale meets... I helped catch a horse.
Yep. Catch. A. Horse.
I was about 7 miles up the road, and traffic was almost at a standstill - and I was about to pass when I saw the horse galloping north (same direction I was headed) up the road. I ducked into the driveway of the house where I was pretty sure he'd come --- met by about a half-dozen Dachsunds, and a misc Heinz-type hound, all barking their fool heads off... and no one was at home. I was getting into the car when a truck pulled in behind me - another neighbor! Hooray!
They went north, headed off the horse and turned him around south - I blocked the highway with my car and steered the fellow back across the road into his own people's driveway. Then I got pulled my car back into the driveway, and got out just as he was thinking maybe he wanted to go back out into the road again. I simply raised my arms (a little more extended than the orans position, but I promise you I was praying!) and said "Whooooa!"
And lo! the horse stopped! and he looked at me, and I stood there and started talking babytalk to him (yes, I confess it) - and he walked to me and dropped his head onto my shoulder. Poor baby!!!
I was patting his neck and telling him how lovely a baby he was, and wondering how in the world to lead him without a halter - and the neighbor slipped past me, opened the gate and went into the feed room. When the big boy (gelding, probably close to 17 hands high) heard the food bucket rattle, he abandoned me and went trotting off to his feed bucket.
The neighbor's son ran the parameters of the small pasture - no broken fence slats, so we figure he must've jumped. The big guy wasn't limping and had no visible wounds, so I wrote a note and left it in their back door. Left my phone number, but haven't heard a word from the folks - I'm going to stop by there, tomorrow, and inquire.
I've always loved horses, so that was a treat - even though I was in the wrong kind of shoes for tramping around chasing after one.
Remainder of trip was pleasant. Arrived early - auditioned for solo for Messiah performances with Carolina Ballet, coming up Thanksgiving weekend. I don't expect to be given one, although I think "He was despised" went fairly well - we have some really fine singers in that group, and I was outsung every which way from Sunday. That's okay, though - it was a good and valuable experience.
And after rehearsals, I went out with the crowd to the Irish Pub where I enjoyed a chicken club sandwich with kettle chips, and a slice of Baileys Cream cheesecake for dessert. I was the only conservative Republican at the table, which felt weird, and I grieved the loss from our group of the other Conservative who's a LOT more knowledgable than I and always good for instructive and edifying conversation.
Filled up the car for $21.50 - $2.64/gallon, which is about fifteen cents/gallon cheaper than it is here at home.
Soon as the clock passed midnight, my very poor mood lifted and I began to enjoy myself quite a bit.
Thanks for all the well-wishes that have come to me via email, Facebook, and other blogs. I'm grateful for my friends.
God bless y'all's socks off.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I Want to meet Wendy Button!
and shake her hand - The former Democratic Speech-writer tells why she's voting for John McCain here.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Laura, Warrior Princess
Confession: I've been holding out on giving God 100% of myself. There are two things I want very much, and I've been holding on - rather like Lot's wife looking back at the home she didn't want to leave - fighting giving all to Him because I want my own desires that much.
As if I could bully Him into letting me have my way by holding out on Him! HA!
Yet the people I love and long for - and my desires always involve people, not things - are even more precious to God than they are to me. I can trust Him to take care of them.
In fact, just a moment ago, listening to a course lecture on St. Louis de Montford's True Devotion to Mary, I asked that my parental authority over my daughters, even now that they are grown women, might still be applied (after all, I didn't know this stuff when they were growing up) - and I have consecrated my daughters to Jesus through Mary.
This shouldn't really shock anyone - not of my Catholic friends, anyway; it is really the ultimate fulfillment of the Infant Dedication we made of them when they were under a year old. What I wanted then for my daughters is fulfilled in what I have learned about devotion to Jesus through Mary. This is just repeating and perfecting the pledge made then.
I make this devotion also of myself, and will formalize it before witnesses at the appropriate time.
In the Dedication, three major things are accomplished. They are contained in the prayer of Dedication:
First, we renew and ratify our Baptismal promises: we renounce forever Satan, his pomps and works.
Second, we choose that Mary, the Handmaid (slave) of the Lord will be our Mistress; we will become the slave of the Slave. "I deliver and consecrate to thee, as they slave, my body and soul, my goods, both interior and exterior, and even the value of all my good actions, past, present and future..."
This takes us full circle - to the Cross: "And I give myself entirely to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Wisdom, to carry my cross after Him all the days of my life, and to be more faithful to Him than I have ever been before."
This is an amazing act. I can only get glimpses of the power of it, the significance of it, in my imagination.
Thankfully, I don't have to fully understand everything. It is enough that I recognize that I have been fighting, like a wild colt - only instead of stopping fighting for the weariness of fighting's futility, I am coming gladly to the Master to ask Him what He wants of me.
I will serve as His bondservant all the days of my life. I will and do renounce Satan and his works, and I put on the armor provided me to fight against him forever.
Totus Tuus - All for thee, dear Lady, so that you might give all and more to your Son.
As if I could bully Him into letting me have my way by holding out on Him! HA!
Yet the people I love and long for - and my desires always involve people, not things - are even more precious to God than they are to me. I can trust Him to take care of them.
In fact, just a moment ago, listening to a course lecture on St. Louis de Montford's True Devotion to Mary, I asked that my parental authority over my daughters, even now that they are grown women, might still be applied (after all, I didn't know this stuff when they were growing up) - and I have consecrated my daughters to Jesus through Mary.
This shouldn't really shock anyone - not of my Catholic friends, anyway; it is really the ultimate fulfillment of the Infant Dedication we made of them when they were under a year old. What I wanted then for my daughters is fulfilled in what I have learned about devotion to Jesus through Mary. This is just repeating and perfecting the pledge made then.
I make this devotion also of myself, and will formalize it before witnesses at the appropriate time.
In the Dedication, three major things are accomplished. They are contained in the prayer of Dedication:
First, we renew and ratify our Baptismal promises: we renounce forever Satan, his pomps and works.
Second, we choose that Mary, the Handmaid (slave) of the Lord will be our Mistress; we will become the slave of the Slave. "I deliver and consecrate to thee, as they slave, my body and soul, my goods, both interior and exterior, and even the value of all my good actions, past, present and future..."
This takes us full circle - to the Cross: "And I give myself entirely to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Wisdom, to carry my cross after Him all the days of my life, and to be more faithful to Him than I have ever been before."
This is an amazing act. I can only get glimpses of the power of it, the significance of it, in my imagination.
Thankfully, I don't have to fully understand everything. It is enough that I recognize that I have been fighting, like a wild colt - only instead of stopping fighting for the weariness of fighting's futility, I am coming gladly to the Master to ask Him what He wants of me.
I will serve as His bondservant all the days of my life. I will and do renounce Satan and his works, and I put on the armor provided me to fight against him forever.
Totus Tuus - All for thee, dear Lady, so that you might give all and more to your Son.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Do Republicans act like this?
Merry talks about an incident she witnessed at her college:
Do Republicans behave this way? I haven't heard of any of it.
God help us, in two weeks - we're in for trouble regardless what happens.
When I got to school yesterday, 2 Black girls were walking through the parking lot and I heard, "I should've keyed her van." The other girl said, "You shouldn't talk like that." First girl: I don't care.
When I got out of class I noticed the van she was talking about. It had a big Nobama painted on the window with shoe polish.
Do Republicans behave this way? I haven't heard of any of it.
God help us, in two weeks - we're in for trouble regardless what happens.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
White Ribbon Week - October 26-31
First time I've heard of it, which is a shame, because it's a worthy cause, probably even more worthy than the pink ribbon campaign against breast cancer.
What is it?
Pornography, an international scandal which demeans and creates victims several times removed from its production - by influencing the attitudes men (and women!) have toward women and children.
Excellent article from Town Hall on the matter, here.
Many thanks to Mary T for the link.
What is it?
Pornography, an international scandal which demeans and creates victims several times removed from its production - by influencing the attitudes men (and women!) have toward women and children.
Excellent article from Town Hall on the matter, here.
Many thanks to Mary T for the link.
Who was it, really?
Who Am I?
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grow up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a people's campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nation's leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world, and the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
Sounds a lot like a particular presidential candidate on the current ballot, doesn't it?
However it isn't -
It's Adolph Hitler.
Thanks to Ann for sharing this.
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grow up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a people's campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nation's leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world, and the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
Sounds a lot like a particular presidential candidate on the current ballot, doesn't it?
However it isn't -
It's Adolph Hitler.
Thanks to Ann for sharing this.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A voice for Life
Cheers and BRAVOs to Robert Laird, the other directors and employees of Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy in Chantilly, VA, set to open its doors today.
Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy is setting a pace in providing a pharmacy that does not stock any forms of contraception, pornography, or other typically-stocked materials that violate reverence for the sanctity of life.
"Contraception is not health care," said Laird.
Again, Bravo!
Many thanks to Maria, from The Washington Times, for alerting me to this news. Please go check out the article in the link.
Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy is setting a pace in providing a pharmacy that does not stock any forms of contraception, pornography, or other typically-stocked materials that violate reverence for the sanctity of life.
"Contraception is not health care," said Laird.
Again, Bravo!
Many thanks to Maria, from The Washington Times, for alerting me to this news. Please go check out the article in the link.
Monday, October 20, 2008
So - Biden said WHAT?
During the debate between himself and Sarah Palin, Biden enraged gay rights activists by insisting that neither he nor Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Yet today, on "Ellen," he said that, were he a resident of California, he would vote against Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 is the one that defines marriage as between a man and woman ONLY.
So - Biden's talking out of both sides of his mouth, just as Obama himself has been doing all along.
What else is new?
And how long will it take for the good Christian people planning to vote the Democratic ticket this month to see the serpant for what it is?
What's more - on ABC News, Biden predicted that the U.S. will suffer another terrorist attack in the early months of Obama's presidency, and that the American people will need to be prepared to stand by him as he makes "unpopular decisions."
Sure, we will.
#1 - Biden has just admitted to the entire world that Barack Obama is an inexperienced neophyte. That in itself should discourage ANY half-witted voter from casting a Democratic ballot in the General Election.
#2 - The Democratic Party was all in support of President Bush after 9/11/01 - it would have been political suicide to oppose him after the attacks on our Nation. But now, while it's POPULAR and POLITICALLY CORRECT to oppose the President in his duty as Commander-in-Chief (and doing a good job under terribly difficult circumstances, no less), Senator Biden (Bidin' My Time?) says we have to give UNQUESTIONING SUPPORT to Obama....
To a man who has expressed Muslim sympathies, who has sworn that he would uneqivocally meet and negotiate with our enemies...
And Biden says we ought to unquestioningly give such a traitor, such a despot, our unquestioning support?
NO!
Proposition 8 is the one that defines marriage as between a man and woman ONLY.
So - Biden's talking out of both sides of his mouth, just as Obama himself has been doing all along.
What else is new?
And how long will it take for the good Christian people planning to vote the Democratic ticket this month to see the serpant for what it is?
What's more - on ABC News, Biden predicted that the U.S. will suffer another terrorist attack in the early months of Obama's presidency, and that the American people will need to be prepared to stand by him as he makes "unpopular decisions."
Sure, we will.
#1 - Biden has just admitted to the entire world that Barack Obama is an inexperienced neophyte. That in itself should discourage ANY half-witted voter from casting a Democratic ballot in the General Election.
#2 - The Democratic Party was all in support of President Bush after 9/11/01 - it would have been political suicide to oppose him after the attacks on our Nation. But now, while it's POPULAR and POLITICALLY CORRECT to oppose the President in his duty as Commander-in-Chief (and doing a good job under terribly difficult circumstances, no less), Senator Biden (Bidin' My Time?) says we have to give UNQUESTIONING SUPPORT to Obama....
To a man who has expressed Muslim sympathies, who has sworn that he would uneqivocally meet and negotiate with our enemies...
And Biden says we ought to unquestioningly give such a traitor, such a despot, our unquestioning support?
NO!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Eddie
We've been praying for Eddie, who had brain tumor, for several months. I received a beautiful email from his daughter a little while ago, informing me that he entered Eternity on October 3, his 64th birthday.
She spoke of the time at home, and the sweet privilege of caring for him - a privilege I can share passionately with, because of the time I spent with my father during his final days, in 1991 -
and all I can think, beyond even my sorrow for my friend's grief, is that there are people who would arbitrarily "relieve suffering" by terminal anesthesia, or euthenasia.
Ours has become a self-centered, narcissistic culture, concerned not with the ultimate wellbeing of our loved ones (do we even know how to truly love, any more?) but with our own convenience, our own deliverance from inconvenience or suffering or self-sacrifice.
My dear friend wrote of her father's final days - "I would gladly have spent ten years caring for him again!" she wrote, and I know what she meant. We are deeply altered (altared?) by such proximity to suffering and Dying.
She wrote of the peacefulness of his passing - how God granted all their desires for his final moments -
How many people are deprived of the grace of these sufferings by impatient family and medical personnel who unnecessarily hasten the end of life, lacking understanding of the utter redemptive beauty of allowing God to choose when life begins and ends?
We've become a utilitarian people - God help us, it's getting worse all the time - and if this election goes badly, we'll be seeing even worse, at a greatly accelerated pace.
She spoke of the time at home, and the sweet privilege of caring for him - a privilege I can share passionately with, because of the time I spent with my father during his final days, in 1991 -
and all I can think, beyond even my sorrow for my friend's grief, is that there are people who would arbitrarily "relieve suffering" by terminal anesthesia, or euthenasia.
Ours has become a self-centered, narcissistic culture, concerned not with the ultimate wellbeing of our loved ones (do we even know how to truly love, any more?) but with our own convenience, our own deliverance from inconvenience or suffering or self-sacrifice.
My dear friend wrote of her father's final days - "I would gladly have spent ten years caring for him again!" she wrote, and I know what she meant. We are deeply altered (altared?) by such proximity to suffering and Dying.
She wrote of the peacefulness of his passing - how God granted all their desires for his final moments -
How many people are deprived of the grace of these sufferings by impatient family and medical personnel who unnecessarily hasten the end of life, lacking understanding of the utter redemptive beauty of allowing God to choose when life begins and ends?
We've become a utilitarian people - God help us, it's getting worse all the time - and if this election goes badly, we'll be seeing even worse, at a greatly accelerated pace.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Problems at Blog Talk Radio
This ENTIRE POST is from No Compromise When It Comes to Being Right -
Of very particular interest since Blog Talk Radio is the web home for Flylady's web forum (with which I recently had a peck of trouble for posting a an anti-Obama thread)- thanks to Serenity for alerting this to me:
Of very particular interest since Blog Talk Radio is the web home for Flylady's web forum (with which I recently had a peck of trouble for posting a an anti-Obama thread)- thanks to Serenity for alerting this to me:
Pro-Obama Censorship at BlogTalkRadio
October 16, 2008 · 2 Comments
Thank you New Media Journal for printing my commentary.
October 16, 2008
There used to be a classic American saying, “I disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it,” which changed to, “If you don’t like it, turn the channel,” and now we hear, “You’re inciting hate, so I will have you charged with a Hate Crime, you bigot!”
America is becoming a nation filled with people who whine about hurt feelings which leads to quashing one’s Right to speak in one way or the other. Americans do not, nor never have had the Right to be aggrieved!
Our nation is turning from a once free country to people being scared to say what’s on their mind for fear of offending someone else or being called a bigot! Here in America!
Yesterday, [October 13, 2008] on my Blog Talk No Compromise Radio show, my guest was Phil Berg, a Philadelphia attorney and Democrat, who has filed a Federal Law suit against Barack Hussein Obama because he claims that Obama is not a natural born Citizen of this country which is a requirement under Article 2 of the Federal Constitution in order to run for President.
The subject matter is controversial but the conversation we were having was quite tame. In other words, it was not at all of the shock jock nature by any stretch! Thirteen minutes into my show Blog Talk Radio, shut me down, and disabled my account with no warning at all!
Within a few hours after this travesty, I received an email from the BTR assistant Director of Customer Relations, Shannon Dingee-Kramer, citing the BTR “Terms of Use” stating that my show was, “racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, unreasonably violent, threatening, intimidating or harassing; and that it contained falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage BlogTalkRadio or any other person.”
Wow, how was she, in just a few short hours, able to obtain the proof that what I say on my show is false and contains misrepresentations since my show is a commentary style show? How was my show racially or ethnically offensive? Because Obama is 1/16th part black, I’m sorry, African-American? oh, wait, he certainly was born in Africa, but the American part–big question mark! Is she subversively saying that all partially black people not born in America and their public actions are off limits for questioning?
That’s amazing to me! Also, she failed to tell me exactly what it was that I, or my guest said that was offensive and unreasonably violent! However, I can prove that her behavior toward me was all of those things and more!
America is in trouble, folks, real bad trouble. We are losing our American spirit and culture. We are losing our guts and fortitude and all of this is based on one single lie spouted off across airwaves and print media: You are a bigot!
If you have a controversial opinion you are labeled a bigot. If you disagree with how a political system or cult like religion violates the Human Rights of individuals you are labeled a bigot! If you disagree with a political candidate you are targeted for attack and accused of crimes against humanity!
Most people don’t care anymore which is sad to me, but those of us who are in the communications business better start caring a little louder because yesterday it was me who was violated; tomorrow it could be you!
America is on the precipice of being changed forever if we don’t start getting back to our fundamental roots and American culture. We are Americans first. I don’t agree with my fellow Americans who are for Barack Hussein Obama at all, however, I will fight for their Right to campaign for, and vote for whomever they choose. Why? Because my American freedoms can withstand our disagreements. America has always withstood disagreement. What America will not be able to withstand is making my disagreement with you, a crime, a target for attack, a reason for those who hate me to hurt my property or my Rights! Our Country won’t survive that!
I am asking you to stand with me regardless of our differing opinions. Protecting Free Speech has to become more important than protecting people from being emotionally aggrieved because they disagree!
Monday, October 13, 2008
Create Your Own........ RELIGION???
Interesting business, being on a secular web forum. You get to see, in a wee internet microcosm, the complexities of human nature and the effects of the world we live in. There are a couple of Catholics, a few evangelical-type Protestants (Baptists, independents, etc.) and a whole bunch of … Unitarian Universalists, Buddhists of some description, agnostics, atheists, and an interesting variety of Create-Your-Own-God type people.
Of course, there are those who believe the UU fits that category. Looks like it to me.
And their favorite Bible verse is “Judge not, lest ye be not judged.”
Favorite? Their only, from the looks of things. And they all pat one another on the back and tell one another how wonderful each other is and how awful it is that anyone would dare to claim to have “the” truth and to be such wet blankets on the fun and the constructive dialogue that comes in a secular society….
So – why am I so angry?
Because I am angry. Not that I took some hard and unjustified, ignorant and mean-spirited hits in there – but that the double standard flourishes unchallenged by people who are supposed to be more intelligent than that.
They spout off “Judge not,” while they are exercising judgment – and ill-informed judgment, no less.
They gloat and glory in smug self-satisfaction – which is really contempt for anyone who doesn't see things in their elitist milieu.
They want everyone to get along just fine, but they don’t want to accept the orthodox among them.
They behave childishly, meanly – and gloat over a victory of their presumed superiority – and they don’t realize how unrespectable they’ve become.
And I’m angry - because I'm so poorly and inadequately equipped to show them what I see and love and believe in with my whole soul!
I subbed at the high school this week, and I saw more kids pulling out the victim mentality, and being essentially rewarded for it.
And I’m angry.
I feel as if the world is in a terrible crisis, that we’re on the verge of serious crisis – and I asked a friend from my former parish about this week’s homily, and she said, “Oh, Laura, you know what it was about. It was about how we have to love one another. Love, Love, Love!”
And I’m angry.
Look. Maybe I’m nuts and maybe it’s like a couple of friends tell me – I don’t give myself enough credit – but it seems to me that if I see something, everybody else ought to have seen it WEEKS ago - “Hey, Laura, what took YOU so long anyway?”
If there is a God, then He must have a personality. A Character. His own integrity – not some vacillation of being that you or I or anyone else can assign to Him.
He has to be consistent.
And so – it’s dangerous to go around, trying to re-create God to suit ourselves. There must be an independent, objective Reality about God that doesn’t vary by culture or epoch. If God is God, then He has to be true to Himself at all times, for all ages, for all men.
No! There is A Truth - THE Truth - and it is our obligation to be faithful to strive for it, for Him, to keep trying more and more and more - not because it's what we believe, but because IT IS, and nothing else is good enough - because anything else is something less!
I’m angry.
People whose lips drip with honey tell the gullible that God can be whatever they want Him to be. It’s all cool, it’s all the same – whatever floats your boat, Honey.
And here we are – the people of God, the sons of adoption, the members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Church Militant, for crying out loud!
And we’ve GIVEN IN. We’ve caved in, acquiesced.
We get homilies on mushy love junk instead of real LOVE –
LOVE, people – that powerful, virile, honest, gut- and life-changing power that redeems and transforms people and doesn’t let them go to Hell without a fight.
Where is the Love?
Where is the Church Militant while women are told their sexuality is cheap and value-less, and they don't deserve lifetime commitments from good men? That women are to be objectified through pornography? That the objectification of our sexuality, and the exploitation of our sexuality for a man's pleasure without any requisite responsibility or commitment is all we are entitled to?
Where is the Church while insanity rules in the secular culture and people are being deluded to lives of depravity and loss?
Where is the training, the preparation for taking our place in the culture wars? The war of the world, the flesh and the devil?
Why are we left to fumble about on our own to learn to wear the Armor of Christ? Why do we have to depend on internet sources to learn what it even is, and how to don it, and even how to use it? Why are we having to learn in isolation and loneliness to fight without a proper teacher to help us hone our skills and our vision and our ability to recognize the Enemy and to distinguish the walking wounded from the Sold-Outs?
I’m angry.
This is the age that the Church has prayed for for centuries. Look at our culture – we have more in common with ancient Rome, the pre-Constantinian Rome, than with our own grandparents!
And what are we doing? We’re getting hit – HARD! – and left to stagger about unaided, untrained, unskilled.
I’m not a warrior princess by nature; I’ve become one out of utter necessity. But who is going to help me find my balance with this? And who is going to train me?
I’m very angry.
Of course, there are those who believe the UU fits that category. Looks like it to me.
And their favorite Bible verse is “Judge not, lest ye be not judged.”
Favorite? Their only, from the looks of things. And they all pat one another on the back and tell one another how wonderful each other is and how awful it is that anyone would dare to claim to have “the” truth and to be such wet blankets on the fun and the constructive dialogue that comes in a secular society….
So – why am I so angry?
Because I am angry. Not that I took some hard and unjustified, ignorant and mean-spirited hits in there – but that the double standard flourishes unchallenged by people who are supposed to be more intelligent than that.
They spout off “Judge not,” while they are exercising judgment – and ill-informed judgment, no less.
They gloat and glory in smug self-satisfaction – which is really contempt for anyone who doesn't see things in their elitist milieu.
They want everyone to get along just fine, but they don’t want to accept the orthodox among them.
They behave childishly, meanly – and gloat over a victory of their presumed superiority – and they don’t realize how unrespectable they’ve become.
And I’m angry - because I'm so poorly and inadequately equipped to show them what I see and love and believe in with my whole soul!
I subbed at the high school this week, and I saw more kids pulling out the victim mentality, and being essentially rewarded for it.
And I’m angry.
I feel as if the world is in a terrible crisis, that we’re on the verge of serious crisis – and I asked a friend from my former parish about this week’s homily, and she said, “Oh, Laura, you know what it was about. It was about how we have to love one another. Love, Love, Love!”
And I’m angry.
Look. Maybe I’m nuts and maybe it’s like a couple of friends tell me – I don’t give myself enough credit – but it seems to me that if I see something, everybody else ought to have seen it WEEKS ago - “Hey, Laura, what took YOU so long anyway?”
If there is a God, then He must have a personality. A Character. His own integrity – not some vacillation of being that you or I or anyone else can assign to Him.
He has to be consistent.
And so – it’s dangerous to go around, trying to re-create God to suit ourselves. There must be an independent, objective Reality about God that doesn’t vary by culture or epoch. If God is God, then He has to be true to Himself at all times, for all ages, for all men.
No! There is A Truth - THE Truth - and it is our obligation to be faithful to strive for it, for Him, to keep trying more and more and more - not because it's what we believe, but because IT IS, and nothing else is good enough - because anything else is something less!
I’m angry.
People whose lips drip with honey tell the gullible that God can be whatever they want Him to be. It’s all cool, it’s all the same – whatever floats your boat, Honey.
And here we are – the people of God, the sons of adoption, the members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Church Militant, for crying out loud!
And we’ve GIVEN IN. We’ve caved in, acquiesced.
We get homilies on mushy love junk instead of real LOVE –
LOVE, people – that powerful, virile, honest, gut- and life-changing power that redeems and transforms people and doesn’t let them go to Hell without a fight.
Where is the Love?
Where is the Church Militant while women are told their sexuality is cheap and value-less, and they don't deserve lifetime commitments from good men? That women are to be objectified through pornography? That the objectification of our sexuality, and the exploitation of our sexuality for a man's pleasure without any requisite responsibility or commitment is all we are entitled to?
Where is the Church while insanity rules in the secular culture and people are being deluded to lives of depravity and loss?
Where is the training, the preparation for taking our place in the culture wars? The war of the world, the flesh and the devil?
Why are we left to fumble about on our own to learn to wear the Armor of Christ? Why do we have to depend on internet sources to learn what it even is, and how to don it, and even how to use it? Why are we having to learn in isolation and loneliness to fight without a proper teacher to help us hone our skills and our vision and our ability to recognize the Enemy and to distinguish the walking wounded from the Sold-Outs?
I’m angry.
This is the age that the Church has prayed for for centuries. Look at our culture – we have more in common with ancient Rome, the pre-Constantinian Rome, than with our own grandparents!
And what are we doing? We’re getting hit – HARD! – and left to stagger about unaided, untrained, unskilled.
I’m not a warrior princess by nature; I’ve become one out of utter necessity. But who is going to help me find my balance with this? And who is going to train me?
I’m very angry.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The obscenities increase
Video Catches Planned Parenthood Covering Up Statutory Rape- (emphasis mine)
(original posting from pro-life nurse Jill Stanek's fear-instilling to the bad guys site)
ARLINGTON, VA, October 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Students for Life of America (SFLA) has released a video exposing two Planned Parenthood clinics in Winston-Salem and Charlotte, North Carolina covering up statutory rape of young girls. To view the video, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkakpcWSyWY
In June of 2008, two college women volunteering for Students for Life of America entered two clinics in North Carolina posing as underage girls, 15 and 14, who just had unprotected sex with their mother's live-in boyfriend who was in his 30s. Each girl told the clinic workers that he suggested she come get the morning the Morning After Pill. According to N.C. Gen. Statue 7B-301 and 7B-101, this information was enough to trigger North Carolina statutory rape reporting laws, obligating any person who learned of this story to report the crime to authorities.
In both visits, Planned Parenthood staffers acknowledged that what was happening to the girls was statutory rape and in one case even repeatedly admitted that they were required to report the incident.
However, after the visits, Students for Life of America filed North Carolina Public Records Requests to find out if the Planned Parenthood locations had reported the crimes. SFLA has obtained and posted documents, which show that the crimes were not reported to authorities in either Charlotte or Winston-Salem. To view the reports from police department authorities, go here: http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/plannedparenthoodinvestigation/
In addition to covering up the statutory rape of these young girls by failing to report, both Planned Parenthoods were willing to help them get on birth control without their parents' knowledge, which would prolong the abuse while covering evidence. One staffer in Charlotte even said to the girl, "You can do it now," and set an appointment for the minor to obtain birth control the following week.
Further, both clinics told the girls that anyone over the age of 18 could simply go to a drug store and buy the Morning After Pill for them, giving the girls' rapists a tool to further cover their crime of rape.
SFLA's Executive Director, Kristan Hawkins commented on the videos today saying, "These videos are simply shocking. That Planned Parenthood staffers acknowledged the girls were being raped and then did not report the crime is horrific. They allowed these girls to go home to their rapists and even confirmed that their rapists could get the Morning After Pill for them to cover their crimes."
Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Family Research Council, responded to the investigation, "As long as Planned Parenthood puts their fealty to abortion on demand above protecting young girls from statutory rapists then investigations such as the ones done by SFL will be needed."
To view the video, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkakpcWSyWY
This is infuriating on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, we've known for years that Planned Parenthood has an agenda. But that they would break laws set in place to protect minors is even worse.
Furthermore, they present this scenario of statutory rape as if it were something the girls wanted - or their own crime.
Now, in this particular incidence, the situations were fabricated. But what about those girls for whom it is real - sexual harrassment and abuse by someone who should be engaged in protecting them against these violations?
More and more, the radical feminists are presenting to girls the idea that they want what is a violation of their privacy and their safety, that they've invited it, that they are displaying false modesty -
Radical feminism, manifested by Planned Parenthood, is telling girls that their natural modesty and reserve is unnatural - that being the victim of a crime against their bodies is normal and even desirable.
This is obscene! It has to stop!
And it has to stop with us, who know better and who can tell young girls, wherever we have the opportunity, of their inestimable worth, of their right to be respected, of their right to have their natural reserve and desire not to be objectified honored.
Thanks to Karla for this news item.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Why Do Women Shack Up?
I was called "mean" and "ugly" on a blog where I challenged a gal about living with her boyfriend. She'd written for advice because she was feeling imposed upon: he wasn't doing any of the housework.
What I want to know - no, that's not true; I know the answer - I just want her to think about it. Why aren't they married? Why is she living with him?
Well, we're waiting til we have the money... Nonsense. If you have enough money to shack up, you have enough money to get married.
We're just not ready. Oh. You can "play house" but you can't do it for real.
Look, girls. There is only one reason why men want to shack up: They want free access to sex while they keep their options open. You give them what they want in bed, and you keep house for them. They haven't made any sort of commitment to you, they can end the relationship with no consequences to themselves whatsoever, and they can still prowl around with an eye on your competition.
What do you get? You have already bonded with this guy when you gave him your body in sex. He experienced no such equivalent sort of bond. You have given him your all - your heart, your soul and your body, all interconnected - and he's given you...
Nothing. No security. No concrete promise to be faithful. No set hope for a future together.
Girls - Please! Some of you even have children (plural!) with these men. Do you not realize that if anything happens - if he cheats on you, steals from you, leaves you, gets hurt or sick, or dies, you have no legal protection under the law. You get nothing for yourself.
What's more, if you can get him to marry you, some indefinable place on down the road, you are more than 3x more likely to end up divorced than if you'd made him put his name on the dotted line to start with.
Meantime - you have invested yourself - to you, emotionally, it's a marriage. You have your eyes on one man: him, that guy you're living with. You're in it 100%.
To him, it's a shack-up. He's free to keep an eye out on your competition, see whether something better can be had, on down the road. He's in it... what? 10%? 50%? I can promise you - it ain't 100%.
Let me be candid: you have been sold a bill of goods. A basket full of lies, courtesy of radical feminism, which denigrates marriage and your own value as a woman.
The reason you are living with this guy is because you don't value yourself enough. You've sold yourself cheap. He's getting all the benefits of the shack-up, you get no commitment, no compensations, no validation for your self-giving.
This is not a romantic interlude. It's Booty-ville. This is a form of emotional and spiritual slavery. You have voluntarily enslaved yourself and it is going to cost you.
You don't believe me? Go see what "Guy" says, over at What Women Never Hear. He'll give it to you straight.
What I want to know - no, that's not true; I know the answer - I just want her to think about it. Why aren't they married? Why is she living with him?
Well, we're waiting til we have the money... Nonsense. If you have enough money to shack up, you have enough money to get married.
We're just not ready. Oh. You can "play house" but you can't do it for real.
Look, girls. There is only one reason why men want to shack up: They want free access to sex while they keep their options open. You give them what they want in bed, and you keep house for them. They haven't made any sort of commitment to you, they can end the relationship with no consequences to themselves whatsoever, and they can still prowl around with an eye on your competition.
What do you get? You have already bonded with this guy when you gave him your body in sex. He experienced no such equivalent sort of bond. You have given him your all - your heart, your soul and your body, all interconnected - and he's given you...
Nothing. No security. No concrete promise to be faithful. No set hope for a future together.
Girls - Please! Some of you even have children (plural!) with these men. Do you not realize that if anything happens - if he cheats on you, steals from you, leaves you, gets hurt or sick, or dies, you have no legal protection under the law. You get nothing for yourself.
What's more, if you can get him to marry you, some indefinable place on down the road, you are more than 3x more likely to end up divorced than if you'd made him put his name on the dotted line to start with.
Meantime - you have invested yourself - to you, emotionally, it's a marriage. You have your eyes on one man: him, that guy you're living with. You're in it 100%.
To him, it's a shack-up. He's free to keep an eye out on your competition, see whether something better can be had, on down the road. He's in it... what? 10%? 50%? I can promise you - it ain't 100%.
Let me be candid: you have been sold a bill of goods. A basket full of lies, courtesy of radical feminism, which denigrates marriage and your own value as a woman.
The reason you are living with this guy is because you don't value yourself enough. You've sold yourself cheap. He's getting all the benefits of the shack-up, you get no commitment, no compensations, no validation for your self-giving.
This is not a romantic interlude. It's Booty-ville. This is a form of emotional and spiritual slavery. You have voluntarily enslaved yourself and it is going to cost you.
You don't believe me? Go see what "Guy" says, over at What Women Never Hear. He'll give it to you straight.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Why Does It Matter?
Why get involved in politics? Why push and push and push on a variety of issues? Why be relentless?
Because, dear friends, this upcoming election - and it has already started, with early voting and Absentee Ballotting - has more on the line than we ever have had before.
Women fought long and hard for the privilege of voting, yet almost as soon as the privilege was won, we began to abuse it, voting on emotional rather than factual considerations.
Yet women are the conscience and the heart of a nation. It is we who raise her sons and watch them go off to fight in defense of her freedoms - because with freedoms come great, and frightening, responsibilities.
We women of America, and our sister Nation to the North, Canada, are obligated to be the conscience of our Nations. We have a duty to call for what is right, and true, and honorable.
The rhetoric promoted by the Democratic party masks a lot of dysfunction and even overt evil.
How can a woman stand by to protect someone's right to kill a child?
How can a woman not protest the violence of terrorism and be content to allow it to influence our domestic and our foreign policy?
How can a woman not see through the rhetoric and the attempts to sway via emotional drive to the facts, the issues, and the real needs and rights?
Barack Obama's hands are covered with bloodguilt.
Alone, he opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that requires babies that survive late-term abortions be given medical treatment - not just dumped onto a dirty linen gurney and left to die of neglect and exposure. He insists that the right to free and unrestricted access to abortion shall not be hindered, and that he will enact the Freedom of Choice Act as his first act as President - which will overturn the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. Yet the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act does not prohibit late term abortions; it only secures humane and just treatment of infants who survive the procedures.
How can a woman, born to nurture life, not be moved to outrage at such an extreme attitude in contempt of the greatest gift God has given us: life itself?
Barack Obama's political career began in the living room of William Ayers - founding member of the Weathermen, an American terrorist organization of the 1960s. Ayers was convicted of terrorism, fled and lived as a fugitive from Justice until his conviction was overturned - on a technicality. He now lives, unrepentent and unconverted from his violent youth - in Chicago, where he teaches the teachers of children.
Obama has ties with other criminal bosses and organizers in the Chicago area.
These are moral issues which no true woman can fail to protest, out of a sense of moral virtue.
Barack Obama has close ties to the current economic crisis - he has hired in an advisory capacity at least two of the men responsible for driving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground - and he received more political contributions from those men and those agencies than any other politician except one: Chris Dodd of CT, who oversees the regulatory committee over those agencies.
Women who work hard to keep our heads above water and to provide homes for our families, often alone and unsupported, should be outraged that this presidential candidate, the man who would win your vote, should be exploiting the very agencies whose collapse and subsequent requisite bailout by the federal government threatens the financial serenity we have worked so hard to achieve.
Barack Obama has demonstrated strong Islamic sympathies. He's played both sides of the fence in the Arab-Israeli conflict, fostering a sceptical distrust of the U.S. by both Israel and Palestine.
Barack Obama has held multiple citizenships. His loyalties are clearly, visibly divided.
How can a woman, the daughter of America, not be alarmed that such a duplicitous individual could be elected to the highest office of the Nation? These are unscrupulous vacillations presented only to impress the audience he is addressing at any given time. How cam a woman, whose heart is given to undivided loyalty, be insensitive to such deviance?
We are America. It is our future, our families, our homes at stake in this Presidential election. We must engage our full giftedness - our minds, our hearts, our passions, our moral virtue - to protect ourselves, and our integrity, individually and as a nation. Our moral superiority must be engaged to demand the best and the truest for this nation.
Because, dear friends, this upcoming election - and it has already started, with early voting and Absentee Ballotting - has more on the line than we ever have had before.
Women fought long and hard for the privilege of voting, yet almost as soon as the privilege was won, we began to abuse it, voting on emotional rather than factual considerations.
Yet women are the conscience and the heart of a nation. It is we who raise her sons and watch them go off to fight in defense of her freedoms - because with freedoms come great, and frightening, responsibilities.
We women of America, and our sister Nation to the North, Canada, are obligated to be the conscience of our Nations. We have a duty to call for what is right, and true, and honorable.
The rhetoric promoted by the Democratic party masks a lot of dysfunction and even overt evil.
How can a woman stand by to protect someone's right to kill a child?
How can a woman not protest the violence of terrorism and be content to allow it to influence our domestic and our foreign policy?
How can a woman not see through the rhetoric and the attempts to sway via emotional drive to the facts, the issues, and the real needs and rights?
Barack Obama's hands are covered with bloodguilt.
Alone, he opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that requires babies that survive late-term abortions be given medical treatment - not just dumped onto a dirty linen gurney and left to die of neglect and exposure. He insists that the right to free and unrestricted access to abortion shall not be hindered, and that he will enact the Freedom of Choice Act as his first act as President - which will overturn the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. Yet the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act does not prohibit late term abortions; it only secures humane and just treatment of infants who survive the procedures.
How can a woman, born to nurture life, not be moved to outrage at such an extreme attitude in contempt of the greatest gift God has given us: life itself?
Barack Obama's political career began in the living room of William Ayers - founding member of the Weathermen, an American terrorist organization of the 1960s. Ayers was convicted of terrorism, fled and lived as a fugitive from Justice until his conviction was overturned - on a technicality. He now lives, unrepentent and unconverted from his violent youth - in Chicago, where he teaches the teachers of children.
Obama has ties with other criminal bosses and organizers in the Chicago area.
These are moral issues which no true woman can fail to protest, out of a sense of moral virtue.
Barack Obama has close ties to the current economic crisis - he has hired in an advisory capacity at least two of the men responsible for driving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground - and he received more political contributions from those men and those agencies than any other politician except one: Chris Dodd of CT, who oversees the regulatory committee over those agencies.
Women who work hard to keep our heads above water and to provide homes for our families, often alone and unsupported, should be outraged that this presidential candidate, the man who would win your vote, should be exploiting the very agencies whose collapse and subsequent requisite bailout by the federal government threatens the financial serenity we have worked so hard to achieve.
Barack Obama has demonstrated strong Islamic sympathies. He's played both sides of the fence in the Arab-Israeli conflict, fostering a sceptical distrust of the U.S. by both Israel and Palestine.
Barack Obama has held multiple citizenships. His loyalties are clearly, visibly divided.
How can a woman, the daughter of America, not be alarmed that such a duplicitous individual could be elected to the highest office of the Nation? These are unscrupulous vacillations presented only to impress the audience he is addressing at any given time. How cam a woman, whose heart is given to undivided loyalty, be insensitive to such deviance?
We are America. It is our future, our families, our homes at stake in this Presidential election. We must engage our full giftedness - our minds, our hearts, our passions, our moral virtue - to protect ourselves, and our integrity, individually and as a nation. Our moral superiority must be engaged to demand the best and the truest for this nation.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Voter's guide -
From Catholic Answers -
Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics
Copyright © 2004, Catholic Answers.
All Rights Reserved.
HOW THIS VOTER’S GUIDE HELPS YOU
This voter’s guide helps you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching. It helps you avoid choosing candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held by all Christians.
On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. Most matters do not have a "Catholic position."
But some issues concern "non-negotiable" moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church’s moral norms.
This voter’s guide identifies five issues involving "non-negotiable" moral values in current politics and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.
You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law.
In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the "non-negotiable" issues.
In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.
In this guide we will look first at the principles that should be applied in clear-cut races where there is an unambiguously good moral choice. These same principles help lay the groundwork for what to do in situations that are more difficult.
Knowing the principles that are applied in ideal situations is useful when facing problematic ones, so as you review the principles you should keep in mind that they often must be applied in situations where the choice is more difficult. At the end of the guide we will offer practical advice about how to decide to cast your vote in those cases.
YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER
Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.
But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.
Some things are always wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.
FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLES
These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally con flict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
1. Abortion
The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.
The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.
2. Euthanasia
Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.
In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).
Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.
4. Human Cloning
"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).
Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to per sist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?
Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.
True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps will never take up the issue of human cloning but may take up issues connected with abortion clinics. It is important that you evaluate candidates in light of each non-negotiable moral issue that will come before them in the offices they are seeking.
Few people achieve high office without first holding a lower office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawma kers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.
Tomorrow’s candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today’s candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply comparable standards to local candidates. One should seek to elect to lower offices candidates who support Christian morality so that they will have a greater ability to be elected to higher offices where their moral stances may come directly into play.
HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE’S POSITION
1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate’s position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.
2. It is often more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.
3. If you cannot determine a candidate’s vie ws by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to the candidate, asking for his position on the issues covered above.
HOW NOT TO VOTE
1. Do not vote based just on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family’s voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.
2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates’ appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.
3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching.
4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What’s in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.
5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but will vote wrongly on key mor al issues. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except for, say, euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.
HOW TO VOTE
1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the issues that will come before him and involve non-negotiable principles.
2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.
3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.
4. Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.
5. Remember that your vote today may affect the offices a candidate later achieves.
WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE
In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.
THE ROLE OF YOUR CONSCIENCE
Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something that you know is wrong. It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. For your conscience to work20properly, it must be properly informed—that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide.
Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on Election Day.
A well-formed conscience will never contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.)
WHEN YOU ARE DONE WITH THIS VOTER’S GUIDE
Please do not keep this voter’s guide to yourself. Read it, learn from it, and prepare your selection of candidates based on it. Then give this voter’s guide to a friend, and ask your friend to read it and pass it on to others. The more people who vote in accord with basic moral principles, the better off our country will be.
ABBREVIATIONS
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
CPL Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life
CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family
E V John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)
RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics
Copyright © 2004, Catholic Answers.
All Rights Reserved.
HOW THIS VOTER’S GUIDE HELPS YOU
This voter’s guide helps you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching. It helps you avoid choosing candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held by all Christians.
On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. Most matters do not have a "Catholic position."
But some issues concern "non-negotiable" moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church’s moral norms.
This voter’s guide identifies five issues involving "non-negotiable" moral values in current politics and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.
You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law.
In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the "non-negotiable" issues.
In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.
In this guide we will look first at the principles that should be applied in clear-cut races where there is an unambiguously good moral choice. These same principles help lay the groundwork for what to do in situations that are more difficult.
Knowing the principles that are applied in ideal situations is useful when facing problematic ones, so as you review the principles you should keep in mind that they often must be applied in situations where the choice is more difficult. At the end of the guide we will offer practical advice about how to decide to cast your vote in those cases.
YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER
Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.
But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.
Some things are always wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.
FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLES
These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally con flict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
1. Abortion
The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.
The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.
2. Euthanasia
Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.
In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).
Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.
4. Human Cloning
"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).
Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to per sist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?
Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.
True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps will never take up the issue of human cloning but may take up issues connected with abortion clinics. It is important that you evaluate candidates in light of each non-negotiable moral issue that will come before them in the offices they are seeking.
Few people achieve high office without first holding a lower office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawma kers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.
Tomorrow’s candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today’s candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply comparable standards to local candidates. One should seek to elect to lower offices candidates who support Christian morality so that they will have a greater ability to be elected to higher offices where their moral stances may come directly into play.
HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE’S POSITION
1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate’s position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.
2. It is often more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.
3. If you cannot determine a candidate’s vie ws by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to the candidate, asking for his position on the issues covered above.
HOW NOT TO VOTE
1. Do not vote based just on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family’s voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.
2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates’ appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.
3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching.
4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What’s in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.
5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but will vote wrongly on key mor al issues. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except for, say, euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.
HOW TO VOTE
1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the issues that will come before him and involve non-negotiable principles.
2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.
3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.
4. Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.
5. Remember that your vote today may affect the offices a candidate later achieves.
WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE
In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.
THE ROLE OF YOUR CONSCIENCE
Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something that you know is wrong. It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. For your conscience to work20properly, it must be properly informed—that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide.
Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on Election Day.
A well-formed conscience will never contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.)
WHEN YOU ARE DONE WITH THIS VOTER’S GUIDE
Please do not keep this voter’s guide to yourself. Read it, learn from it, and prepare your selection of candidates based on it. Then give this voter’s guide to a friend, and ask your friend to read it and pass it on to others. The more people who vote in accord with basic moral principles, the better off our country will be.
ABBREVIATIONS
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
CPL Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life
CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family
E V John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)
RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
Help Zo!
Y'all have "met" my friend Alfonzo Rachel, creator of such delightful videos as "The Vote Reaper" and "The O Team."
Zo's video "Gay Marriage" has been pulled by YouTube.
I've watched this thing several times - and there's nothing intolerant or promoting hate speech in it, nothing that violates the company's terms of service. He's just very plain that homosexuality is NOT on the same level as racial discrimination, and that it really is disordered. He presents his ideas with kindness and compassion and even with empathy.
Meanwhile, numerous anti-Christian and specifically antiCatholic videos abound, including videos of the desecration of the Holy Eucharist.
Please - 1. Contact YouTube to protest their inequitable application of the rules, and 2. to ask them to replace Zo's video.
Zo's video "Gay Marriage" has been pulled by YouTube.
I've watched this thing several times - and there's nothing intolerant or promoting hate speech in it, nothing that violates the company's terms of service. He's just very plain that homosexuality is NOT on the same level as racial discrimination, and that it really is disordered. He presents his ideas with kindness and compassion and even with empathy.
Meanwhile, numerous anti-Christian and specifically antiCatholic videos abound, including videos of the desecration of the Holy Eucharist.
Please - 1. Contact YouTube to protest their inequitable application of the rules, and 2. to ask them to replace Zo's video.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Fascinating Womanhood?
For years I've been advocating a mass-market paperback called Fascinating Womanhood, by Helen Andelin, to all and sundry who would put up with it. But over the weekend I learned of an even older source - a charming little book published in the 1920s, from which Andelin gets most of her ideas, and, I'm very sorry to say, most of her content - unattributed.
Like Andelin's book, it is called Fascinating Womanhood. The author is anonymous, which intrigues me a bit.
You have to make some allowances for the period in which this was written - the writing style itself is simplistic to the point of feeling patronizing - but there's a lot of quality there, too. Human nature, after all, doesn't change.
Do, please, check it out.
And a special thinks to Penelope for introducing me to this booklet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
