More from the Episcopalians...

From various and sundry...

"Supporters in Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky say Jefferts Schroi's election to the church's top post is a sign that the 221-year old denomination is "embracing equality." ...'I was pleased about the choice, though I know it's going to be trouble,' said Jane Beuteel, of Park Hills...Many of [the ECUSA's] provinces opposed the EC's decision 30 years ago to ordain women priests, and the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003...'I think they've lost touch with the mission of the church and with the grassroots,' [Cynthia Burst, spokeswoman for the American Anglican Council] said. 'Your average mom or pop in the pews does not embrace the view of the Bible, Jesus and sexuality as represented by the national convention.'" (hat tip: Cincy Enquirer)

And from the youth side of the convention....(also from Cincy)

"..For these teenagers, gay rights are worth fighting for, and a woman presiding over a major denomination should have happened years ago... 'there have been so many advances in the church with women and with homosexuality, but if they're not open now, we'll just be taking steps backwards,' said 15-year old Kathleen Darger of Crystal Lake, Ill. 'The way we were raised was not be racist or prejudiced against others. But when older people were growing up, it was a lot different for them.'...'Modern times come with modern adaptations,' said 15-year old Brooke Heinichen, of Cincinnati, who spoke during the mock committee meeting.

Whoa! Hold the horses!
Back up here. If this is the way Episcopal teens feel then they better never cross paths with a lot of Catholic teens while they're in town. The Columbus Diocese has a very strong youth contingent that believes strongly in traditional Catholic doctrine, and there are plenty of folks my age who feel the same way. It's not about being ' prejudiced' or 'racist.' I think it's safe to say that none of us are that. That's just not Christian. But at the same time, that doesn't mean, 'Well then do whatever you want! It's all OK!' because that's not what Jesus taught, either.

One of the things that gets me about the whole homosexuality argument is the 'well it's biological so it's OK.' I once defeated this argument to rather dramatic effect in a room full of men (my age, don't worry), by saying, "OK, so I'm a heterosexual female. You are heterosexual men. We were all born this way. So why aren't we all upstairs in some massive group orgy or something?" Needless to say, this shut them up for a bit. :) But levity aside, it's true! You don't see me, or the vast majority of people, just having random sex or engaging in all sorts of urges when we have them. Plenty of things are 'biological' that aren't OK, either morally or physically or socially. It's not about being prejudiced or not. It's about doing what the Bible says, what's actually Christian thought. It's not about being touchy-feely and trying to make everyone happy. That's not our goal. Or if it's the goal of the Episcopal Church, it's not going to exist for another 200 years, let alone the century. I guarantee it.

For the Love of All Things Holy-- 1

OK, I'm really, really glad I am not a Presbyterian:
From the Washington Times :

At some Presbyterian churches the Holy Trinity -- "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" -- will be out. "Mother, Child and Womb" is in.
Delegates to the national assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted yesterday to "receive" a policy paper on sex-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. Church officials are enabled to propose "experimental liturgies" with "alternative phrasings" for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," options include:
• "Lover, Beloved, Love"
• "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"
• "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love"
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chairman Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during yesterday's debate on the changes.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to send the paper back for further study, which would have killed it.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity still should be used, but Presbyterians should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
The language used for hundreds of years to describe the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Cousin heads to D.C.

Yesterday was Archbishop McCarrick's last day in D.C., so bring on my cousin...

From the WaPo:

In May, Pope Benedict XVI picked Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh to replace McCarrick, overseeing an archdiocese of 560,000 Catholics and 115 parochial schools in the District and Maryland. Wuerl, scheduled to arrive in Washington today, will deliver his first Mass as archbishop Sunday at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Northwest Washington. McCarrick said he is confident that Wuerl will have no trouble picking up where he is leaving off.

"Whatever good I had, he's going to double it, and whatever stupidity I have had, he's not going to have," McCarrick said.

As priests and prelates donned their robes in the sacristy before the Mass, McCarrick leaned casually against an altar where his vestments had been carefully placed and chatted about his plans for the future. He will continue to serve the church, he said, traveling extensively on church business over the next several months to Rome, Moscow and possibly the Middle East. He'll split his time between Washington and New Jersey, where he lived for many years, and hopes to catch up on his reading, fishing and napping. But much of his time will be spent praying and preparing for what he says is his final journey.

"I'm going to get ready to go home," he said.

Compact and energetic, with lively hazel eyes, McCarrick looked ready for anything yesterday as he strode across the polished floor of the basilica toward the dais. He paused several times as some in the audience reached out to touch him and whisper their thanks. He nodded to some and gave a jaunty wave to others as he mounted the steps to the throne one last time.

The Mass marked the end of an era for a religious leader who has been beloved but also unafraid to take controversial stands. In the final days of his tenure, McCarrick was a vocal supporter of a Senate bill to allow thousands of illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. His longstanding work with the Latino immigrant community has drawn a mix of criticism and admiration, as was his decision to oppose conservative church leaders who said in 2004 they would bar Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry from taking communion because of Kerry's abortion rights advocacy.

It would have been hard to find critics of McCarrick yesterday among the hundreds gathered beneath the gilded dome of the basilica to hear his final words. There were no long goodbyes or lengthy speeches. McCarrick briefly thanked his fellow clergymen and women and D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams for coming. Then he thanked those who had come from far and wide to see him.

"Most of all, I thank God for you -- God's people here in Washington," McCarrick said.

True to form, McCarrick delivered a simple message for a town that often seems to thrive on complexity.

"In humility, we always find hope. Hope is impossible without humility," McCarrick said. "Because to have confidence in someone else, we must be humble."

As McCarrick delivered his final words, the audience began to clap. Moments later, McCarrick, with a lei of gold and white flowers around his neck, walked down the steps of the dais for the last time and turned to wave to the people he will miss the most.


Can't wait to see my cousin over there...it'll be a good thing for the people of Washington, although we'll miss him in Pittsburgh!

The Episcopalians vote

Once again, why I am glad to be a Catholic...

So the Episcopalians have chosen their new leader, for a 9 year term (anyone want to explain to me why 9 years? Why not 10? or 8? Or something else random???) and it's the first woman, Katherine Scori. But apparently she's on the liberal end of the spectrum, the conservatives aren't happy, and the Anglican Communion, who doesn't even ordain women as bishops (nor do all the dioceses of the Episcopalian Church USA). So between the failure to act on the Windsor report and the fact that they've got a new female head of church who is in favor of same-sex "blessings" (what the heck is that??), things do not look like they are going the right direction for Episcopal reconcilation. In fact, new Presiding Bishop Schori is against the Windsor Report's recommendations. But I could be wrong. They've still got a few days left, I think. But the election of this new leader isn't going to sit well with Canterbury, or the conversative bishops around the country. The fall out should be interesting...

It's already interesting, as amatter of fact. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a statement, says he sends his best wishes and prayers to Bishop Scori, who will bring unique gifts, etc., etc. to the position. He does mention that her election will bring (i'm paraphrasing) a new "wrinkle", to to speak, to the issues the two churches are having (for more, check out Amy Welborn's Open Book blog). So hmmm.

New words

So I guess we are gonna have some new Mass dialogue, once Rome approves our new changes, and I for one think it'll be better. I mean, if you're going to have a Latin translation, have a real Latin translation, please! Don't just try to make it an approximation!

As a fun point of movie trivia: watch Gone With the Wind --just the beginning, when the family is at prayer. Mrs. O'Hara says the Confeiteor the 'old' way, which is to say the way we're soon going to be saying it. Interesting...

Changes to the Mass?

The U.S. Catholic bishops will be taking up the idea of changing (well, OK, adjusting) the English translation we say at Mass to a more accurate reflection of the Latin. Several countries, including England and Australia, have already adopted these new translations. For example, instead of "The Lord be with you/ and also with you" it would be "The Lord be with you/And with your spirit", which is closer to the Latin "Et tum spiritu" (forgive the spelling). I actually think this is a good idea and would love to have Latin Mass, since I was born after Vatican II and missed it. I love all that old stuff. :) The only problem it'll cause is with the Mass settings, and since I'm in choir that means we'll have to learn some new stuff, since the new language probably won't fit with the old stuff everyone knows. But oh well. I'm sure with some tweaking we can still keep the "Celtic Mass" and the "Mass of Creation."

More on this when they have their conferene later this summer...for more, check out the WaPo (www.washingtonpost.com) religion section.

An "American Genocide"

is what Rep. Brinkman of the Cincinnati area called abortion in America yesterday during House hearings on his bill that would ban all abortions in Ohio. I thought I'd do a little press round-up of the coverage from today's Ohio papers, with, of course, commentary throughout, as warranted:

From the Plain Dealer :
"One abortion-rights ( gotta love that jargon! ) supporter countered [an earlier woman's testimony] with her own harrowing tale of life before Roe . Bill opponent Taba Aleem told lawmakers about her illegal abortion performed in 1968 by an Akron factory worker who demanded sex before using a coat hanger and a piece of rubber tubing. She asked lawmakers to vote the bill down, saying she was speaking "for the poor women and African-American women" with "limited financial means." ( OK, so we solve poverty by killing our babies? Ehhh?? Seems rather, um, barbaric to me. If you can't afford to get pregnant, then don't!)
Said Gary Dougherty, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio in his testimony: "laws that criminalize abortion are bad for women's health, bad medicine and bad public policy." ( well, geez. I guess being vacuumed out of the womb is good prenatal health, though.

From the Dispatch :
This bit talks about a woman who runs a pro-life organization and how the tide has turned on abortion politics:

" 'I used to walk thesehalls and people would hide,' Folger said of the Statehouse. 'But they realized: Guess what, it turns out there are more of us then there are of them - not to mention the fact that our folkds have been having children whole the other side has been aborting them.'
The remark drew loud groans from many of the 160 people who packed the third-floor hearing room, where women outnumbered men about 2-1...House Bill 228, which opponents say is dangerous to women's health and imposes a particular religious view, would bad all abortions in Ohio... ( so it's a particular relgious view to say that we shouldn't kill kids? Yeah, I would kind of hope we could all be in agreement on that. Apparently not. )

Dayton Daily News :
"Gary Daughtery, executive director for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, said: 'banning abortions will not stop abortion.' Instead, it'll lead to unsafe illegal abortions that put women's health at risk, he said. ( When things are banned, you generally see a decline in usage. I'm sure that a ban would drastically reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. How many women wouldn't have sex so casually if they knew that they couldn't have an abortion? How many young girls would practice abstinence instead? As for putting women's health at risk, don't tell me that an abortion is a safe proceedure for the mother. It's a major medical procedure, which carries inherent risks. So let's not act like this is akin to a teeth-cleaning, shall we?

From the Enquirer of Cincinnati:

(Remember Ms. Aleem from the P-D? She shows up a lot in these stories...here she is again...)

"Aleem, who was 20 at the time [of her abortion], said she was not ready to be a mother and felt this procedure was her only choice." ( Methinks she made the choice around the time she had sex...but that's just me )

"Dr. John Willke of Cincinnati who helped found the Right to Life movement in the early 1970s, said life begins at conception. To a lawmaker's question about supporting single mothers, Willke said poverty cannot be solved "by killing the children of the poor." (Amen!)

"Kathy Helmbock of Oakley, a member of NOW since 1972, testified that "abortion should be safe, legal and rare." ( OK, I don't get that. Good medical procedures are never called this. You don't hear anyone saying appendectonmies or tonsillectomies should be "safe, legal and rare." If it's truly safe and beneficial, then it should be legal. If it's not- and abortion isn't- then it should be illegal, therefore also making it rare, since illegality tends to make things rare. )

From the Blade , one of my favorite papers! (ha, ha)
A great quote: "The United States Supreme Court decision in Roe V. Wade began the American genocide of some 40 million lives." --Rep. Tom Brinkman.

An exchange from Pastor Russell Johnson, who compared abortion to the Holocaust, and Rep. Redfern (also chair of the ODP...how exactly does that work?):

" 'Are you trying to equate members of this standing committee to those who allowed the Holocaust to occur?' asked state Rep. Chris Redfern (D., Catawba Island), chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.
'I believe that God will hold us accountable for standing on behalf of the least of these little children,' said Mr. Johnson."

And more from Ms. Aleem of Akron..."'I didn't feel I had a choice.'" See above....

The Canton Repository has an exchange on rape:

" Most of testimony covered territory familiar to both opponents and proponents of abortion. John Willke, a Cincinnati doctor and former National Right to Life president, said he saw no reason to permit abortion in cases of rape.

'I don't see killing a baby for the crime of his father,' Willke said."

"Nationally, about 32,000 rape victims become pregnant each year and forcing the women to carry the [baby] deepens and prolongs their trauma, said Corrina Lohse of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center.

'We believe choice was taken away from the survivor when she was raped,' Lohse said."

All right, I'll give her that. She sure didn't have much choice. But why compound a sin with another? One crime for another? It's certainly not the baby's fault. And with the evidence we have of the psychological trauma of abortion, why would any woman want to compound the mental agony?

Finally, the Akron Beacon Journal weighs in, with more from Ms. Aleem...

"Aleem and her allies fear her story will be repeated in the future for the state's girls and women if the legislation, sponsored by State Rep. Tom Brinkman becomes law.
Abortion opponents disagree. 'We don't want any exceptions,' Brinkman said. 'Women deserve better than abortions.'
....

Taba Aleem doesn't want a return to [days of abortions in back rooms with unsterile conditions]. She has four grown children and is a director at Planned Parenthood forr Summit, Medina and Portage counties. "

Well isn't that nice. One of the other articles I read said that she also went to college, something she "wouldn't have been able to do" as a single mother. Well, as Mother Teresa said, "It is a crime that a child must die so you may live as you wish."

Indeed.

Episcopalians in town

The Espiscopalians are having their 2006 convetion here in Columbus, so there's been a lot of buzz in the Dispatch , especially regarding potential schism and how they're going to deal with the homosexual issue. Apparently they're having alot of trouble with this, which, as you know, I also don't get. If you're Protestant, and the Bible alone is your only authority, as Luther said, then isn't it pretty clear? I dunno. But more on this as it develops....

The Coalition for what ?

it's another abortion day at the Statehouse...

In House is considering a bill that would ban all abortions (sort of like SD's ban). Now it probably won't go anywhere, but it's summer time, it's quiet, and this spices things up for us (at least a bit). So anyway, we had, of course, a bunch of people (I think 50 witnesses for each side) come to testify at the House today, and that included one of my "favorite" anti-life groups: the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

OK now here's what I don't get. If you're "religious", then how do you can you be for abortion? I just don't get it. There's that whole thing about "thou shalt not kill", "children are a blessing from the Lord," etc. , etc. etc. But it's OK to kill them? These little human beings that God knew in their mother's womb before they were born? (Psalms) How can you be for their slaughter?

I 've read a lot of different Christian churches positions on abortion, and it usually goes something like, "While we do not condone the practices of abortion we realize that it may be admissable in certain cases, yada yada yada." But then they're against the death penalty!

Don't get me wrong. I'm against the death penalty, too. But I'm also against abortion. How can you be for the killing of innocents but against the punshiment of people who, let's face it, 99.9% aren't good citizens to begin with. So hmmm. Explain that one to me. But, like most liberal causes, there is no logic. It's just ridiculous and irrational. Par for the course.

Pentecost

Happy Pentecost, y'all!

Today I had a very different Mass experience than normal. I was at Children's for the Children's Miracle Network Telethon, which raises money for the hospital every year, and I was on it due to my transplant last year. It was really cool, btw, but afterwards we went to Mass at the Chapel with the fantastic Fr. Mark.

Now I love Fr. Mark. He is the best chaplain one could ask for at Children's, and he has been phenomenal for my family (for more, see my other blog!). He is just phenomenal. I've never, however, been to one of his Masses, since everytime I'm in I'm usually hooked up to all sorts of fun machinery, so I didn't travel well. But today I got to go.

He had a big bowl of red candy (since it's Pentecost) on the altar, which was cool- he used it for the homily, and talked about how each one represented something different. Twizzlers, how we're all intertwined; Big Red gum, how sometimes we need that long-lasting faith; Tootsie pops, for the sweet surprises of faith, and cinnamon, because sometimes we need that fun taste. :) It was a great homily. The chapel was totally packed, every seat filled, and some of the awesome 5T and 4AE nurses--like Rita!-- where there, and Michelle, the awesome nurse would could get me off the evil BIPAP after my transplant (go to Bucket of parts-- bucketofparts.blogspot.com -- for more on all this!). It was awesome, with kids running around and a few patients but not too many. One of the pulmonologists was even there. It was a lot of fun, with applause and laughter and all sorts of good stuff. We even sang "happy birthday" to the birthday people before Mass, and offered our own intentions before, which was great. I got to do the first reading with all the big words, and my dad did the second. It was a lot of fun, especially with the little kids who reaallly wanted some of that candy! The atmosphere was just perfect for Pentecost, very celebratory and fun. It's nice to be there when you don't have to be there, you know?

More editorials

So my last post went a little long and I was unable to blog about the next lovely letter to the editor (LTE) in the Blade . This one deals with the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and centers on the idea that two-parent families are best for kids. Then it goes this way:

--"we could go ahead and allow gay marriage but simply prohibit gay couples for raising children.
--"shouldn't we also ban single-parent households?"
--"why don't we amend the Constitution to ban divorce, since it is one of the leading causes of single-parent households?"

Oh sheesh. Come on. Well, if you're Catholic, then yeah, you should be raising kids in a two-parent house b/c that's the way you get them! Single-parent households aren't the way to go, neither is divorce. Kids needs two parents. Why mess with thousands of years of something that's worked? You need that female/male exposure. The Church is, one occasion, right about these things (OK, so I think they're right about most everything, but y'know)....

From the editorial pages...

One of the great parts about my job is that I get to read all the major state papers every morning. Occasionally they have stuff that I feel compelled to blog about, so I clip them and save them for later. Here's today's round-up (these are a few days old...I've been sitting on them):

From the Akron Beacon Journal : "Abortion is a matter of belief"
....we do not know when life begins and [I] am impressed that another physician admits this belief as a fact. I disagree with his conclusion that this fact makes aboriton unjustified.
From their religious and other life experiences, people believe differently about whem life begins. This belief can vary from the time of conception to anywhere up to the time of birth.
Also, the public has never come to a universal agreement on the question of if or when an abortion can be done. Since it is a fact that we do not know when life beings, one must make one's own descisions from one's own beliefs whether one has had an abortion or not.
Abortion is an emotionally disturbing and traumatic event. It is a decision not to be taken lightly. However, the procedure should be available to those women who would find continuing a pregnancy an overwhleming problem.


Well isn't that just peachy? Let's debunk here. First, we don't know when life begins. Well, OK. I guess you can have a point. I'm Catholic so we say conception. But if you don't buy that, or want to be medical, then let's look at is. It is when the heart starts beating? Well that happens pretty early on in fetal development. Brain functions? We know babies in utero can feel pain and they move around, so obviously there's some brain function going on. Babies have bodies, obviously, because they're born with one. Lungs are developed around what? 7 months or so? What is the exact criteria for life that an unborn child doesn't posses? Speech? Well there are plenty of people who can't talk. Higher brain function? Same thing. Are these people not human? I don't want to get into that, because some people (amazingly, horrifyingly) will say that they actually aren't. But really, when does life begin, if not at conception?

When I was in college I took a class called Psychology of Religion. There we learned about Paschal's wager, which basically said that it's better to believe in God just in case he actually does exist than to not believe in God and find out later that He does exist. It's sort of hedging your cosmic bets. So if we don't know when life begins, then shouldn't we be too cautious rather than not cautious enough? That seems to make sense to me.

As for "the public has never come to a universal agreement on the question of if or when an abortion can be done", if that was criteria for deciding anything, then nothing would get done! I work in politics, and I know! Geez! Enough of us can agree on enough that we should be able to move on. This is a democracy. Not everyone has to be in agreeement. We have majority rules in America, for better or worse. And the majority of the American people are against some, if not all, abortions. The AMA even says that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. So what else is this guy looking for? Americans don't all agree on capital punishment, either, but the last time I checked we still had it.

The movies I have seen....

time for some popcorns...

Since I'm not seeing DVC (!), that doesn't mean I haven't been haunting the loca theater...

-- Mission: Impossible III : OK, I'll admit I don't really have a strong memory of the last two (probably b/c I was on dates when I saw them...heh heh) but this one I thought was pretty good. Not a lot of plot, other than stop the bad guy, save the world, on a crazy romp that takes us to Berlin, the Vatican (see I can tie this all in!), and Beijing. Tom Cruise plays Ethan Hunt who is engaged (and eventually marries in the film) a nice nurse who thinks he works for the Va DOT. Yeah, right. Keri Russell, Ving Rhames, Joanthan Rhys-Jones and Phillip Seymour Hoffman also co-star, with hoffman being a fantastic villian. Good movie if you just want to follow a loose plot and watch things blow up; it's like one long Alias episode, which makes sense since J.J. Abrahms, the creator of the show, is the movie's director.

-- X-Men: The Last Stand : But is it really? Just as good as the other two, with a few too many characters and waay overbearing music. But other than that, a good movie w/ a high body count (but mostly vaporizations, so don't freak). Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Patrick Stewart (yay!), Anna Paquin and everyone's favorite mutant/wizard/etc. Ian McKellan are back to fight another day. The scenes on Alcatraz a pretty cool and the movie's very well-paced.

More to come as I see them: Cars (yay Pixar!), Superman Returns , The Devil Wears Prada and possibly The Lake House and Click .

DVC in USA Today

USA Today had a whole section of their editorial page devoted to DVC responses from around the country. I didn't want to make my last post too long, so here are some of the wonderful things the nation's editorial pages are saying...

From Newsday :

The (movie) critics hated DVC, and many churches have boycotted it - but audiences flocked to see it...To put it bluntly, for all its flaws, Code has one saving grace. It's About Something. It's not car chases in Los Angeles, or guys chasing after girls in Manhattan. It's about Christianity, whcich has dominated the past 2,000 years of Western Civilization."

Oh, and gee, the Passion was about the same thing. But somehow I don't recall Newsday saying it was good b/c it was "about something."

Jay Ambrose, a columnist for Scripps-Howard, compares DVC to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" saying that it's "another thrilled with religious overtones but not a single theological thought anyone should take seriously."

You're right Jay, they shouldn't. But some do. Just ask enough Catholics who have had people ask them "Is this stuff true?!" And it really doesn't matter. If this was a movie about Jews or Muslims, people would be mad.

Saul Rosenthal in The Rocky Mountain News writes, "...those who think that thoughtful Catholics and Protestants will abandon their respective churches or ask that the Gospels be revised after seeing DVC are also wrong. Let's give people more credit. They know it's a movie. "

Um, no Saul, they don't. Because people who read the book thought a lot of it was real. And that's because, as Alan Cochrum, a mebmer of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram said, "Dan Brown didn't use his turn signal...There are unwritten rules for how you treat history in fiction, and our boy Dan broke them...here's a suggestion for future authors: if you like to jerk chains when it comes to history and religion, at least use your literary turn signal. People might be a lot less likely to learn on the horn when your book suddenly takes a corner or two on the wheels."

Thank you, Alan! Thank you!

From the editorial pages: DVC

I keep telling myself that I'm not going to waste any more brain power on DVC, but the media just won't let me keep my own promise...sigh....

Here's a letter from the Toledo Blade :

I have not seen the movie The Da Vinci Code nor read the book, and I don't intend to. This much I have in common with many of the protesters.
Why is it that the religious of the world think everyone else must be "portected" from "deviant" ideas whether fact or fiction? If their teachings are correct can't we see it?
In the less tolerant countries of the world "protection" takes the form of bombings, shootings, and kidnappings. Here in the enlightened USA the "protection" is only protests, demonstrations, and boycotts. So far.

Well, jiminy frost!
Like I said in my last post, if this were about Jews or Muslims, there wouldn't be any discussion about being "enlightened" or "tolerant." Why do Christians, and Catholics especially, have to be tolerant of other people always trashing their faith? Why can't we protest and stand up for it, as is our right? Huh? Why do we just have to sit quietly and be "tolerant"? I don't think so. I'm sick of it. That's a weak argument and it's just not fair to us. We have a voice, too, and when our views are being smashed and defamed on movie screens around the world, that's not cool. We just have to be tolerant of it, hmm? No. I don't think so. We're not going to burn things and kill people a la the Muslim world over a cartoon. But we are going to protest and tell you what's what. Because it's just dumb.

No, no, more no

For those that have asked:

1) Have I seen DVC? No
2) Will I see DVC? No.
3) Will I read DVC? No.
4) Wait, so you haven't read it? No. I have read it--exactly three pages. The first page which is emblazoned with the word "FACT" and then procedes to give you ones that um, aren't, and the first two pages of the novel, which was just horrifically bad writing. I'm sorry, but this was the kind of stuff people wrote in my ENGL 210 Creative Writing class and we all thought, hmmm, how late were you up last night trying to throw this together? I was not impressed. DVC doesn't sell because of it's style, it sells because it's bashing the Church and Christianity in general.

And I'm sick of the people who say it's fiction, so what's the big deal? Well let's see. Let's write a book saying the Holocaust never happened, but let's call it 'fiction'. Let's write an inflammtory book about the Propher Mohammed and call it 'fiction.' You don't think the Anti-Defamation League and Muslim/Islamic groups wouldn't be all over them? Fiction doesn't get you anywhere. Plenty of stuff can be fictious and just plain bigoted. That's what DVC is. It's a bunch of anti-Catholic, anti-Christian diatribe that takes the Church for a ride. Not cool, and not fair. At all. And honestly, I don't even understand how Christians of any stripe can see it, given that it presents the premise that Jesus wasn't even divine. Even the heretics of the Early Church didn't go that far!

We are not being "mean"

Last week, Equality Ohio, the GLBT lobbying group here, held it's first "lobby day" at the Statehouse to try to bring more attention to the whole GLBT issues thing and essentially - I am not kidding - to make sure that lawmakers "get to know" some people who are, actually, gay (or whatever). I suppose this is in an attempt to try to get lawmakers to back off on some of the "anti-gay" bills that we've been hearing here, but I don't know how well it worked.

First of all, it's not lawmakers trying to be "mean", as one parent said (not about lawmakers, but people in general, because the law lets them be "mean"). It's about good societal policy. And Christians (which most of these "mean" lawmakers are) are supposed to treat everyone with love and respect. But that doesn't mean that we can just gloss over what they do. We're called to love everyone, but St. Paul and the Gospels are kinda clear on how you just can't say "well I'm supposed to love you, so do whatever!"

That's what really get me about these liberal Christian denominations, like the United Church of Christ. I'm sorry, but (everyone in unison!) Jesus didn't come to Earth for us all to hold hands and sing Kumbaya!! I'm sorry! The Gospel of Matthew is full of places where Jesus says "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword" and the section about dividing brother against brother, father against son, etc. How many times do we read about the people saying "this teaching is hard", or whatever? Christianity isn't meant to be easy. It's meant to be hard. And yeah there are certain things we can't do. But we've been through all this before, here. This is just a rehash. It's a lot easier to say we're "mean" than to say we actually have a point, but that's not acknowledged, either. Because we're mean. So there.

deep thoughts on bumper stickers (or not...)

Today's round-up of weird bumper stickers:

--Seen in the statehouse garage: "My voice, my vote" on a NARAL sticker. Um, not so much. There's another "voice" there, too, but we like to forget about that one.

--On I-70: "I love God...I just hate his fans." Well, hmm. Isn't there scripture about (paraphrasing here) "how can love God, who you cannot see, if you cannot love your neighbors, who you do see?" Hmmm. Or, um, "love one another"? I don't know. I mean, I get the point, it's about religious "extremists" or "fundamentalists", or (horrors!) the "religious right." But I think it would be better to not try to express political points more complicated than "vote Democrat, it's easier than working" or whatever on a bumper sticker. Especially when it comes to the central tenents of Christianity....

Still working on the paper...so there was a lot more to read than I originally thought...

My Cousin the Archbishop!

My cousin (not like really close, 3rd or 4th, but whatever) has just been named Archbishop of D.C., replacing Cardinal McCarrick (woohoo!). Bishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh is a great guy, a JPII man (huzzah!) and will do great things for the D.C. kids who could use, um, a hand, shall we say, getting in line with what the Church teaches. This is really, really cool. Chances are also very high that he will be named a Cardinal, since the archbishop of D.C. is usually made a cardinal. Too bad he's American and therefore, I am 99.9% sure he will never be Pope, but how cool would that be?? :)

Working on it...

I've begun researching for my first post in the Christians and contraception "series", but as usual I am finding a wealth of things of th subject that require reading and consideration. So I will hopefully be able to work on it tomorrow and have something written up.

If you're interested in checking out some sources ahead of time, this is what I'm currently looking at:

-- Humanae Vitae
-- Love and Responsibility by JP the Great
-- Gauidum et Spes (Vatican II constitution)
--CCC passages
--Scott Hahn-- First Comes Loves , Rome, Sweet Home and Swear to God , his book on the sacraments.
--Thomas Howard, On Being Catholic

There may be more...I'm also going to consult BXVI's encyclical, because I'm sure I remember something there. We'll see. But it is coming!!

Abortion and contraception, part one

OK I know I've talked about this before but I've decided it is time to go in-depth about it. Today I was at a NARAL and Planned Parenthood press conference at work, due to the fact that one of the D senators is introducting a bill that is sort of like their greatest hits-- "scientifically accurate" sex ed, emergency contraception (EC) on demand, forcing pharmacists to provide EC even if it's against their moral values, stuff like that. It's a winner. The sponsor is, of course, a Catholic woman, which just irritates me even more. They say that having EC and more contraceptive options will reduce "unwanted" pregnancies and abortions. Well sure, because we're getting "rid of the problem" before it's really become "a problem", right? There's no talk or morality, personal responsibility, etc. As Andrea said, "it's not like a baby jumps out at you from the bushes!" Until 1930, every Christian denomination was against the use of birth control?

What happened? Why isn't that the case today? Why is the Church so "old-fashioned" about birth control? Can we blame all this on Martin Luther (actually, in a way, you could...)? These and other things are topics I'll be discussing as we go through this. I think it's time for some clear discussion and explanation of the history of birth control and Christianity. Now this will , by no means, be exhaustive, so if you have something to contribute, feel free to post as we go along.

I'm thinking the series will go like this:

1) The Church and birth control
2) Christian denominations and birth control
3) What happened after 1930?
4) What Christians believe today
5) How this can all be traced to the Reformation
6) My will be done, or God's will be done?
7) Contraception and abortion

That's at least the rough outline. I'll probably post Part II: The Church and Birth Control tomorrow or Friday, so stay tuned. Any ideas, send to catholicpostergirl@yahoo.com

Ryan's First Communion

I can hardly believe that my godson is old enough to receive Eucharist, but here we were, last Sunday, watching him go to Mass with us, like normal, except this time he got up and received Jesus, instead of sitting in the pew moving his legs so we could all get by. On Saturday he and my cousin Courtney both made their first communions, and what a party it was. Lots of fun (too many games of Sardines), but awesome. It's great to know that Ryan and I can share this now, too. He's such a good kid. He had to receive First Confession first, and I was thinking, what does a seven year old have to confess? Probably just the "norm"--I fought with my brother, I disobeyed my mom, I told a lie. Stuff like that. At least I hope it's stuff like that! I don't want to think about it getting any more serious!

While we're on the subject...

OK, so bishops that don't like to be in vogue with church teaching....why do some of them hang out with Sr. Helen Prejean, of Dead Man Walking fame?

Let me clear something up. I'm against the death penalty, which drives my conservative friends NUTS. Apparently I am deviating fromt he Sacred Scripture of the Republican Party, but they can live with it, y'all. I'm pro-life all the way b/c I hate inconsistencies.

But these bishops don't see a problem, apparently. I'm sick of hearing people praise Sr. Prejean, without mentioning that she's pro-choice. I was reading an article in Ligourian that mentioned she's good friends with Justice Ginsberg. She's a pro-choice nun, and yet no one ever mentions that. That is a HUGE inconsistency for someone who's supposted to be all pro-innocent life. What is more innocent than a baby? But this doesn't make anyone else upset....sigh.

Immigration, part trois

It never ends, does it? Every time I think it's done, it's not. So here we go again.

So how did yesterday's "Day without Immigrants" affect you? I'll tell you how it affected me--not a whit. My day was not impacted at all. According to my office mates, it would've been had I visited a Chipotle, but I didn't, so therefore no impact in my day.

you know what really gets me mad about this whole argument? The idea that we who oppose illegal immigration are somehow anti-immigrant. Now obviously I cannot speak for all of us, and there are, surely, people who are anti-immigration, no matter how foreign that idea is to me. But we're not anti-immigration. We're anti- illegal immigration. We're against people coming into our country by way of breaking our laws and then wanting to be good citizens. Um, hello? If you want that, then come legally. Come like the immigrants did in the 19th and early 20th century. Don't sneak over the wall. Come the right way, and we'll take you in happily. America is a big tent. But we don't think too kindly of those who come in illegally and then demand all sorts of things. And yes, these are demands . There's no other word for them. Let's be real. They want acceptance, they want health care, they want citizenship, they want schooling for their kids. They're marching with wrong-way American flags and chanting "yes we can." Well, we don't doubt that. But do it legally!

And the whole national anthem thing? That is probably one of the worst PR moves of the century. You want to be an America? Learn the National Anthem in English! Can you imagine an Arab immigrant in Europe, say, learing the Marsellaise (French National Anthem) in Arabic? Not so much. Would not fly. At all. And yet....

Let's call a spade a spade. They are illegal immigrants. The crime is inherent in the name. I am sympathetic to the idea of coming for a better life. But you're not making your life better by sneaking into a country. I'm sorry.

And the bishops who are against the law? I wish they'd actually study it and then talk. If they were only so vocal about, say, abortion! You know, things the Church can actually speak with authority and intelligence on! What an idea! But that's for another post....sigh. I wish Church leaders would speak up consistently, and not only when precious liberal matters are being discussed.

Bookshelf update

Currently I'm reading God's Invisible Hand by Cardinal Francis Arinze. It's actually b unch of interviews with Irish journalist Gerard O' Connor, which makes for interesting and quick reading. It's really, really good so far, and it's good to keep tabs on him...he was considered papabile in the last conclave, and was ecstatic when B XVI was elected. My kind of Cardinal (as opposed to, say, McCarrick, Mahoney, Rigali.....grrr)! Ignatius publishes the book, so you can it at their website or most Catholic bookstores (if you're in Columbus, both the Cathedral Book Shop and Catholica in Westerville have it.). I'm also going to be reading Ramesh Ponnuru's (of National Review fame) new book, The Party of Death as soon as I can get a copy...you know how I feel about anything related to abortion policy. :)

"Why has it been wasted?"

The above is from "Strange Things, Mystifying" from Jesus Christ, Superstar . Judas sings it to Mary Magdalene after she's anoited Jesus with her perfumed oil:

Why has it been wasted?
We could've raised, maybe,
300 silver pieces or more.
People who are hungry
People who are starving
Matter more
Than your
Feet and hair!

That was my reaction when I read that the Cleveland Diocese was sued by a alleged abuse victim (I always say alleged, like alleged rape victim or whatever, until it's been proven) for $45,000 in a defamation suit. The article in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer reads, in part:

"{name] accuses Pilla [the old bishop], Mulica and diocesean officials of ruining his life, but thinks the settlement money will be therapeutic. He plans to buy a sailboat, take a long trip and write a book about his experiences ." (emphasis mine)

Um. OK. Glad to know the good people of Cleveland's offetory money is going to buy sailboats. I know that sounds harsh, but the alleged incident with a priest (who is now dead, I believe) happened in 1981--twenty-five years ago. The money is from a libel case that the family brought against the Diocese for remarks Bishop Pilla made in 2002. But either way, $45,000 is a lot of money that "could have been saved for the poor."

Triduum Wrap-up

I hope all of you had a blessed and joyous Easter! I know I did. If I had to name this season I'd call it the "Year of the Giggles" because it certainly was, at least for me. I was giggling or "awww"ing or seeing soemthing precious at every Mass...I'm sure my fellow choir members were thinking I'd gone 'round the bend, or something.

Some examples:

Holy Thursday : The Washing of the Feet is always interesting, just to see who gets picked, and there were a lot of little kids (or littler people) this year...RCIC kids, some of the 8th graders who are going to be confirmed. That was nice to see, as opposed to most of the adults. My parents were both up there, too, so the usual humor/pride mix that results when your family members are involved in Mass was there, too. There were so many kids, at all the Triduum Masses, and that made me happy. But kids love Holy Thursday because it's not that much longer than a normal Mass, but it's got all this awesome stuff--the feet washing, the Transfer of the Host, etc. (for those of you not in the loop: The Transfer of the Host occurs at the end of Holy Thursday Mass. The priest dons a cope (like a little cape thing) and carries the ciborium holding enough consecrated hosts for Good Friday service, since it's not a Mass. His hands are wrapped in the cope so he's not directly touching it. There's a procession with candles and beaucoup de incense, which the older adults seem to always grumble about but the kids like. So they watch the procession go around the church with everyong singing Tantum Ergo Sacramentum , which is only sung once a year...their eyes look like saucers. I love it. )

Good Friday : OK, no giggling at Good Friday because it's, well Good Friday. But it was a great service (FYI, it is the only time you can actually call a Catholic Mass a "Service", because it's not a Mass due to the fact that there's no consecration of the Eucharist). I love Good Friday, although it's my personal opinion that every lector who reads the First Reading (Isaiah 52-53) should have to watch Sir Lawrence Olivier deliver those lines in Jesus of Nazareth because he is just The Man.

Holy Saturday : Had about 15 people come into the Church, so that was nice. One was a family, which is also nice. One little girl, who I was near, watched her father come into the Church, and after he was confirmed she ran up to him and gave him a big hug, which of course made me go 'awww'. It was really cute. The "Hallelujah Chorus" went swimmingly, thank you. :)

So all in all a good triduum. I always love those Masses, even more than Christmas, and I always feel kind of relieved/bummed when it's over (relieved b/c I don't have to sing that much for the rest of the year, bummed because it's over). But I'm sure next year will come soon enough...

Immigration part deux

Story time, Kats and Kittens...

Once upon a time there were a few families that lived in Europe. Two lived in Italy, one lived in Germany, and one was a misplaced Irish family who fled Ireland during the Potato Famine to live in neighboring Scotland, who hadn't their devotion to the spud and therefore had other things to eat. In the early part of the twentieth century, all four families decided to immigrate to America.

It wasn't easy. There was the long boat crossing, which was expensive, especially considering they were treated like chattel. They couldn't all come at once--in some of the families the boys came first to find work and would send for their parents and sisters later, when they had the money for the passage. This could take years. But eventually all four families ended up in America--the Italians on Mulberry Street in New York, and the Germans and the Irish, somewhere else. All four eventually ended up in Pittsburgh, where the Irish/Scottish daughter married the German son and the daughter and son of the two Italian families married. They had children, and eventually two of those children got married and produced.... moi .

Yes friends, like the rest of you, I am an immigrant. But do you see the difference between the above story and the stories we're hearing today at these rallies, attending by thousands across the country? I sure do. My relatives, and probably yours, went through Ellis Island. They came here legally, worked hard, learned English (!), put up with all kinds of crap because they were Catholic, and some of them were Irish , God forbid. But they got married and produced American citizens who knew English and married other American citizens who produced more citizens...until I am the third generation born here. I've completed college. My brother's in college. My grandfather is a composer and a retired school orchestra teacher. My grandma raised 8 kids on one salary. My dad's father sold insurance to Italians in Pittsburgh. We all did pretty well for ourselves. None of us are on the dole, at least.

Yet these people, these "undocumented workers', say that we're anti-immigrant now. Wrong. We're anti- illegal immigrant. There's a big difference. My relatives didn't try to sneak in Boston Harbor and work under the radar. They did it the right way. There's a right and a wrong way to do this. If you want to be a citizen, do it properly. And don't say that you don't have time. Thousands of my countrymen from Ireland managed to immigrate here during the famine and they knew about not having time. They gnawed on quadruple-boiled bones to keep hunger at bay and ate grass until their mouths were green and still they starved.

We are a nation of immigrants, this is true. But the older ones assimilated. They became part of our fabric. They didn't try for multi-lingual signs, multiple options on the ATMs, and force us to accomodate them .

We are to show them justice and mercy and compassion. But at the same time we cannot advocate the reckless breaking of our laws. What's the point of having laws if we don't enforce them? And how can these people be good citizens if they're breaking the laws of their new country right off the bat?

Bookshelf and popcorn

All right, time for a book 'n movie round-up:

books :

St. Therese of Lisieux, story of a Soul or L'Historie d'Ame , as the French would say...the autobiography of my patron saint, so it's very bizarre that I haven't read this earlier. that's probably due ot the fact that this is a hard book, surprisingly, to find in mainstream bookstores, but I finally found a copy at a local Catholic bookshop that was produced by a Carmelite house here in the U.S.

The book isn't one book, it's actually three manuscripts in one: Manuscript A is the story of her life, as written for Mother Agnes, prioress of the Carmel for a time and Therese's older sister and "little mother" Pauline. Manuscript B talks about her vocation-- "my vocation is love!"-- and was written for her oldest sister, Marie, who was also in Carmel. The final part, Mauscript C, was written on prayer and her "little way" for Mother Marie de Gonzagua, who became prioress again after Pauline. All three together present a vivid portrait of a saint and her "little way", which is, unsurprisingly, filled with the profound spiritual insight that made Pope John Pual II proclaim her a Doctor of the Church in 2000 (I think it was that year, anyway). Definitely, definitely worth reading this.

In conjunction with that, I've also been reading (but haven't finished) St. Therese of Lisieux: Her family, her God, her message by Fr. Bernard Bro, a leading expert in Theresian theology. It's a fascinating look at the forces that shaped her life and her spitirtuality and I'm really enjoying it so far.

Movies :

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is now on DVD. If you're a fan, get the two disc set because it's awesome. The film looks great on DVD transfer and is even better than I remember. Read my review in the December archieves if you haven't and then run to Best Buy to get this puppy. It's awesome.

King Kong :Didn't see it in the theater but bought it on DVD. It's good, a little long in parts (I thought that some of the scenes on Skull Island could have been shortened or cut, esp. the ones with the gross bugs), but the acting is pretty good (especially Naomi Watts, who is essentially acting against a green screen the whole time) and some of th CGI effects just take your breath away. I did find the Central Park scene a little hokey (tell me again how Kong is supported on that ice?) but I loved the sunset scene. It's worth watching if you haven't seen it but it's not this great Oscar worthy film that you must see (the idea, if true, that Naomi watts was miffed because she didn't get an Oscar nomination for her role is nuts, because her acting was good, but definitely not Best Actress worthy).

A Catholic American or an American Catholic?

Little story before we start...

I was sitting around with a bunch of my friends one night last year, discussing the potential pool of Republican 2008 Presidential candidates. A lot of them voiced support for Rudy, which is well-deserved, even today, given that he was mayor of New York City, a city that is sapphire in its blueness, and did one hell of a job. But I wasn't about to get on the Rudy bandwagon.

"He's pro-choice," I said.

"But he's good on terrorism and national security. He's a shoo-in," one of my best friends added.

"Yeah, but he's pro-choice."

"So? That's minor."

"He won't get out of the primary, for starters," I said. "And I can't vote for a pro-choicer. I'll vote for a pro-life Democrat before I vote for a pro-choice Republican."

Most of the people in the room looked at me like I was crazy. Winning is, in the political life, first and foremost in the mind. With winning you get to set the agenda. But I wasn't about to let the agenda be set by someone who doesn't agree with me on key moral issues. He might win, but it wasn't with my vote.

All of this came to the surface lately after I finished reading Father Neuhaus' new book Catholic Matters (I posted a review of it in another post). He asks an intriguing question: Are we, as Americans, Catholic Americans or American Catholics? Which comes first in our allegiance?

As I thought about this, I realized that I consider myself a Catholic American. My faith is probably, if I had to say, more important that my citizenship. Don't get me wrong. I am proud to be an American, glad for the freedoms and privileges I enjoy and can say, without reservation, that I consider the U.S. the best country in the world (sorry to my foreign readers :) ). But my country isn't going with me when I die. I don't have to stand in judgement before George Washington, and Abe Lincoln didn't die to save my soul. I love America, but she can make mistakes--she's run by faliable humans. But with Catholicism, that doesn't happen. "The gates of Hell will not prevail against it." I can put more stock in those beliefs than in others. And when it comes to what my party believes and what my Church teaches, I'm going to side with the Church. Of course one does not have to accept everything that comes out of a bishop's mouth, so I put my faith in Rome, the Magesterium and the catechism. Thank God we have B XVI in charge.

This is a difficult thing to think about. It isn't often that one has to make this distinction, but when you have to, I'd make it a Catholic American over an American Catholic. God has to come first, right? Isn't that what He tells us?

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts about this...but this is what I've got for now.

No luck with the Chinese...yet...

From cna.com:

Taipei, April 4 (CNA) The Vatican and China did not engage in any official talks on establishing diplomatic relations during their latest contact, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) official said Tuesday.

According to Wang Yu-yuan, director-general of the MOFA's Department of European Affairs, high-ranking Vatican officials have promised to inform Taiwan if the Holy See starts talks on establishing diplomatic ties with Beijing.

The Vatican -- the only European country to maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan -- has been trying to improve its relations with China and has maintained on-and-off contact with Beijing, Wang noted.

Wang said freedom of religion has been the main problem hampering the establishment of Vatican-China diplomatic relations because the Vatican is concerned about the rights of Catholics in China, which does not recognize the authority of bishops and other officials appointed by the Catholic church.

Wang said that since 1992, the Vatican has mentioned plans to "move its embassy" from Taipei to Beijing and that China has put forth several conditions on the establishment of diplomatic ties with the Vatican, including that it must not interfere with China's internal affairs and must sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

The matter is at a standstill because the Vatican has refused to compromise on some of these conditions, Wang said.

On reports that the pope is planning to visit Asia, Wang said he had not heard of any such plans.

The Liturgy is not a time for self-expression....

says the vatican. Huzzah! I love Cardinal Arinze more and more, let me tell you. There's a bit from totalcatholic.com that I've posted below, but I've always thought this.

The way I see it, the Mass is like a play, right? There's a script, and the players all have their parts. It's like when you go to theater to see Macbeth ...it's the same every time. You know what to expect going in. It's not like on day you're going to go and find out, "hey, in our version, Duncan lives and Lady MacBeth bakes brownies for everyone!" No. The Mass is the same way. You go in, you know what's going to happen.

Regular readers of this space are aware of my ongoing frustration with the visiting priest at our parish who fills in for our pastor from time to time since we only have one priest. And he likes to change all sorts of things, like God isn't "father", he's "God" in th Doxology, and Jesus wants to preserve us from "undue" anxiety....hmmmm. What exactly is "due" anxiety? And if you're still having a problem with calling God "father" then I think you've gotta get on board with that pretty quick. So let's just have Mass the way we're supposed to have it, huh? Thank you.


From totalcatholic.com....
Signs are growing that Pope Benedict XVI intends to bring the liturgy back to a more traditional form after a top Vatican official protested the use of “Do-it-Yourself” services. In a keynote speech delivered at Westminster Cathedral recently, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, also said that individual priests should not add to or subtract from the approved rites, mentioning the practice of playing background music in particular as one practice that should stop. “The Mass is the most solemn action of the sacred liturgy, which is itself the public worship of the Church,” the cardinal said. "'Liturgy', says Pope John Paul II, 'is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church'. “It follows that individuals, whether they be priests or lay faithful, are not free to add or subtract any details in the approved rites of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. A do-it-yourself mentality, an attitude of nobody-will-tell-me-what-to-do, or a defiant sting of if-you-do-not-like-my-Mass-you-can-go-to-another-parish, is not only against sound theology and ecclesiology, but also offends against common sense. Unfortunately, sometimes common sense is not very common, when we see a priest ignoring liturgical rules and installing creativity, in his case personal idiosyncrasy, as the guide to the celebration of Holy Mass. Our faith guides us and our love of Jesus and of his Church safeguards us from taking such unwholesome liberties. Aware that we are only ministers, not masters of the mysteries of Christ.” The cardinal's comments come a week after proposals were announced by a Vatican commission to outlaw the use of drums and electric guitars from church services. The commission outlined 50 proposals on reforming the liturgy, with Vatican insiders saying that the commission also proposed to increase the use of Latin during Mass. But Fr Tom Jordon from the National Conference of Priests, said he was unaware of any deviation from the Rubrics provided by the Roman Missal in the nation's churches but added that since Vatican II in was inevitable that the personality of priests shone through during Mass.

Cleveland's new top dog

More on Cleveland's new bishop:

Bishop Richard Lennon, from Boston, was introduced Tuesday by retiring Bishop Anthony Pilla.

Lennon, 59, was ordained in 1973 in Boston and became an auxiliary bishop in 2001.

He made national headlines when he temporarily took control of the Boston Diocese. That came after Cardinal Bernard Law quit in 2002 amid the priest sex-abuse scandal.
What Should Bishop Accomplish In Cleveland?
Lennon said he will use the same healing and straightforward approach in dealing with all the issues in Cleveland.

He said the global settlement of more than 500 cases involving the church was the only logical and human approach.

"To try and handle each separate case individually would have kept it going for months, if not years. And that was not helpful to the victims, the church, it wasn't helpful to anyone," Lennon said.

Lennon becomes the 10th bishop in the Diocese of Cleveland.

He got the call from the pope two weeks ago and said he never hesitated to say yes.

He takes over for Pilla, who announced his retirement in January.

Cleveland area Catholics say that Pilla's shoes will be tough to fill, but they have high hopes for Lennon's leadership, and think that his experience with the Boston diocese during difficult times is also important.

There's only one problem Clevelanders have with the Boston native: he's a self-admitted die-hard Red Sox fan.

"I will try to be as supportive of the Indians as possible but I must be honest, Red Sox fans, I mean, they're diehards. I mean we waited how many years?," he joked.

Lennon will be installed on May 15 at 3 p.m.

SNAP doesn't like him, which means I do, because I've done some research on them and they didn't like B XVi's election and support (and are supported byh )Voice of the Faithful, which is a lefty group out of Boston. So I wish him good luck in Cleveland and hope he does well.

One year later...

Today, as I'm sure we're all aware, marks the first anniversary of JP The Great's death. I was convinced that the world would never know as great a Pope as he was, and I still share that sentiment, but the election of B XVI and the first year of his papacy have done a lot to soothe the huge hole his death left.

I had lived my entire life under his papacy. All of my cousins (I think, except for one, possibly) were born under this papacy. My parents were married with him as Pope. His reign marked (almost) all of the major events of my life. To lose him was indescribable.

But I have loved B XVI and knew, from the moment he was elected, that he would be a good Pope. Who else could best continue JP II's legacy, and leave one of his own. His first encyclical clearly spells out the Church's teaching on so many things, not just love (as one would guess from the title).

He was a saintly man, a wonderful Pope, and I still miss him. He really was like a father to so many of us. But B XVI is doing a great job and I'm glad that the cardinals elected him. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have him as a Pope.

bookshelf: Catholic Matters by Fr. Richard Neuhaus

This is going to be a quick bookshlef b/c I'm tired (looong week at work) and it's Emily's bedtime. But the masses (re: friend in Germany :)) have been clamoring for something new, so here it is.

Just finished Catholic Matters Fr. Neuhaus' (aka the Corner's unofficial chaplain) new book. It's basically a review of Catholicism post Vatican II and an evaluation of certain Church positions, politics, his conversion story from Lutheranism to Catholicism and then to the priesthood, some of the theological arguments between Catholicism and 'old line' Protestantism...things like that. It also includes his "Rome diary" from last year's conclave and other events during the Death of JP II and election of B XVI. So that's very interesting.

Fr. Neuhaus writes in a clear, engaging style as he covers all these various and sundry poitns, and each chapter could very well stand on its own as a short essay. very engaging and though-provoking, he looks at the Church today and sees promise, not just the endless defeatism so many others have expressed. As he calls JP II "John Paul The Great" throughout the book, you can guess why I like him. But it's a well-written, engaging, and intelligent work about what it means to be a "Catholic American." Be sure to get your hands on a copy--makes good 'end of Lent' reading.

I'm also working on St. Therese's Story of a Soul . I bought the "study copy", which includes all three manuscripts (the one she wrote to her sister, Pauline (Mother Agnes), which is more of a true autobiography; the second, to her sister Marie, also a Carmelite, focusing on her "Little Way", and the third to Mother Mary Gonzaga, which is more theological reflection). Very good, very emotional (lots of italics--reminds me a lot of the writings of Queen Victoria) and a fantastic window into the mind of this very popular saint. As she was my Confirmation saint, I thought it was very odd that I hadn't read more about her other than the two books I had. So I've started (almost finished) this one, and then I'm reading Fr. Bro's St. Therese , from my favorite, Ignatius Press, which looks really interesting. Anne Catherine Emmerich's book is also almost completed.

All right, that's it for now. More coming when I've caught up on my sleep...promise!

torn over immigration

I gotta tell you, I'm torn on the illegal immigration argument that's going on in the States. One part of me says, "hey, my relatives got here the legal way, and our family was split up for awhile, but we got through it and nobody broke any laws" (except maybe the mafia relations, but that's another story). But then I see websites like "Justice for Immigrants", which is, apparently, the "official" bishops' website for immigration policy. And I read it and I think, OK, so I know we're supposed to love our neighbor and welcome the stranger and all that, but why have laws otherwise? Is it a sin to tell people they've got to come here legally? That they can just wander across the border and expect us to throw them a parade?

I don't know. Any thoughts?

You can never have too many bears....

I probably shouldn't be surprised that the Sierra Club is nutty (since i am a Republican) but as Catholic, I find some of their statements just morally horrible. Besides their support of the Cairo Conference's intiatives in the 1990s, which John Paul the Great and the Church vehemently opposed, these statements from their website make my blood run cold:

Under Population :

"Families should not have more than 2 natural children and adoption should be encouraged";

"...that state and federal laws should be changed to encourage small families and to discourage large families";

"that laws, policies and attitudes that foster population growth or big families, or that restrict abortion and contraception, or that attempt to contrict the roles of men and women, should be abandoned."

HOWEVER, later in the website...

"our work is not about controlling women's lives."

Huh? Well according to the Gospel of the Sierra Club, my family is really screwed. There are three of us.. my dad has two sisters...my mother is one of eight, and has a brother with seven kids (that must really get the Sierra Club going) and two of her sisters have three children (the others are OK, because they only have two, you know). My married cousins are a mixed bag; one has apparently reached her child limit, since she's got a stepdaughter and a toddler, and the other has three kids, so that's just unacceptable So who are we supposed to get rid of here? Because kids are horrible! (BTW, do these statements remind anyone else of the witches in the Dahl book The Witches ?)

This is, quite simply, the kind of stuff you just can't make up.

Catholic Charities in Boston

I'm sure we've all heard about the debacle in Boston where Catholic Charities has decided to stop its adoption service since the state requires them to consider placing children with "same-sex couples" as well, which as we know is against Church teaching, since, um, we don't believe there are "same-sex couples" and if they are, then they're not living in a way the Church feels children should be raised.

No one forces anyone to go to Catholic Charities for adoption. If you are a same-sex couple and you want to adopt, then just don't go there. this is really easy. But because of the crazy world we live in, Catholic Charities has decided to pull out of the whole thing b/c they don't want to get slapped with a lawsuit, which the Church in Boston, as we know, does not need . So the institution that placede some of the hardest-to-place kids in the Boston area isn't around to do that anymore. How close to the line of Church and State can we come without the State dictating to the Church what it can and cannot do, even when it goes against the Church's convictions? It's like telling Catholic hospitals they must give out birth control, even when the Church is strongly against the practice.

Not a good precedent, kids. Not a good precedent.

real internet:)

OK so I have real internet now and don't have to use Panera's anymore, which was good for surfing but not so much for posting. :) So let's get a few things going on....

From yesterday's Dayton Daily News , a letter to the editor about something we've covered a million times, but should probably do again because apparently no everyone got the message.

This letter writer thinks that if we let women and married men into the priesthood, we would not have any more problems with sexual abuse in the church and everything would just fan-tastic.

(Banging my head against the wall)

OK, let's review: first of all, someone show me a denomination that hasn't had a minister abuse a child. You can't do it. Child abuse, as abhorrent as it is, happens across all religious lines, all marital lines, all gender lines. It can happen anywhere and the perpetrator can be anyone. you're telling me that women and married men have never abused a child? Not to be really rude, but have you been living under a rock? You can't tell me that if we added married men and women the problem would magically vanish.

As for married men--that is a choice made by the Western Church. Men in the Eastern churches are allowed to get married. If, however, the U.S. decided to lift the ban on celibacy, that doesn't mean that all priests would get married. They would have to choose if they wanted to get married while in seminary, and if they chose to get married, they would not be eligible for positions in the hierarchy (meaning that those who were bishops, cardinals, and, bien sur , the Pope, would remain celibate). Read Catholicism for Dummies for more on this--a great book. But with priests still been killed and tortured and found "missing" in many parts of the world, celibate priests are a good thing to hold onto, since they don't have to worry about their wives or children been taken hostage with them, or worry about their families welfare if they are killed. It's dangerous to be a priest in many, many parts of the world today.

And women? Never gonna happen. Stop wishing for it. Jesus did not pick any female Apostles. He could have but He didn't. If women wish to serve God in a consecrated way, become a nun. Besides which, the sacramental character of the church forbids women to be priests. The priest stands in persona Christie (a fancy way of saying 'in the place of Christ' or 'in the person of Christ') in the Mass. A woman can't do that. it's not a question of qualification or worthiness or whatever. It's just the way it is. And if you really wanted to be a priest, which requires obedience to the Church, then you're not being obedient right here, are you?

But enough on this...let's just hope that some people get this stuff...eventually...

going AWOL...at least for a bit

I am beginning the process of moving (YAY!!) tomorrow, and I will not have internet for who knows how long once I'm in...hopefully we can get the software up and running ASAP. Back to dial-up....sigh. Oh well. It's something. And there's wi-fi at the Panera nearby, so we're all good. Be sure to peruse the site and read some new stuff, like my Passion review and the Dems' new game plan for the 2006 midterms...we're going to be Catholic now!!

Also be sure to read NR's the Corner (www.nationalreview.com) for good stuff every day...always new and very, very amusing.

Hopefully I'll be able to blog intermittently until Saturday when I move the computer over there...we'll see.

Passion review

Hah! I found it! Here it is... note: this is totally unedited and unrevised...I didn't even read it before I posted it here, so it is my comments unvarnished from the first time I saw it.


February 26, 2004

OK, I am just going to write whatever comes to mind…but here are some of the impressions I have, fresh out of seeing this incredible work by Mr. Gibson and crew:

1) The violence is not, as you may have been led to believe, in surmountable and over-the-top. The violence is there, to be sure, but it doesn’t really hit you until you see it through the eyes of Mary, or John, or the apostles. The violence serves to show us how much He loved us. The scourging is not twenty minutes of constant pain…there are flashbacks to happier times, and the focus switches from Jesus to Mary, and back again. Whenever the pain seems to be too much, Gibson gives us a flashback to better times. There is even humor in the movie…though very little. (Jesus is building a table, and Mary says it’s too high. Jesus says that there’ll be tall chairs to go with it. To this, Mary says “it’ll never catch on.” The other “funny” part is when Barabas is released to the crowd, and you see that he’s a few marbles short of a bag. That’s kind of funny…but not really.)
2) The message is superb. It should be required viewing for the entire human race. It is just superb. Jesus’ love overflows every scene, and the message of love and forgiveness permeates the entire film. You cannot leave this film without being staggered by the sheer weight and enormity of God’s love for us, His children. It is overwhelming. You want to run to a church and thank God for sending His Son to us. You are overcome with gratitude.
3) It brings the entire Passion and Jesus’ message to life. You see everything in vivid detail—not gory detail, but vivid detail. You really understand the sacrifice of Jesus. I have never seen the Stations of the Cross as vividly as I did tonight. You feel like you are there, with Jesus and His Mother, watching everything unfold. It is a tremendous feeling.
4) You want to be a better person after watching this film. You want to pray, and live better, and be better, just to thank God for doing this for us. It is an amazing thing. I left the theater feeling lightheaded and like I was going to faint. The weight of God’s goodness and glory is overwhelming.
5) As for the finer points of cinema, it is a wonderfully done movie in its own right. The music is so powerful and fits perfectly, a mixture of orchestral strings and a full adult chorus, with strong voices that heighten the emotion to an unimaginable pitch. The acting is stupendous. Maia Morgenstern as Mary is masterful in every scene, but especially when she runs to Jesus as He falls under the weight of the cross and says, “I’m here.” She is the perfect Mother of God. James Caviezel, as Jesus, is nothing short of amazing. He is just beyond words. He is the perfect Jesus. While you’re watching it, you’re thinking, that’s Him. The actors who play Pilate, his wife, Claudia, Mary Magadelene, and the apostles are also so tuned-in to their roles that you hardly notice they are acting. The scene between John, Mary, Mary Magadalene, and Claudia during Jesus’ flogging is so well-balanced and so highly charged with energy that it will make you weep. Wonderful acting, just wonderful. The scenery is beautiful, the costumes are accurate, the characterizations and screenplay are beyond wonderful. All of this, as well as Gibson’s magnificent directing, make this a truly wonderful film that is well worth the viewing and moments of discomfort, just for the true beauty and luminous qualities of the film.
6) No one can come out of this movie hating anyone. The idea of anti-semitism is ridiculous. If anything, this movie makes you want to stand up and say, “I love every single person in this theater as my brother or sister in Christ, and I will pray for all of you every day for the rest of my life.” This movie makes you realize how much Christ loved us, that he was willing to undergo that horrible death that you just watched for us. To save us—all of us.
7) As a Catholic, I watched this movie somewhat differently. I noticed that each of the stations of the Cross was done in loving detail, bringing them gloriously to life. I saw saints and a Pope of the church brought to life, including Veronica and Simon of Cyrene. The movie, I think, presents Catholic Marian doctrine in clearly enunciated terms: this is what true holiness is. Mary always leads us to her Son, and the movie shows how she does, indeed, bring all believers to His feet. All of the apostles in the film call her “Mother”, as we all should do. She is the mother of all believers. The movie is also intensely biblical, even beginning with one of my favorite Bible quotes, from Isiah 53, the text that is read on Good Friday.
8) Watching the film makes you see the real humanity of Jesus and His mother. You see Jesus as a man who has gone through everything a human can go through: abandonment, pain, betrayal, anguish, total desolation, even close to despair in the garden. He is tempted by Satan, who is always present. He wants to get out, but He knows that God’s will is the greater goal. He is the perfect model for us. Mary is seen as a woman who has lost her husband, who watches her innocent son be beaten, tortured, reviled, and eventually killed, all for the sake of others. Her pain is tangible and so painful. She has endured everything a person can endure…they both have. The film brings out their humanity and their pain so beautifully. This is what makes you weep. Mary is a mother, first and last. Jesus is her son, and she watches Him die so that others may live. The scenes between Mary and Jesus, especially while Jesus is carrying the cross, and He says, ‘see, I make all things new,” is especially wrenching...it was here that I really cried, tears running down my face. You can’t help but cry. It is such a powerful moment.
9) The languages and subtitles add to the reality, and you actually learn something…I learned that the word “gubernatorial” (as in, the election of a governor) is actually derived from Latin, which I didn’t know before. Who says Latin is a dead language?

Overall, this is a tremendous film. The violence is not as bad as you imagine. It can’t be. Everyone has it so built up in their heads that it can’t possibly be as bad as you imagine. Run and see it. You will feel so overwhelmed with the love of God, and His mercy and justice, and you will love everyone you meet. The movie is intensely powerful. What a wonderful tool for conversion. This, my friends, is what Christianity is all about.

Go watch it. Seep in its message. I hope that it makes you a better person, and I hope, if you are not religious, that it makes you be so. It is a profound message it is sending…a message of forgiveness, love, and mercy. It is a film of hope…the movie ends with the Resurrection, Jesus sitting, alive, clean, free of blood, in the tomb, and then He rises and you see the nail mark that goes through his hand, and the film ends. It ends with hope and redemption. That alone is a thrilling moment. This is a film about love and mercy. May its message reach you, and I hope that you find its message as comforting and profound as I did.

(I went on to see it three more times in the theater, since most of my friends were wimps and wouldn't see it alone. :) It is much, much better if you can watch this movie in a nice, quiet, dark room as to totally absorb the atmosphere)

Lenten Books

For Lent, I'm deviating a bit from the usual, and I'm reading

-- The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerick. Fans of The Passion (of which I am a loud and enthusiastic one) will recognize this book as a major source for that film. Barnes and Noble published its own edition (that's the one I'm reading) so it's much easier to find now.

--still Letter and Spirit ...it's coming...

--some more of B XVI, including his way of the Cross reflections from last Good Friday.

Also, you must watch The Passion preferrably several times. It is, simply, one of the best films ever and demands being watched, especially during Lent. I've waxed poetic about this before, and if I can find my original review I'll be sure to post it here. But it is fantastic. Watch it. Learn from it. Don't be afraid of the violence because it's really not that bad, and we all know that Crucifixion was not a garden party. James Caviezel is incredible. Go buy it so that you can always have it on hand whenever you're having a bad day and need to be reminded that Christ went through a heck of a lot for all of us.

Update: The Bishops speak!

And they speak clearly!

Readers of the below post will have read about 55 House Dems trying to assert their Catholicity while at the same time being pro-choice and holding on to their right to disagree on certain issues, namely abortion, with the church. But the Bishops have said, 'nuh-uh.'

Cardinals Keeler of Baltimore, McCarrick of D.C., and DiMarzio of Brooklyn have said that there is no wiggle room and that they are "duty-bound to work against 'the destruction of unborn human life.'" They added that they will work with them on other issues affecting the "poor and vulnerable" but that abortion is "gravely immoral" and they're not movin'.

Woohoo! Thumbs-up for the bishops. About time. :)

(material from the Washington Post 3/11 edition is used above)

"We're Catholics! Really!"

Once again, the Democratic Catholics ( cringe ) in Congress have decided that, since it's an Election Year (it's always an election year, anymore), it's the right to to re-establish their Catholic credentials. 55 House Democrats issued the "Statement of Principles", which, in part, talks about their pride in being "part of the living Catholic tradition--a tradition that promotes the common good." Hmmm. While this might have flown in the days of Cardinal Bernadin, who tried to elevate matters such as economics, war and poverty to the same moral level as euthanasia and abortion (which isn't done), it's a tougher job now. Not as hard as it should be, but harder.

The document talks about "work [ing] everyday to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has a moral purpose." Of course they're not talking about saving babies fromt he abortionist's forceps, or stopping Oregon's assisted suicide law; they're talking about more touchy feely stuff, like "helping the poor and disadvantaged...and making sure that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country." OK, yes, that's part of Catholicism, nay, all Christianity, too. But it's not the big fish.

On the big fish? They write that they do not "celebrate the practice of abortion". Instead, they envisions a world where "every child belongs to a loving family." Well that's great. We'd all like that. So let's just kill them before they're born if a "loving family" isn't going to happen? And how do you know that, anyway? So while saying that they dont' "celebrate" the practice, they "acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas." So they're going to talk to American Catholics about them being good Catholics while acknowledging that they're not good Catholics? In speaking about the "primacy of the conscience", it makes me think that someone along the line failed to instruct them on how conscience is formed. The Church doesn't hand out "suggestions". It tells you what is right and what is wrong. failure to follow the Church on what constituents "grave sin" doesn't make you a cool forward thinker. It makes you wrong. Abortion is a "grave sin". Economic injustice is not. While it is not condoned, at all, economic injustice, such as a minimum wage that you may feel is too low, is not the same as killing a baby. It's not the same as condoning euthanasia. Unless you're willing to adopt the essential tenets of Catholicism, you're not Catholic. You're just someone who shares a lot of Catholic beliefs but not the big ones. It would be like being Jewish and saying, "well I keep kosher and I go synangogue, but you know I think the 'Jesus is the Messiah' idea might have some merit."

For Fun: The Pope's iPod

Even B XVI has an iPod now....

The gift – a 2GB model – was given to recognise the pontiff's first visit to the radio station's headquarters. It was the station's 75th anniversary.

"We don't have a huge gift to give to the Pope, but we do have small signs of our work to give him", Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican Radio's general director, told the Catholic News Service.

On receiving the iPod, the Pope reportedly remarked: "Computer technology is the future."

As well as a number of Vatican Radio shows, the iPod contains music by Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky.

Awesome...so if I download that playlist, does that get me some graces? I love Beethoven but Stranvinsky seems a bit post-modern for this pope...maybe I'm reading too much into it.

So you disagree with the boss, eh? Maybe we should find another profession....

The Buffalo News has this interesting piece....whatever happened to priestly obedience?

In a rare public dissent, 19 Catholic priests have denounced the Vatican's opposition to gay marriage and allowing homosexuals into the priesthood.
The clerics signed an open letter that ran last Sunday in Montreal's La Presse newspaper.

The priests said the church was invoking "natural law" to make its case against homosexuality, arguing that slavery was also once considered "natural."

"What we are saying is that human nature is constantly evolving," Claude Lemieux, one of the signatories, told the Associated Press by phone Tuesday. "We believe this position is closer to that which is shared by our parishioners."

The letter questions whether the church has "the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life."

"In these matters," the letter says, "the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong."

The letter was in response to the position against gay marriage by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Recent guidelines of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education also restated opposition to the ordination of priests with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies." But the Vatican said there would be no crackdown on gays who are already ordained.

Canada last year legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, a move many clerics of all religions opposed.

There are roughly 13 million Catholics in Canada, about 43 percent of the population, and nearly half live in the French-speaking province of Quebec. In 2004, Quebec legalized gay marriage.

I mean, if you can't get the clergy to oppose something that is clearly against everything they claim to profess and believe....who can you look to?

So B XVI might let women do more, eh? Believe it when I see it...

From the 3/3 USA Today ...liberal daydreaming? I'm wont to think so....

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday he will consider increasing women's "institutional" role in the church but reiterated that they would remain barred from the priesthood, Italian news agencies reported.
The pontiff made the comments in response to a question by a clergyman during an audience with Rome's parish priests, the Apcom and ANSA agencies said.

Benedict said he would begin reflecting on the possibility of giving "institutional" recognition to women after noting that women's "charisma" had always played an important role in the church, the agencies said.

He mentioned Mother Teresa and Saint Catherine of Siena, among others, and did not say what type of institutional roles he had in mind.

Mother Teresa started her international order in the Indian city of Calcutta in 1950 and became a global icon of humanitarian causes before her death in 1997. Saint Catherine, who lived in the 14th century, cared for the sick and was consulted by the Vatican about the affairs of the Church.

Benedict's predecessor, Pope John Paul II, unequivocally backed a male-only priesthood, arguing that Jesus chose men as his apostles.

In one of his few concessions, the late pontiff formally permitted women to serve at the altar, approving a practice that was already widespread in the United States and western Europe.

Popcorn time: Walk the Line

Just saw the movie Walk the Line on DVD, and I've got to tell you, probably the second best movie I've seen this year ( Cinderella Man and Narnia: LWW are tied for first). But it's a really close second. Simply a great film, with great acting and the music is awesome. Joaquin Phoenix (as Johnny Cash) and Reese Witherspoon ( as June Carter) perfectly fit their roles and make them three-dimensional characters that you spend the whole movie rooting for as they exchange snappy dialogue, great songs, and memorable screen moments. A few of my favorites: June in the water with Johnny after he tries unsuccessfully to free a tractor; Johnny's proposal to June on the tour bus; and June's pivotal role in helping Johnny overcome his addiction to pills. While both of them sing and act admirable, I've got to say that I enjoyed Witherspoon's performance on a deeper level--she had so many aspects of personality to probe and a variety of different facets of her acting personality to use, from June's comedy routines in the beginning of the film to the determination and affection she shows John as she sticks by him through his recovery.

I wasn't a Cash fan before this film, so I didn't know any of the music, but I loved the songs they chose for the film, and the singing was great. I was also impressed that Phoenix and Witherspoon both learned their characters' instruments (the guitar and autoharp, respectively) well enough to play them in the film. The script is poignant, witty, funny, and always moving, and there is a strong sense of direction and story guiding this film, which makes the story flow well without feeling rushed or chopped up or directionless, like so many biopics (see last year's The Aviator for a prime example of directionless). It is an absolute crock that this film wasn't nominated for best picture, because it is truly the best (or second best) American film made this year. Lat time I checked, I thought that was important criteria for best picture nominees. But I guess this year the Academy overlooked all the films that made audiences feel good about themselves and society and chose the films that do the opposite. Oh well. I'm pretty confident Witherspoon will win for her role in Walk the Line and it will be very well-deserved.

the Snickerdoodle cake recipe

OK, again, this is not a specifically Catholic post, but what the heck. I've made this cake for Christmas parties and birthday parties and people are always asking for the recipe so I though I'd post it here for any and all to print and try at their leisure. I can't take credit for it...it's from Anne Byrn's book The Cake Doctor , which you can find at any bookstore and is definitely worth getting. Enjoy the recipe!

One note: this is an easy cake to make but you need at least an hour and twenty minutes because the cake has to cool for 40, and then the icing has to set somewhere cold for 20. It only cooks for about 25 minutes. So set aside ample time ( a lesson I still have to learn when making this!). And you've got to make the frosting--it's easy and adds so much to the cake's flavor.

SNICKERDOODLE CAKE

--solid vegetable shortening (crisco) for pan (you can also use an unflavored non-stick spray, but the flour will be harder to set)
--Flour for dusting the pans
--1 package (18.5) plain white cake mix (NO PUDDING ADDED MIXES--your cake will be way too wet)
--1 c. whole milk
--8. tablespoons (1 stick) butter, melted
--3 large eggs
-1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
--2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
--Cinnamon buttercream frosting (recipe follows)

1. Place rack in the center of the oven and preheat to 350 degrees. Generously grease 2 9" round cake pans with solid vegetable shortening and dust with flour. Shake out excess flour and put pans aside.

2. Place the cake mix, milk, melted butter, eggs, vanilla and cinnamon into a large mixing bowl. Blend with an electric mixer on low speed for 1 minute. Stop the mixer and scrape down the sides with a rubber spatula. Increase the mixer speed to medium and beat for 2 more minutes, scraping down the sides again if needed. The batter should look well combined. Divide the batter between the prepared pans, smoothing it out with a rubber spatula. Place the pans in the over side by side.

3. Bake the cakes until they are golden brown and spring back when lightly pressed with your finger, 27-29 minutes. Remove from pans and place them on wire racks to cool for 10 minutes. Then run a dinner knife around the edge of each layer and invert each onto a rack, then invert again onto another rack so that the cakes are right side up. (You can also use a plate for this if you only have one cooling rack). Allow them to cool completely, 30 minutes.

4. Make the buttercream frosting. (I've found the frosting spreads much better if you make it 5-10 minutes before the cakes are done cooling so it doesn't have time to harder)

5. Place one cake layer, right side up, on a serving platter. Spread the top with frosting. Place the second layer, right side up, ontop of the first and frost the top and sides of the cake with clean, smooth strokes.

6. Place the cake, uncovered, in the fridge (or cold garage!) until the frosting sets, 20 minutes. Cover with waxed paper and store in fridge for up to 1 week. Can be frozen for up to 6 months, but thaw overnight in the fridge before serving.

CINNAMON BUTTERCREAM FROSTING

Makes 3 1/2 cups, enough for a 2 or 3 layer cake. 5 mins. . prep

8 tablespoons (1 stick) butter, at room temperature
3 3/4 confectioners' sugar, sifted
3 tablespoons milk (you can add another tablespoon if the frosting is too thick)
1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
1 teaspoon cinnamon

1. Place the butter in a large mixing bowl. Blend with an electric mixer on low speed until fluffy (30 seconds). Stop the machine and add confectioners' sugar, 3 tablespoons milk, vanilla, and cinnamon. Blend on low speed until the sugar is incorporated (about 1 minute). Increase speed to medium and beat until light and fluffy (1 minute). Blend in up to one tablespoon milk if the frosting seems too stiff.

2. Use to frost the top and sides of a cake of your choice.

for plain buttercream frosting, omit the cinnamon and add another teaspoon vanilla

Lent begins...so what are we all giving up?

Went to Ash Wednesday Mass yesterday, partially because I always do, and partially because I had to sing. :) I managed to get 95% through my first day of fasting (I didn't have to before my surgery b/c I had to sort of eat all the time in order to keep on weight) but I fudged it after Mass and had some chocolate. :) hey, what do you want? It was my first time really doing it. And I didn't have any meat or eat beetween meals.

The Mas was nice--my favorite part was the homily, when our pastor said, "Today is not a holiday. Sunday was a holiday. Yet there are more people here tonight then there will be on Sunday all month." Ahh, truth from the pulpit. :)

I haven't really decided what to give up for Lent yet...I'm moving so it's not like I can totally give up buying things, which is sort of what I was thinking about. But I thinking I'm going to try to start wokring on being more "fiscally responsible"--I still haven't quite figured out what exactly that means but I'm working on it. :) I've got 40 days. I've also started more bible reading, so that should count for something.

Bleg: are all Fridays of Lent fast and abstinence, or just no meat? I can't find it in my books, which is shocking. Any clarification would be awesome.

Crying at work...

Is never a good thing, especially if you're in a crowded room with a bunch of people able to see you.:) But today the level of frustration at work hit a new high.

We had a bill today that would ban "wrongful life" suits in our state while still protecting negligence suits. Basically the bill protects doctors form being sued if a woman gives birth to a baby that has genetic defects or whatever, and if she'd known that a head of time she may have had an abortion.

You can guess what I think of this law. The fact that I am in the category of what some would consider "wrongful life" also makes this a rather touchy topic for me. So I sat there while the opposition said all sorts of things, like that a woman's right to choose was being infringed upon, and that there should be time to "prepare" for this event, and all that good stuff. I was ready to hit the roof. "Prepare?" What does that mean? Huh? Then there was talk about this being a personal decision, whatever that means. Um, hello. Personal in what way? That you're getting to decide who lives and who dies? It reminds me of the passage in A Christmas Carol where Scrooge receives a severe scolding from one of the spirits (and I'm paraphrasing here), and says, 'who are you to decide who shall live and who shall die?...oh that the ant on the branch who passes judgment on his brothers in the dust!' (I think we all need a good dose of Dickens...) What kind of society are we creating when parents can kill their children on a whim, when they can sue for someone being born whom they don't think has a right to be here? It's just insane to think about. Crazy. Nutty. Off the wall.