I encountered another Catholic who was put out by my use of NFP. I am not sure what it is about me, or maybe, NFP that offends. I am used to the "It doesn't work" comments, so I am always ready to explain that not only is my chart extremely weird and hard for many people to interpret, but that it does work, and it works well. And further, that it was the charting of fertility that led to more physical healing for me, which in turn made my chart easier to interpret. This was a woman who absolutely could not have any more children for a lot reasons, (most of them very good reasons, actually.)
She said they, "tried" NFP but had no idea what it was they "tried." I was gently querying and even clearly stated that I always ask to find out what information is out there and to find ways to better help others in the future. But she truly believed that she fell in the very special category that made her decision the right one. I wasn't about to argue with her. She was hurt and not open to the Truth. She is past child-bearing years and the deed was done. It was too late to tell her that her horrible PPD could have been helped by charting. It was of no use to tell her that her husband is still open to a whole host of health problems because of his vasectomy. And it was certainly not going to change her heart to push the issue when I barely knew her. I had to wait for a better time.
I can only hope to plant seeds for the future. I know that God will continue to give me the opportunities. Those conversations must always be rooted in love and compassion, and most importantly, with a firm grasp of Truth.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Boy or Girl? Mommy Knows.
What have we forgotten? A friend posted a link about a pregnancy test that also determines sex. (Of course, the ad itself used the misnomer, "gender," to explain the product. To be grammatically correct: "People are sexed, nouns are gendered.") There are always worries that products like that will be used for evil. My friend posted deep concern and prayers for the babies who would be aborted for being the wrong sex. I fear for that too, but I have hopes that it was just about wanting to know which colors to knit the booties.
But it also got me to thinking about how much we have forgotten and overlooked in our secular quest for true scientific knowledge. We have forgotten that the science is built right into our bodies. It is not wrong to want to know the sex of our babies. Our own bodies give us the clues. If your body tells you, there is nothing immoral in it. Science and reason have never been at odds. Science and reason are a built in tool which we already possess. While I am glad that science has mapped the human DNA code necessary to discover the baby's sex at such early gestation, it is a bit redundant. Our body will give us signs, very accurate signs, for free.
When I was first learning to chart fertility, I only noticed the big signs. But once I was tuned in, the subtle ones proved far more fascinating. Having carried both a boy and a girl, I had the privilege of experiencing those signs independently, and very intensely. I have interviewed many women about them and have discovered what appear to be inconsistencies, but they are not. They are nuanced markers that could be measured if we gave ourselves the chance.
Simply put, carrying a boy affects the breasts, carrying a girl affects the mucous. Many of the ladies I interviewed thought this was incorrect. They noted that they got larger breasts when pregnant with girls, or they had cervical mucous when pregnant with boys. These signs, or markers, would be the opposite of the built in "sex determiner" if that was all there was. But (and there is always a but,) they were not aware of how they were affected. "Larger breasts" is not descriptive enough, neither is "just" cervical mucous. These are the signs we are finally noticing again, but we have spent so many years with an artificial idea of fertility that we don't know what is right in front of us.
So what have we forgotten about pregnancy through the generations? What is the science written on our bodies that secular science will one day prove for us? That science, is that the body will tell us who we are carrying. When carrying a boy the breast tissue of the mother grows more dense. Our production of testosterone goes up as we carry boys. Higher testosterone creates denser breast tissue. (Just look at any athletes who have taken steroids. Then look at them after they are off of them.) In some women the breasts grow larger as they grow more dense. In women carrying girls they might get larger breasts, but that has to do with fluid, not density. Mothers carrying girls are producing higher amounts of estrogen. Estrogen makes fluid. Swollen breasts might happen, but more importantly she will produce mucous, and more mucous... and more mucous. Some women when carrying boys noted that they had cervical mucous too, but when asked one question, it cleared things up. Tacky mucous or fluid mucous? Ah-ha! (The amount of time I spent blowing my nose while pregnant with my daughter was almost laughable. Since mucous is mucous, I was stuck with it. We knew she was a girl!) Estrogen makes very fluid mucous. It is the strongest indicator.
Our bodies know what we are carrying. It is part of the process of development that the mother's body produce the right hormones to help with development. Someday, secular science will prove that the mother does matter. Science will someday find out that having the artificial hormones from the Pill in our bodies are not good for the development of our later children. Science will also find out that conception that takes place outside of the body misses a key time in development. From that moment of conception the mother knows she's pregnant. Her body begins to change immediately. We have just forgotten through the generations how to notice.
I am so thankful that I knew about charting when my kids were conceived. It was exciting knowing that those tiny people were there from the very first moment. It was an honor to know so much about them before I met them face to face. They gave me hints to their personalities very early in. I knew my son was a giving person and my daughter had an iron will, long before I saw it in their eyes. It was an amazing gift. I am glad I watched their signs.
But it also got me to thinking about how much we have forgotten and overlooked in our secular quest for true scientific knowledge. We have forgotten that the science is built right into our bodies. It is not wrong to want to know the sex of our babies. Our own bodies give us the clues. If your body tells you, there is nothing immoral in it. Science and reason have never been at odds. Science and reason are a built in tool which we already possess. While I am glad that science has mapped the human DNA code necessary to discover the baby's sex at such early gestation, it is a bit redundant. Our body will give us signs, very accurate signs, for free.
When I was first learning to chart fertility, I only noticed the big signs. But once I was tuned in, the subtle ones proved far more fascinating. Having carried both a boy and a girl, I had the privilege of experiencing those signs independently, and very intensely. I have interviewed many women about them and have discovered what appear to be inconsistencies, but they are not. They are nuanced markers that could be measured if we gave ourselves the chance.
Simply put, carrying a boy affects the breasts, carrying a girl affects the mucous. Many of the ladies I interviewed thought this was incorrect. They noted that they got larger breasts when pregnant with girls, or they had cervical mucous when pregnant with boys. These signs, or markers, would be the opposite of the built in "sex determiner" if that was all there was. But (and there is always a but,) they were not aware of how they were affected. "Larger breasts" is not descriptive enough, neither is "just" cervical mucous. These are the signs we are finally noticing again, but we have spent so many years with an artificial idea of fertility that we don't know what is right in front of us.
So what have we forgotten about pregnancy through the generations? What is the science written on our bodies that secular science will one day prove for us? That science, is that the body will tell us who we are carrying. When carrying a boy the breast tissue of the mother grows more dense. Our production of testosterone goes up as we carry boys. Higher testosterone creates denser breast tissue. (Just look at any athletes who have taken steroids. Then look at them after they are off of them.) In some women the breasts grow larger as they grow more dense. In women carrying girls they might get larger breasts, but that has to do with fluid, not density. Mothers carrying girls are producing higher amounts of estrogen. Estrogen makes fluid. Swollen breasts might happen, but more importantly she will produce mucous, and more mucous... and more mucous. Some women when carrying boys noted that they had cervical mucous too, but when asked one question, it cleared things up. Tacky mucous or fluid mucous? Ah-ha! (The amount of time I spent blowing my nose while pregnant with my daughter was almost laughable. Since mucous is mucous, I was stuck with it. We knew she was a girl!) Estrogen makes very fluid mucous. It is the strongest indicator.
Our bodies know what we are carrying. It is part of the process of development that the mother's body produce the right hormones to help with development. Someday, secular science will prove that the mother does matter. Science will someday find out that having the artificial hormones from the Pill in our bodies are not good for the development of our later children. Science will also find out that conception that takes place outside of the body misses a key time in development. From that moment of conception the mother knows she's pregnant. Her body begins to change immediately. We have just forgotten through the generations how to notice.
I am so thankful that I knew about charting when my kids were conceived. It was exciting knowing that those tiny people were there from the very first moment. It was an honor to know so much about them before I met them face to face. They gave me hints to their personalities very early in. I knew my son was a giving person and my daughter had an iron will, long before I saw it in their eyes. It was an amazing gift. I am glad I watched their signs.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Food and Sex
I am reading an excellent paper on marriage. It gave me another word I have been lacking in my writings about contraception. (And we know how much I love words!!) That word is "organic." Currently, the word has become a buzzword for healthy living. I tend to agree with the concept even though I often disagree with the application, or more accurately, the politics of the people who apply it. but politics aside, I agree that organic is superior to inorganic.
So that brings me to the reason for this post. The paper was addressing the marriage act as an organic act. It was saying, in part, that the act of coitus is the core of reproduction. Whether or not it results in conception is not relevant to the organic act. The act stays an organic act either way. When organic is defined in this context it is more accurate. It is defined by the core and not by the results, in much the same way as an organic food could be contaminated after the fact.
Natural coitus is an organic act. Contraception and IVF are inorganic acts. The word "spermicide" alone is just one example. Inorganic interruption of the female reproductive cycle makes the act itself inorganic because it changes the core. Menopause is an organic interruption of the female cycle so the act is still an organic act. Organic, by definition, is referring to the natural environment and natural design.
Organic is superior. It also requires a deeper commitment. The contraceptive argument would be, "Just because inorganic food is less ideal you wouldn't stop eating." I agree. But my counter to that argument is that some inorganic items actually cease to be food. At that point, I would stop eating. Worse yet, if those things were actually poison to the body and to the marriage, I would probably devote a fair amount of my time to education and information. (of course!) The sexual, contraceptive act has ceased to be a marital act because it is so far removed from the organic. A cohabitation filled with sexual acts that are not marital acts, does not define marriage. It seeks to redefine marriage away from the organic.
So that brings me to the reason for this post. The paper was addressing the marriage act as an organic act. It was saying, in part, that the act of coitus is the core of reproduction. Whether or not it results in conception is not relevant to the organic act. The act stays an organic act either way. When organic is defined in this context it is more accurate. It is defined by the core and not by the results, in much the same way as an organic food could be contaminated after the fact.
Natural coitus is an organic act. Contraception and IVF are inorganic acts. The word "spermicide" alone is just one example. Inorganic interruption of the female reproductive cycle makes the act itself inorganic because it changes the core. Menopause is an organic interruption of the female cycle so the act is still an organic act. Organic, by definition, is referring to the natural environment and natural design.
Organic is superior. It also requires a deeper commitment. The contraceptive argument would be, "Just because inorganic food is less ideal you wouldn't stop eating." I agree. But my counter to that argument is that some inorganic items actually cease to be food. At that point, I would stop eating. Worse yet, if those things were actually poison to the body and to the marriage, I would probably devote a fair amount of my time to education and information. (of course!) The sexual, contraceptive act has ceased to be a marital act because it is so far removed from the organic. A cohabitation filled with sexual acts that are not marital acts, does not define marriage. It seeks to redefine marriage away from the organic.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Body of Contraception
In an online discussion with someone about contraception I have been reading back through my many, many, many, many sources. (Did I say many enough times?) I was led back to one of the talks on ecumenism. This weird word is about reunification, specifically about unifying Christians. The talk is here if you would like to listen. Dr. Kreeft is a professor and convert to the Catholic Church. His work is heavy in academics, but he still has a very personal, humorous style.
The point that really stood out to me this time listening through was the reality of the Church as the body of Christ. This was one of Dr. Kreeft's points for how other Christians can be reunited with the Catholic Church. Not to see the Church as an obstacle, but as the actual body of Christ. Christ is the Head and the Church is His body. This is not new information to me. But this time, I really listened and heard the word about the body. Since I was going back to it because of contraception, I was really tuned to that word. The Body.
The writings on the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II weren't intended as the be all, end all. His intention was a study of a theology; a theology of the body. We are, as students of the theology, to look for it everywhere. So that word stood out to me again. The body of Christ.
On the flip side of the body of Christ, is the body of contraception. I have heard talks on it before, but this time something really stood out. The body of contraception is a body of withholding. The body of contraception is a body of dis-unity. I truly see all of Christianity being against contraception as one of the last big structures to fall in recent times. Before 1930, if you were a Christian you were against contraception. We were still united on it. Now we aren't.
What changed? I don't have an answer. I have theories, few of which I am willing to delve too deeply. I wasn't there. What I do see are the results. Eighty years later, we are more divided as a body. Withholding of ourselves is not new. Contraception is not a new concept. What it is, is a newly accepted concept within Christianity. If two really do become one (Gen 2:24) then contraception is not only not necessary, but it is an assault instead. It is a division of ONE body.
A contracepting body withholds part of itself. What is the body of Christ? He is one body, with one head, and one Bride. What is a body of contraception? It is two bodies who do not become one. If we are not one body in Christ within our own marriages, how do we present ONE body of Christ to the world?
The point that really stood out to me this time listening through was the reality of the Church as the body of Christ. This was one of Dr. Kreeft's points for how other Christians can be reunited with the Catholic Church. Not to see the Church as an obstacle, but as the actual body of Christ. Christ is the Head and the Church is His body. This is not new information to me. But this time, I really listened and heard the word about the body. Since I was going back to it because of contraception, I was really tuned to that word. The Body.
The writings on the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II weren't intended as the be all, end all. His intention was a study of a theology; a theology of the body. We are, as students of the theology, to look for it everywhere. So that word stood out to me again. The body of Christ.
On the flip side of the body of Christ, is the body of contraception. I have heard talks on it before, but this time something really stood out. The body of contraception is a body of withholding. The body of contraception is a body of dis-unity. I truly see all of Christianity being against contraception as one of the last big structures to fall in recent times. Before 1930, if you were a Christian you were against contraception. We were still united on it. Now we aren't.
What changed? I don't have an answer. I have theories, few of which I am willing to delve too deeply. I wasn't there. What I do see are the results. Eighty years later, we are more divided as a body. Withholding of ourselves is not new. Contraception is not a new concept. What it is, is a newly accepted concept within Christianity. If two really do become one (Gen 2:24) then contraception is not only not necessary, but it is an assault instead. It is a division of ONE body.
A contracepting body withholds part of itself. What is the body of Christ? He is one body, with one head, and one Bride. What is a body of contraception? It is two bodies who do not become one. If we are not one body in Christ within our own marriages, how do we present ONE body of Christ to the world?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
So I watch the wrong channels. I really strongly, dislike contraception. (Ya' think?) Yet, I watch the channels that contraceptive companies sponsor. Why don't I just change the channel? For one, those are the shows I want to watch. But mainly it is because for so many years I just didn't notice the commercials. I just took them in like an ad for a car or a soft drink. Now they annoy me. But then, since I became more aware of contraception and its impact on society I am annoyed by more and more commercials. The car ad reveals that having no kids makes you skinnier, smarter, and drive a "better" car. Not that ads have ever been considered true, by anyone; I've just finally started to notice the subtle undertones against the natural family.
But I think the one that drives me the battiest, (is battiest a word? I guess so because my spell check liked it,) but the one that annoys me more than all the rest of the ads combined: Mirena. It is a so-called "contraceptive device." It isn't. It does one thing. It aborts. The ads are sneaky. They say it, "prevents pregnancy." Nowhere do they admit that to truly be a "contraceptive" it needs to be "contra" "ception." In other words, since pregnancy is currently defined, by law, as the "moment of implantation," then a product that does not allow implantation, but does allow conception can legally be termed a "contraceptive." By definition the word contraception means, "against the beginning." It does not mean, "against step two."
But they flat out lie. Since one can have a "pregnant pause" then one is pregnant the moment someone else enters the picture. I don't recall a grammatical rule requiring implantation for a pause to be pregnant. To be impregnated has never before in the history of our language, meant implantation. But it does now.
A lie and misdirection is just fine in the world that brought us contraception. The shocked young woman who asked me about Mirena and found out the truth, looked as if someone had just slapped her, hard. I hope she had the courage to follow through and remove it from her life. She remains in my prayers.
But I think the one that drives me the battiest, (is battiest a word? I guess so because my spell check liked it,) but the one that annoys me more than all the rest of the ads combined: Mirena. It is a so-called "contraceptive device." It isn't. It does one thing. It aborts. The ads are sneaky. They say it, "prevents pregnancy." Nowhere do they admit that to truly be a "contraceptive" it needs to be "contra" "ception." In other words, since pregnancy is currently defined, by law, as the "moment of implantation," then a product that does not allow implantation, but does allow conception can legally be termed a "contraceptive." By definition the word contraception means, "against the beginning." It does not mean, "against step two."
But they flat out lie. Since one can have a "pregnant pause" then one is pregnant the moment someone else enters the picture. I don't recall a grammatical rule requiring implantation for a pause to be pregnant. To be impregnated has never before in the history of our language, meant implantation. But it does now.
A lie and misdirection is just fine in the world that brought us contraception. The shocked young woman who asked me about Mirena and found out the truth, looked as if someone had just slapped her, hard. I hope she had the courage to follow through and remove it from her life. She remains in my prayers.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Do I Have to Do This?
Ugh. My attitude has been bad lately. I am healed from my surgery, but I still haven't felt quite up to writing again. I have a few posts that I am working on in the background. But they aren't quite there yet.
My reasons for not writing have really been twofold. My general surroundings and the people. Many of my friends are either on the same path I am, trying to help the world know each other better. Some are already Catholic and have a passionate Christian life. Some have completely different beliefs than I do and not a lifetime of talking is ever going to change either of us. And the rest are just plain so thick-headed that I feel like I am blowing hot air. None of the situations have really inspired me to write.
My kids have been in rare form too. While I have recovered from from my surgery they have found new and exciting ways to make me crazy. I think my daughter eating 6 bananas in an hour sums it up nicely. We gave her two. The rest, she absconded when we were out of the room. I knew there was a reason I call her a little monkey. My son, though older, seems to follow her mischievous lead. She's three. Oh what my future holds!
But then I remember, I am supposed to do this. I am supposed to write every day, even if I don't want to write. I have a great friend who reminds me that I really need to get my stories down in print so the message can reach more people. If my experiences can help people know more about how beautiful authentic sexuality can be, then I really need to keep going. I need to keep plugging away. So this post is to remind me that I need to keep writing. It is times like this that I ask God, "Do I have to do this?" Since my attitude gets bad, my world gets dizzy, and my little monkey gets pyrotechnic digestive results when I don't do what I am called to do; I think the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" I have to do this.
Will write soon. I promise.
My reasons for not writing have really been twofold. My general surroundings and the people. Many of my friends are either on the same path I am, trying to help the world know each other better. Some are already Catholic and have a passionate Christian life. Some have completely different beliefs than I do and not a lifetime of talking is ever going to change either of us. And the rest are just plain so thick-headed that I feel like I am blowing hot air. None of the situations have really inspired me to write.
My kids have been in rare form too. While I have recovered from from my surgery they have found new and exciting ways to make me crazy. I think my daughter eating 6 bananas in an hour sums it up nicely. We gave her two. The rest, she absconded when we were out of the room. I knew there was a reason I call her a little monkey. My son, though older, seems to follow her mischievous lead. She's three. Oh what my future holds!
But then I remember, I am supposed to do this. I am supposed to write every day, even if I don't want to write. I have a great friend who reminds me that I really need to get my stories down in print so the message can reach more people. If my experiences can help people know more about how beautiful authentic sexuality can be, then I really need to keep going. I need to keep plugging away. So this post is to remind me that I need to keep writing. It is times like this that I ask God, "Do I have to do this?" Since my attitude gets bad, my world gets dizzy, and my little monkey gets pyrotechnic digestive results when I don't do what I am called to do; I think the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" I have to do this.
Will write soon. I promise.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Did She Love?
I haven't written since before my friend Kim, died. I didn't feel worthy, or inspired, or even thoughtful. Certainly I had a lot of topics run through my little mind. But they all seemed so dull and silly compared to life and death. And then God hit me in the head again.
I got sick... again. This time it is my gallbladder. You'd think they were having a fire sale with the number of surgeries in my family in the last two years. In our family there have been four. One for my husband, now coming up on three for me. Three surgeries?!? Tonsils, ovary, and now gallbladder. Nothing like a good "going under the knife just on the heels of friends death" to cure you of selfish thoughts and behaviors. Or does it? This last one is getting to me. I keep having those moments of, "Why me?" and not in a good way. Why am I still here? They call that, "survivor's guilt" in pop psychology. I call it, "My worthy and holy friend died, and I am still here muddling through it."
What I really wanted to write on and can't is what I termed, A Living Obituary. It would be what was said if my obituary were written tomorrow. Do I have anything to account for my time here? Whether a reader believes in God or not, what would it say? I am not even trying to write as if I died tomorrow. I am looking at my life and saying, "What have I done up to now?"
Kim died about a week or so after my last post. Her vigil and funeral were beautiful. Her family from out of town came before she died and again for her burial. Some of them aren't Catholic. Her last prayer that I had the honor of praying with her was for the conversion of her immediate family who aren't Catholic. Could I do that? Could I face death and pray for the conversion of loved ones? I would like to think so, but I doubt it.
The living obituary is the question I think most of us do ask ourselves, "Did s/he love?" I know most people would say, 'yes' on a cursory level. But then most of us are going by a very superficial definition of the word. Did she love? Do I love those who are difficult to love, or just those who are simple and fit into my idea of lovable people? I know the answer to that question. I know I have loved when it is convenient to love. I don't love when it is tough to love and I certainly don't love when it is painful to love. I leave that painful love up to those who are stronger than me.
So who does that leave? Who is stronger, and more capable of that kind of love? Within my Catholic Faith, I have an answer. But my job is not to hand another a pat answer. My job is to BE that face of love. I even have an idea of how I am supposed to do that. But, I really don't want to do it. I wish I had an ounce of Kim's faith right now. I wish I could love with her heart.
I got sick... again. This time it is my gallbladder. You'd think they were having a fire sale with the number of surgeries in my family in the last two years. In our family there have been four. One for my husband, now coming up on three for me. Three surgeries?!? Tonsils, ovary, and now gallbladder. Nothing like a good "going under the knife just on the heels of friends death" to cure you of selfish thoughts and behaviors. Or does it? This last one is getting to me. I keep having those moments of, "Why me?" and not in a good way. Why am I still here? They call that, "survivor's guilt" in pop psychology. I call it, "My worthy and holy friend died, and I am still here muddling through it."
What I really wanted to write on and can't is what I termed, A Living Obituary. It would be what was said if my obituary were written tomorrow. Do I have anything to account for my time here? Whether a reader believes in God or not, what would it say? I am not even trying to write as if I died tomorrow. I am looking at my life and saying, "What have I done up to now?"
Kim died about a week or so after my last post. Her vigil and funeral were beautiful. Her family from out of town came before she died and again for her burial. Some of them aren't Catholic. Her last prayer that I had the honor of praying with her was for the conversion of her immediate family who aren't Catholic. Could I do that? Could I face death and pray for the conversion of loved ones? I would like to think so, but I doubt it.
The living obituary is the question I think most of us do ask ourselves, "Did s/he love?" I know most people would say, 'yes' on a cursory level. But then most of us are going by a very superficial definition of the word. Did she love? Do I love those who are difficult to love, or just those who are simple and fit into my idea of lovable people? I know the answer to that question. I know I have loved when it is convenient to love. I don't love when it is tough to love and I certainly don't love when it is painful to love. I leave that painful love up to those who are stronger than me.
So who does that leave? Who is stronger, and more capable of that kind of love? Within my Catholic Faith, I have an answer. But my job is not to hand another a pat answer. My job is to BE that face of love. I even have an idea of how I am supposed to do that. But, I really don't want to do it. I wish I had an ounce of Kim's faith right now. I wish I could love with her heart.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Almost Too Humbling for Words
I wanted to write today even though I cannot really organize my thoughts. This is another of those times that I just want to get the words written down, but not sure where they are going. My friend has cancer and she is not doing well. That previous sentence was going to be, "my friend is dying," but I couldn't bring myself to type those words in that context. I am still hoping for the miracle. But I think I lack enough faith to believe it is still possible. She is still in the hospital because her pain is not under control yet. I got to visit her on Monday.
Her hands and feet were very chapped from the treatments she gets. I asked if I could put lotion on her hands and she almost refused. She didn't want to impose. Her husband handed me the lotion with a smile. He knows her well. Though her feet hurt too much to touch, I was honored to help relieve the suffering in her hands. It was a little thing, but it was something. Her left hand had a needle taped down for administering pain medication and an oxygen saturation monitor was attached to her finger and wrapped around her wrist. Her right arm couldn't have anything on it because of all that had already been done. She had bruises all up her arms where they had removed lymph nodes. Some spots were a deep, dark red. In that moment, I realized I was seeing authentic beauty.
Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity are quoted as saying that everyone they help is really Jesus. A young nun went to her superior and said, "Mother, I touched the Body of Christ today!" Christ was fully present in a man whose wounds she had dressed and comforted in his pain. The memory of reading those words flooded through me the moment I touched my friend's hand. I was touching the Body of Christ! And it was so beautiful!
She has lost both breasts to cancer. Her beautiful, blond hair is gone. The steroids have puffed up her cheeks so much. I said, "Gerber baby." Her husband said, "No, Cabbage Patch baby." Again, he knows her well. As he affectionately rubs her head and puts a cold cloth on it, I witness another tender moment between them. It is more pure beauty.
But the most humbling part was our conversation, just she and I. Her husband and her mom took a break to let us visit. In her agonizing pain, she looked to me and said, "I am so sorry. You hurt like this all the time." There are not enough words to describe that moment. I assured her that she was in much more pain than I, but she protested again. She said, "Yes, but I know mine will stop eventually. Yours doesn't." I could not hold back my tears any longer. I had touched the Body of Christ and now heard words of comfort from someone suffering more than I can comprehend. The magnitude of that moment has taken me days to process.
As we chatted, she encouraged me to keep getting the word out about contraception. In her early marriage she hadn't known about the dangers of contraception, and had never really heard of NFP. Our very first conversation had been about NFP and how glad she was that I was a promoter. We spent our time in her hospital room talking about ways to help people reconsider and not have an abortion and how to reach out to people with love and support, no matter what choices they have made. Every thing we mentioned she made a mental note to herself to add that to her prayer intentions. She was more than happy to offer up her suffering for others. We closed our time together by listening and praying a sung Chaplet of Divine Mercy. For that little bit of time it distracted her from her pain.
Now some people might think that it is just because this young mother of two children is at the end of her life, that she has just now become so selfless. In my own life, that is probably what it would take for me. But, no. In the short year I have known her, she has amazed me with her gentle and humble heart. She has a balance of strong and meek that I cannot yet emulate, but I hope to learn. Before her cancer returned, I had asked her how she had faced death without losing her spirit. Her answer even then had humbled me. She said, "With cancer you have to. What I admire is that you are in constant pain and yet you can still smile and laugh."
I am so very humbled knowing this amazing lady. I thank God for the short time I have had getting to know her. Her name is Kim. She is one of those "saints on Earth" that so few of us get to meet. I have had that honor.
Her hands and feet were very chapped from the treatments she gets. I asked if I could put lotion on her hands and she almost refused. She didn't want to impose. Her husband handed me the lotion with a smile. He knows her well. Though her feet hurt too much to touch, I was honored to help relieve the suffering in her hands. It was a little thing, but it was something. Her left hand had a needle taped down for administering pain medication and an oxygen saturation monitor was attached to her finger and wrapped around her wrist. Her right arm couldn't have anything on it because of all that had already been done. She had bruises all up her arms where they had removed lymph nodes. Some spots were a deep, dark red. In that moment, I realized I was seeing authentic beauty.
Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity are quoted as saying that everyone they help is really Jesus. A young nun went to her superior and said, "Mother, I touched the Body of Christ today!" Christ was fully present in a man whose wounds she had dressed and comforted in his pain. The memory of reading those words flooded through me the moment I touched my friend's hand. I was touching the Body of Christ! And it was so beautiful!
She has lost both breasts to cancer. Her beautiful, blond hair is gone. The steroids have puffed up her cheeks so much. I said, "Gerber baby." Her husband said, "No, Cabbage Patch baby." Again, he knows her well. As he affectionately rubs her head and puts a cold cloth on it, I witness another tender moment between them. It is more pure beauty.
But the most humbling part was our conversation, just she and I. Her husband and her mom took a break to let us visit. In her agonizing pain, she looked to me and said, "I am so sorry. You hurt like this all the time." There are not enough words to describe that moment. I assured her that she was in much more pain than I, but she protested again. She said, "Yes, but I know mine will stop eventually. Yours doesn't." I could not hold back my tears any longer. I had touched the Body of Christ and now heard words of comfort from someone suffering more than I can comprehend. The magnitude of that moment has taken me days to process.
As we chatted, she encouraged me to keep getting the word out about contraception. In her early marriage she hadn't known about the dangers of contraception, and had never really heard of NFP. Our very first conversation had been about NFP and how glad she was that I was a promoter. We spent our time in her hospital room talking about ways to help people reconsider and not have an abortion and how to reach out to people with love and support, no matter what choices they have made. Every thing we mentioned she made a mental note to herself to add that to her prayer intentions. She was more than happy to offer up her suffering for others. We closed our time together by listening and praying a sung Chaplet of Divine Mercy. For that little bit of time it distracted her from her pain.
Now some people might think that it is just because this young mother of two children is at the end of her life, that she has just now become so selfless. In my own life, that is probably what it would take for me. But, no. In the short year I have known her, she has amazed me with her gentle and humble heart. She has a balance of strong and meek that I cannot yet emulate, but I hope to learn. Before her cancer returned, I had asked her how she had faced death without losing her spirit. Her answer even then had humbled me. She said, "With cancer you have to. What I admire is that you are in constant pain and yet you can still smile and laugh."
I am so very humbled knowing this amazing lady. I thank God for the short time I have had getting to know her. Her name is Kim. She is one of those "saints on Earth" that so few of us get to meet. I have had that honor.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
My Secret Life as a Catholic
As I go more and more public with my writing, my secret life is going to be exposed. For so many years I hid the fact that I was a Catholic, so much so that I have friends who probably think I am a convert. That is truly sad.
Most people have known that I am against abortion, but I have no idea how many people I know realize that I believe that there is a connection between abortion and contraception. As my writing reaches more people, I have more potential for offending. I don't want to offend, but at the same time, pulling punches never got me far. It is out of my character to say anything other than exactly what I think. During those years of hiding my beliefs, I never lied. I just never spoke up. I wanted everyone to just get along. I didn't like to be controversial.
But as the divide grows I feel I cannot remain quiet anymore. If my confessions can help anyone, then I am obligated to share.
Most people have known that I am against abortion, but I have no idea how many people I know realize that I believe that there is a connection between abortion and contraception. As my writing reaches more people, I have more potential for offending. I don't want to offend, but at the same time, pulling punches never got me far. It is out of my character to say anything other than exactly what I think. During those years of hiding my beliefs, I never lied. I just never spoke up. I wanted everyone to just get along. I didn't like to be controversial.
But as the divide grows I feel I cannot remain quiet anymore. If my confessions can help anyone, then I am obligated to share.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Two Sides of the Same Coin
Part of my journey out of a contraceptive mentality also involves the flip side of contraception; forced reproduction, commonly known as IVF. (In-Vitro Fertilization literally means "in glass" fertilization). Many people do not even realize that contraception and IVF are just two sides of the same coin. One is sex without babies, the other is babies without sex. And more and more in our Western culture, contraception is leading to IVF. That is not a surprise. The mentalities for both are very similar.
I was about seven when the first successful "test-tube baby" hit the news. I don't know if I can begin to tell you what a seven-year-old imagines when hearing that headline. For the life of me I could not figure out how that baby could develop in a little tiny test-tube. (The whole transfer to the womb was completely lost on me. I heard test-tube and that is what I believed.) The other weirdness which I have since discovered was actually the wisdom of a child was how empty the mother must have felt to not have the conception occur inside of her.
The idea of conception in a dish was very sad to my seven-year-old mind. In my contraceptive journey, I nearly lost that wisdom. During that time I thought that IVF was such a blessing and gift. I had in my mind that a means to an end was fine as long as I got the ends I wanted. Contraception and IVF break the connection that our bodies intuitively know. During my contracepting days, I know I conceived and miscarried. But I didn't know it at the time. Contraception is a lie to our body and our body begins to believe it. Once I began to leave contraception behind, I knew the precise moment each of my children were conceived. My body told me, and I listened.
It is the same thing with IVF. It is a lie to the body. The female body begins changing at the very moment of conception. IVF denies the mother that first vital week. IVF is a similar shock to the system like contraception. Many women who cease contraception and try to conceive even note the difference. They note how much more in tune with their bodies they are. Though, I still don't understand why anyone who has been in tune would go back to static. For me, getting in tune was a vital piece of my journey out. Morality aside, you couldn't pay me to go back.
It is so sad to watch couples who contracept for years, only to discover that they have now broken their fertility. IVF looks like an answered prayer. It isn't. It is just more heartache. It breaks the connection between husband and wife. It introduces the "mighty hand of the lab tech" into the marriage. Sex is removed from making babies. They become just another thing you can acquire. Babies of IVF are denied their human dignity to be chosen by natural law, (also know as God's design.) The implanted embryo is chosen based on genetic perfection and strength.
I wouldn't exist if those were God's criteria.
I was about seven when the first successful "test-tube baby" hit the news. I don't know if I can begin to tell you what a seven-year-old imagines when hearing that headline. For the life of me I could not figure out how that baby could develop in a little tiny test-tube. (The whole transfer to the womb was completely lost on me. I heard test-tube and that is what I believed.) The other weirdness which I have since discovered was actually the wisdom of a child was how empty the mother must have felt to not have the conception occur inside of her.
The idea of conception in a dish was very sad to my seven-year-old mind. In my contraceptive journey, I nearly lost that wisdom. During that time I thought that IVF was such a blessing and gift. I had in my mind that a means to an end was fine as long as I got the ends I wanted. Contraception and IVF break the connection that our bodies intuitively know. During my contracepting days, I know I conceived and miscarried. But I didn't know it at the time. Contraception is a lie to our body and our body begins to believe it. Once I began to leave contraception behind, I knew the precise moment each of my children were conceived. My body told me, and I listened.
It is the same thing with IVF. It is a lie to the body. The female body begins changing at the very moment of conception. IVF denies the mother that first vital week. IVF is a similar shock to the system like contraception. Many women who cease contraception and try to conceive even note the difference. They note how much more in tune with their bodies they are. Though, I still don't understand why anyone who has been in tune would go back to static. For me, getting in tune was a vital piece of my journey out. Morality aside, you couldn't pay me to go back.
It is so sad to watch couples who contracept for years, only to discover that they have now broken their fertility. IVF looks like an answered prayer. It isn't. It is just more heartache. It breaks the connection between husband and wife. It introduces the "mighty hand of the lab tech" into the marriage. Sex is removed from making babies. They become just another thing you can acquire. Babies of IVF are denied their human dignity to be chosen by natural law, (also know as God's design.) The implanted embryo is chosen based on genetic perfection and strength.
I wouldn't exist if those were God's criteria.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Contraception Free Day
For the first time in a long time the topic just didn't come up today! I am nearly shocked. But then, I didn't watch any T.V. to see those commercials, didn't have any conversations with people who aren't Catholic, and didn't participate in any bulletin boards today.
Where's the fun in that? So even though that commercial annoys me to no end, "Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday...," ad nauseum, I still have to reach out. I was free from contraception today, but others are still bound by it. It was nice to have such a peaceful day. We all deserve to be free from contraception.
Where's the fun in that? So even though that commercial annoys me to no end, "Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday...," ad nauseum, I still have to reach out. I was free from contraception today, but others are still bound by it. It was nice to have such a peaceful day. We all deserve to be free from contraception.
Some Light Housekeeping
As I go more and more public with my writing, I have needed to add some feed readers and do some housekeeping around my little pink page. I added feedburner as a tool for email subscribing. I had hoped to use flocknote for sending emails of new posts, but silly me forgot an important detail. Flocknote is only for Catholics. It links Catholics to their parish and diocese along with the Catholic blogs they are following. Well, since my hope is to someday reach potential Catholics (maybe someone you know?) and non-Catholics...(I hope) I realized I needed a more general way to reach people. So welcome feedburner! ====>>>>>
I have found that I am more apt to read a blog if I get a reminder. But if there are too many reminders I tend to delete. I hope I find the balance in sending to my readers. (Hi there!) I also have hopes of adding pages and links here to refer people to even more resources. We'll see how that works out. As I've said, I am open to ideas to better get the word out on overcoming contraception. My journey to be free of it will keep going as long as I still know anyone who uses it. A former contracepter is like a former smoker that way. Once we have seen the light, we won't rest until everyone else has seen it too.
So subscribe with flocknote if you are Catholic and see the neat things they have going on. Subscribe with feedburner otherwise. If you subscribe with both you will get two notifications for every post. Don't do that. I don't want you to feel spammed by me. I'm just a little wife and mother in her dark living room. I want you to smile when you see a new post from me.
Thanks for reading and have a joyful day!
I have found that I am more apt to read a blog if I get a reminder. But if there are too many reminders I tend to delete. I hope I find the balance in sending to my readers. (Hi there!) I also have hopes of adding pages and links here to refer people to even more resources. We'll see how that works out. As I've said, I am open to ideas to better get the word out on overcoming contraception. My journey to be free of it will keep going as long as I still know anyone who uses it. A former contracepter is like a former smoker that way. Once we have seen the light, we won't rest until everyone else has seen it too.
So subscribe with flocknote if you are Catholic and see the neat things they have going on. Subscribe with feedburner otherwise. If you subscribe with both you will get two notifications for every post. Don't do that. I don't want you to feel spammed by me. I'm just a little wife and mother in her dark living room. I want you to smile when you see a new post from me.
Thanks for reading and have a joyful day!
Friday, July 9, 2010
Keeping Focused on the Purpose
One of the things my mom reminded me of is to keep my writing focused if I want to deliver the best possible message. I have said that for me everything came down to a deep misunderstanding of authentic sexuality, hence a contraceptive mentality. And my mom is right. (During my rebellious years I bet she never thought she would hear those words!) This blog could have as easily been entitled "Confessions of a Former Heretic," or "Confessions of a Former Fornicator," or even, "Confessions of a Former Catholic," if I had stayed on certain paths I tried to take. But no, Confessions of a Former Contracepter is exactly what it is, because that has been the single largest factor in my journey. I was a contracepter before I ever had sex.
My thought process was broken. I cannot blame any one source or even identify the order it all happened. I know it came from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it meant to be female, and especially, what it meant to be feminine. Many people either use those words interchangeably, or they think they are only related because nature defines the former, and society the latter.
It wasn't until very recently that I was given a way to express what I had intuitively known, but had tried to bury. It was Dr. Peter Kreeft who gave me the words. To paraphrase, he says that masculine and feminine are the universal give and receive. Male and female are the result, the physicality, of that universal reality. That might sound backwards to some, but it really spoke to me. I finally found out that I am female because I am inherently feminine. Every single thing made sense to me once that door opened. It was a key that helped unlock a very deep understanding of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Who God is, is written on us. And since I am very, very, very feminine on the spectrum, it helped me to see the complementarity on a grand scale.
So as usual, what does that have to do with contraception? I am so glad you asked! I discovered, and continue to find out each day, that a contraceptive mentality was the number one thing holding me back. (It still does. I find remnants of it all the time.) I find that I often want to hold back that side of me who is inherently designed to receive. I am feminine. We receive and return. That is our design.
My fear of receiving was and is my contraceptive mentality. On that same note, men suffer a fear of giving. They face rejection of their gifts of self. It is often said that a man would rather be respected than loved. That is rooted in rejection of their gifts. My so-called "unworthiness" to receive, I deemed as weakness, selfishness, and laziness. I will have to ponder longer to find the words that men would term for their so-called unworthiness to give. But as all things, it is a complementary fear.
As I have said before, contraception means: "against the beginning." As my health has more bad days at times, than good, I have found a more raw understanding of my rejection of receiving. In my ill health, I am forced to receive. I cannot go it alone. It helps me better understand what I used to deem as antiquated ideas from the book of Genesis. Women in labor are very vulnerable. They cannot do anything except have that baby. They are forced to receive. Men must till the soil. They are forced to give. Those are not merely punishments. They are signposts back to God if we view Him in His whole glory.
My thought process was broken. I cannot blame any one source or even identify the order it all happened. I know it came from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it meant to be female, and especially, what it meant to be feminine. Many people either use those words interchangeably, or they think they are only related because nature defines the former, and society the latter.
It wasn't until very recently that I was given a way to express what I had intuitively known, but had tried to bury. It was Dr. Peter Kreeft who gave me the words. To paraphrase, he says that masculine and feminine are the universal give and receive. Male and female are the result, the physicality, of that universal reality. That might sound backwards to some, but it really spoke to me. I finally found out that I am female because I am inherently feminine. Every single thing made sense to me once that door opened. It was a key that helped unlock a very deep understanding of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Who God is, is written on us. And since I am very, very, very feminine on the spectrum, it helped me to see the complementarity on a grand scale.
So as usual, what does that have to do with contraception? I am so glad you asked! I discovered, and continue to find out each day, that a contraceptive mentality was the number one thing holding me back. (It still does. I find remnants of it all the time.) I find that I often want to hold back that side of me who is inherently designed to receive. I am feminine. We receive and return. That is our design.
My fear of receiving was and is my contraceptive mentality. On that same note, men suffer a fear of giving. They face rejection of their gifts of self. It is often said that a man would rather be respected than loved. That is rooted in rejection of their gifts. My so-called "unworthiness" to receive, I deemed as weakness, selfishness, and laziness. I will have to ponder longer to find the words that men would term for their so-called unworthiness to give. But as all things, it is a complementary fear.
As I have said before, contraception means: "against the beginning." As my health has more bad days at times, than good, I have found a more raw understanding of my rejection of receiving. In my ill health, I am forced to receive. I cannot go it alone. It helps me better understand what I used to deem as antiquated ideas from the book of Genesis. Women in labor are very vulnerable. They cannot do anything except have that baby. They are forced to receive. Men must till the soil. They are forced to give. Those are not merely punishments. They are signposts back to God if we view Him in His whole glory.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
All Aboard!
I was thinking tonight again about my friends who struggle with NFP, and really even those who struggle with contraception. Abandoning my former, fornicating lifestyle was harder for me than switching to NFP. NFP gave me freedom. I had never had a good reason to say, "no" before. Contraception gave me something that I termed 'freedom' at the time, but I have come to know now that contraception gave me an excuse. With NFP there is no excuse and I like that.
So why then do people struggle with NFP if it is all about freedom? There are many reasons I can think of, but I want to address the two that I feel are most common and most important. I think the number one reason is because we want what we want. NFP is simply about self-denial. None of us really gets up in the morning and says, "Gee, what can I deny myself today?" Most of us want to give and receive, and that is not a bad thing. NFP really does allow for that, but the biggest hurdle is that the giving and receiving is not just on our terms. Whether a couple charts fertility primarily for religious reasons or just for health reasons, the cycle is what it is. That is how the design works, whether we agree with it or not. So whether a couple believes in asking God for guidance or is just looking to the chart, we have to cooperate with each other and an external "opinion." Abstinence becomes less easy when there is a committee involved.
But I think the bigger reason people struggle is what influenced the title of this post. Not everyone is on board. I find that that struggle applies to everyone; those trying to conceive, those trying to avoid, and especially to those contracepting. One of the reasons I became so anti-contraception is that it introduced a wild-card in an already complicated situation. I hear so many people wanting to use contraception because they think it takes out that pesky pregnancy variable. Well, it does and it doesn't. It freezes it, it tries to ignore it, it might even try to surgically extract it, but it is never really gone. Simply put, because sex makes babies everyone has to be on the same page regardless of the desired end.
That is where the struggle is universal. And personally I believe that NFP holds a special key. When are we, as a couple, supposed to be together? When does God want us together...or even when does "Mother Nature?" How does the design really work? I'll will say right up front I don't struggle with NFP in general. We have a lot of reasons, probably an important one is we are a little older. We have passed those peak years of an ultra-high sex drive. We have some very serious reasons not to have any more children. (You name it we are probably dealing with it: health, financial, age, children's needs.) But at the same time I don't really chart that strictly. Our chart is merely a tool. Our decisions are entirely based on both of us being on board, and in our case it is about being on board with God.
I didn't want to be done having babies, and my husband was sort of take it or leave it. But God gave us a resounding "No." I threw a temper tantrum like any petulant child can be towards her Father, but eventually I got aboard. I don't worry about my chart now. I do a lot more listening to God and to my husband. Now my needs are filled exactly where I am. My goal is to understand the design of sex, and to have a deeper appreciation for it. Sadly, I spent my contracepting (and fornicating) years making decisions about what I wanted and about what I thought my significant other wanted. But I spent very little time actually being honest about where I stood. And I spent even less time asking where I was supposed to be standing.
For my husband and me, NFP was a key to deeper understanding. But we had to choose to take that first step. NFP became very easy when we were all in the same boat.
So why then do people struggle with NFP if it is all about freedom? There are many reasons I can think of, but I want to address the two that I feel are most common and most important. I think the number one reason is because we want what we want. NFP is simply about self-denial. None of us really gets up in the morning and says, "Gee, what can I deny myself today?" Most of us want to give and receive, and that is not a bad thing. NFP really does allow for that, but the biggest hurdle is that the giving and receiving is not just on our terms. Whether a couple charts fertility primarily for religious reasons or just for health reasons, the cycle is what it is. That is how the design works, whether we agree with it or not. So whether a couple believes in asking God for guidance or is just looking to the chart, we have to cooperate with each other and an external "opinion." Abstinence becomes less easy when there is a committee involved.
But I think the bigger reason people struggle is what influenced the title of this post. Not everyone is on board. I find that that struggle applies to everyone; those trying to conceive, those trying to avoid, and especially to those contracepting. One of the reasons I became so anti-contraception is that it introduced a wild-card in an already complicated situation. I hear so many people wanting to use contraception because they think it takes out that pesky pregnancy variable. Well, it does and it doesn't. It freezes it, it tries to ignore it, it might even try to surgically extract it, but it is never really gone. Simply put, because sex makes babies everyone has to be on the same page regardless of the desired end.
That is where the struggle is universal. And personally I believe that NFP holds a special key. When are we, as a couple, supposed to be together? When does God want us together...or even when does "Mother Nature?" How does the design really work? I'll will say right up front I don't struggle with NFP in general. We have a lot of reasons, probably an important one is we are a little older. We have passed those peak years of an ultra-high sex drive. We have some very serious reasons not to have any more children. (You name it we are probably dealing with it: health, financial, age, children's needs.) But at the same time I don't really chart that strictly. Our chart is merely a tool. Our decisions are entirely based on both of us being on board, and in our case it is about being on board with God.
I didn't want to be done having babies, and my husband was sort of take it or leave it. But God gave us a resounding "No." I threw a temper tantrum like any petulant child can be towards her Father, but eventually I got aboard. I don't worry about my chart now. I do a lot more listening to God and to my husband. Now my needs are filled exactly where I am. My goal is to understand the design of sex, and to have a deeper appreciation for it. Sadly, I spent my contracepting (and fornicating) years making decisions about what I wanted and about what I thought my significant other wanted. But I spent very little time actually being honest about where I stood. And I spent even less time asking where I was supposed to be standing.
For my husband and me, NFP was a key to deeper understanding. But we had to choose to take that first step. NFP became very easy when we were all in the same boat.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Going Public With This
So I have blogged on and off for a few years now, very quietly, in the shadows, back in a dark corner. (Actually that is quite literal. I often write in the dark of my living room after everyone has gone to bed.) I have about 3 regular readers so far. (Hi there!) My gratitude to them cannot be measured. You have kept me writing when I feared no one wanted to hear my message. Thank you for that. Now finally I am making attempts to go public with this blog. The message to be free from contraception is an important one. It affects more aspects of all of our lives than most people realize. I started this blog when I realized that the topic still comes up every. single. day. I was on a path to self destruction for many years and my way out was changing my mindset. This blog is about how and why I became a former contracepter.
So I now have a link to subscribe with email that picks up my RSS feed (Yay me, for knowing who to talk to translate that previous sentence.) I am thankful to flocknote.com for making that possible. It is a site attempting to make it more convenient to communicate with your Catholic parish, your area, and your diocese. I hope they are successful. Please go and check them out even if you don't want to subscribe to my ramblings quite yet. I am still working up the courage to post this to my page on facebook (That clattering sound you hear are my knees knocking and my teeth chattering.) I will begin by sending a few people a private message to this link and see where it goes.
My grandest wish of this blog is to reach those who need it most. I want to be a voice of Truth without coming off as self-righteous. As I said when I first started posting here, I have some pretty amazing friends who do contracept, whom I can, and do, learn new ideas from every day. I want to reach those women who have been harmed and now use contraception in self-defense. I want to reach those young men who are beginning to believe that in fact, "Everyone is doing it,"and they need to join up. I want to help heal those wounds, calm those fears, and show compassion. I want this to be a safe place for people to ask the hard questions and I want to take the time to answer them, if I can, and direct them to a better source if I cannot.
In short, yes, I do want to save the world. (Well, at least my little corner of it.) Thanks for reading and please have a joyful day.
So I now have a link to subscribe with email that picks up my RSS feed (Yay me, for knowing who to talk to translate that previous sentence.) I am thankful to flocknote.com for making that possible. It is a site attempting to make it more convenient to communicate with your Catholic parish, your area, and your diocese. I hope they are successful. Please go and check them out even if you don't want to subscribe to my ramblings quite yet. I am still working up the courage to post this to my page on facebook (That clattering sound you hear are my knees knocking and my teeth chattering.) I will begin by sending a few people a private message to this link and see where it goes.
My grandest wish of this blog is to reach those who need it most. I want to be a voice of Truth without coming off as self-righteous. As I said when I first started posting here, I have some pretty amazing friends who do contracept, whom I can, and do, learn new ideas from every day. I want to reach those women who have been harmed and now use contraception in self-defense. I want to reach those young men who are beginning to believe that in fact, "Everyone is doing it,"and they need to join up. I want to help heal those wounds, calm those fears, and show compassion. I want this to be a safe place for people to ask the hard questions and I want to take the time to answer them, if I can, and direct them to a better source if I cannot.
In short, yes, I do want to save the world. (Well, at least my little corner of it.) Thanks for reading and please have a joyful day.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
"Have to Abstain" and What That Means to Me
I had yet another day that I was too fatigued to attend Mass. I swear I am called to this to be more of a poster child for NFP. Nothing drives me crazier than the people who complain about the ten days of abstinence required for NFP. I have days where the marital act just can't happen. I am in too much pain. But I married a wonderful man who understands. The practice of NFP makes him more able to cope with my times of illness.
I have had debates with people who think that sex is the be all, end all of marriage. I have asked them about the weeks of abstinence after child-birth. Most feel deprived. That makes me sad. Some say, "well because you have to abstain, it is not so bad." Even this, I wish I better understood their mindset. "Have to" is a relative term. What do they say to teenagers who think "have to abstain" is dumb and old fashioned? Teens "have to" because they aren't married right? So why then do these same parents tell these young people not to get married young if it is only that they aren't married that makes them "have to" abstain. Could it be that they aren't ready for the babies that come with sex? Possibly. But isn't that the same reason older married people use contraception? Usually.
So these people who complain about abstinence in marriage want the bonding without the babies. Isn't this exactly what the teens want? They want the bonding, but not the babies too. So maybe those adults believe the teens aren't ready for the bonding side, the side that leads to the not so pretty side; paying bills, getting along, fidelity. So what exactly do these people who want teens to abstain but aren't willing to abstain themselves actually believe about sex? I am not so sure.
When I was of that mindset I thought that you could "bond" without really "bonding." I thought that it was like, as Professor Janet Smith has jokingly termed, "test driving before you buy." I thought you only test drove a car when you were in the market (marriageable age and "maturity"). But I discovered that I, and all of my friends, thought we were in the market ALL the time. We were willing to test drive anyone who looked hopeful. Two words: BAD. IDEA.
Now, I will grant that most people who are pro-contraception are against pre-marital sex...in theory. But when you ask them exactly how their ideas work, they are often contradictory. They want teens to abstain, but believe young adults probably can't, so they might need to marry young. So why would you want to be married to someone for the rest of your life (or until divorce does you part) who was supposed to grow up after marriage? But at the same time they believe you should be older and "financially ready and mature enough" to get married and even more so to have a family. I think they honestly believe somehow that contraception gives people time to grow up. But what I don't know is who they think should be using it, what type exactly they should be using, when they should be using it, why they should be using it and exactly how their minds and bodies are supposed to know this if they shouldn't be having babies in the first place.
I just want to understand. What does their ideal look like and is it possible for anyone to reach it?
I have had debates with people who think that sex is the be all, end all of marriage. I have asked them about the weeks of abstinence after child-birth. Most feel deprived. That makes me sad. Some say, "well because you have to abstain, it is not so bad." Even this, I wish I better understood their mindset. "Have to" is a relative term. What do they say to teenagers who think "have to abstain" is dumb and old fashioned? Teens "have to" because they aren't married right? So why then do these same parents tell these young people not to get married young if it is only that they aren't married that makes them "have to" abstain. Could it be that they aren't ready for the babies that come with sex? Possibly. But isn't that the same reason older married people use contraception? Usually.
So these people who complain about abstinence in marriage want the bonding without the babies. Isn't this exactly what the teens want? They want the bonding, but not the babies too. So maybe those adults believe the teens aren't ready for the bonding side, the side that leads to the not so pretty side; paying bills, getting along, fidelity. So what exactly do these people who want teens to abstain but aren't willing to abstain themselves actually believe about sex? I am not so sure.
When I was of that mindset I thought that you could "bond" without really "bonding." I thought that it was like, as Professor Janet Smith has jokingly termed, "test driving before you buy." I thought you only test drove a car when you were in the market (marriageable age and "maturity"). But I discovered that I, and all of my friends, thought we were in the market ALL the time. We were willing to test drive anyone who looked hopeful. Two words: BAD. IDEA.
Now, I will grant that most people who are pro-contraception are against pre-marital sex...in theory. But when you ask them exactly how their ideas work, they are often contradictory. They want teens to abstain, but believe young adults probably can't, so they might need to marry young. So why would you want to be married to someone for the rest of your life (or until divorce does you part) who was supposed to grow up after marriage? But at the same time they believe you should be older and "financially ready and mature enough" to get married and even more so to have a family. I think they honestly believe somehow that contraception gives people time to grow up. But what I don't know is who they think should be using it, what type exactly they should be using, when they should be using it, why they should be using it and exactly how their minds and bodies are supposed to know this if they shouldn't be having babies in the first place.
I just want to understand. What does their ideal look like and is it possible for anyone to reach it?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Too Many Topics, Not Enough Time
I want to update this all the time, but I have too many ideas and not enough time. Here are some of the ideas that I would like to write about, to address, when I finally have the time:
An open letter to the women on a website who are arguing for free contraception. Two things: number one, they don't define what "free" actually means. Someone has to pay for it. They mean "free to them," but they have no concept of facts. Point number two; why free contraception? Abstinence is free. Why does someone have to pay for them to have sex?
But the more important point is that the ladies are angry. They need hope and love and self respect. A main purpose of my blog is to learn to speak to women who have been harmed. I want to let them know that they deserve more than empty sex has to offer. I want them to know that real men want to love them and want their respect in return. They deserve better than they even know. And the men want better too. It is a matter of joining forces toward something much more beautiful than empty sexual gratification.
Another topic I want to address is the issue of public breast-feeding. I fully believe that the Puritan mentality of the so-called nostalgic eras, has led to a rise in contraception. Breast-feeding is the most natural way to space conceptions, but our society says, "cover that UP!" Even many women who believe they are pro-woman say it must be done, "discreetly." Discreet: many definitions has that word, none of which make sense for breast-feeding.
One of the other ideas I want to address is the direction our society is going in changing the definitions of men and women. I am wondering how far we will go in accepting same sex relationships as interchangeable with opposite sex ones. Will it begin to have an effect on such commonplace things as identifying plugs and receivers as male and female? Will the Olympics be adding a "pairs skating" for men, and for women? How far are we going to go as a society in getting rid of the reality of complementarity? At what point will society decide that one or the other sex is expendable?
Those are three topics I will be exploring in the near future. I pray I have time to expand the ideas. Maybe if I would just do as my dad is always saying and..., "Get to the point!" I would have more time to write because I would be writing fewer words. But then the point of my blog is to share and expand ideas and experiences. That takes a lifetime.
An open letter to the women on a website who are arguing for free contraception. Two things: number one, they don't define what "free" actually means. Someone has to pay for it. They mean "free to them," but they have no concept of facts. Point number two; why free contraception? Abstinence is free. Why does someone have to pay for them to have sex?
But the more important point is that the ladies are angry. They need hope and love and self respect. A main purpose of my blog is to learn to speak to women who have been harmed. I want to let them know that they deserve more than empty sex has to offer. I want them to know that real men want to love them and want their respect in return. They deserve better than they even know. And the men want better too. It is a matter of joining forces toward something much more beautiful than empty sexual gratification.
Another topic I want to address is the issue of public breast-feeding. I fully believe that the Puritan mentality of the so-called nostalgic eras, has led to a rise in contraception. Breast-feeding is the most natural way to space conceptions, but our society says, "cover that UP!" Even many women who believe they are pro-woman say it must be done, "discreetly." Discreet: many definitions has that word, none of which make sense for breast-feeding.
One of the other ideas I want to address is the direction our society is going in changing the definitions of men and women. I am wondering how far we will go in accepting same sex relationships as interchangeable with opposite sex ones. Will it begin to have an effect on such commonplace things as identifying plugs and receivers as male and female? Will the Olympics be adding a "pairs skating" for men, and for women? How far are we going to go as a society in getting rid of the reality of complementarity? At what point will society decide that one or the other sex is expendable?
Those are three topics I will be exploring in the near future. I pray I have time to expand the ideas. Maybe if I would just do as my dad is always saying and..., "Get to the point!" I would have more time to write because I would be writing fewer words. But then the point of my blog is to share and expand ideas and experiences. That takes a lifetime.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Searching for Truth in the Oddest Places
As Catholics we believe that Truth is a 'Who,' not a 'what.' Through a series of events I was led to read a the writings on an atheist website called "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" It is a question I have heard before. Now before I jumped in there to start firing off dumb replies, I read for awhile to see if my points had already been made, and what points other Catholics had already made. Two words: dismal failure. Catholics were trying to make the same old tired arguments. The author(s) of the site already had their commentary shooting down the theory of Intelligent Design, at the ready. I stopped to pray to wonder how these people were going to proven wrong, and if so, what was my part in it? I got one very clear answer: NOT. MY. JOB.
My job is not to be understood, but to seek to understand. Those words of St. Francis rang in my head again. The people at that site do hold some truth. If they didn't, they would cease to exist! My job is to find the Person of Truth everywhere. My job is seek out Christ in every person and every situation. My job isn't to change minds. My job IS to seek humility and deeper understanding of my fellow man.
How am I to be the face of Christ if I don't know what He looks like through the fog? I have to know the face of Christ better than my own if I am to show Him to the world. I asked myself, "Could I describe myself to a sketch artist?" My answer is a resounding "NO!" I have no idea what I really look like, only my perception of myself. So too, is my understanding of the face of Christ. I cannot describe Him well enough yet.
So I will continue to read what my fellow man has to say about the non-existence of God. I will read it with the continued belief that these people are wonderful creations of God and worthy of my respect and understanding.
But of course I couldn't finish this blog post without answering the question here, "Why won't God heal amputees?" I answer this question the same way Forest Gump answers the question,"Have you found Jesus?"
He answers, "I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for Him!"
Why won't God heal amputees? I thought He already did. I might have missed the memo that says amputees continue to gush blood for the rest of their lives, but I think they actually mean, "Why won't God regrow the limb?" My answer is: "Because they don't need it." If they actually NEEDED that limb, they would die without it. For me the question falls under the, "why do we have two arms and not four?" and the "Why do we have appendices?" categories. Why does that amputee need that limb back?
The atheists on the the site go into great detail of the inefficiency of the design of the human body. (That is their commentary shooting down intelligent design that I referenced earlier.) Again, I have heard it all before, "What Intelligent Designer would put a waste management facility so close to an amusement park?" (For those who miss the joke it is a reference to the close proximity of anus and the sexual organs.) They say the design is bad. They actually believe the design is bad. I simply disagree. The design works quite nicely. It is just how you look at it.
I tell my children when they are only using one hand to pick their toys up, "God gave you two hands for a reason. Use them both!" When I was in college I asked a friend who was born with only one hand, "How do you tie your shoes?" and "How do you button your shirt with only one hand?" His answers? "Very carefully. Wanna see?" and "How do you button your shirt with two?" We started dating shortly afterward. I learned a lot about God by knowing that atheist.
So, what is in the atheist message that I need to learn? I think there are many things. But I think the most important is to better understand what Christ looks like in everyone.
My job is not to be understood, but to seek to understand. Those words of St. Francis rang in my head again. The people at that site do hold some truth. If they didn't, they would cease to exist! My job is to find the Person of Truth everywhere. My job is seek out Christ in every person and every situation. My job isn't to change minds. My job IS to seek humility and deeper understanding of my fellow man.
How am I to be the face of Christ if I don't know what He looks like through the fog? I have to know the face of Christ better than my own if I am to show Him to the world. I asked myself, "Could I describe myself to a sketch artist?" My answer is a resounding "NO!" I have no idea what I really look like, only my perception of myself. So too, is my understanding of the face of Christ. I cannot describe Him well enough yet.
So I will continue to read what my fellow man has to say about the non-existence of God. I will read it with the continued belief that these people are wonderful creations of God and worthy of my respect and understanding.
But of course I couldn't finish this blog post without answering the question here, "Why won't God heal amputees?" I answer this question the same way Forest Gump answers the question,"Have you found Jesus?"
He answers, "I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for Him!"
Why won't God heal amputees? I thought He already did. I might have missed the memo that says amputees continue to gush blood for the rest of their lives, but I think they actually mean, "Why won't God regrow the limb?" My answer is: "Because they don't need it." If they actually NEEDED that limb, they would die without it. For me the question falls under the, "why do we have two arms and not four?" and the "Why do we have appendices?" categories. Why does that amputee need that limb back?
The atheists on the the site go into great detail of the inefficiency of the design of the human body. (That is their commentary shooting down intelligent design that I referenced earlier.) Again, I have heard it all before, "What Intelligent Designer would put a waste management facility so close to an amusement park?" (For those who miss the joke it is a reference to the close proximity of anus and the sexual organs.) They say the design is bad. They actually believe the design is bad. I simply disagree. The design works quite nicely. It is just how you look at it.
I tell my children when they are only using one hand to pick their toys up, "God gave you two hands for a reason. Use them both!" When I was in college I asked a friend who was born with only one hand, "How do you tie your shoes?" and "How do you button your shirt with only one hand?" His answers? "Very carefully. Wanna see?" and "How do you button your shirt with two?" We started dating shortly afterward. I learned a lot about God by knowing that atheist.
So, what is in the atheist message that I need to learn? I think there are many things. But I think the most important is to better understand what Christ looks like in everyone.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
My Mother-in-law is Coming Home!!
To anyone but a Catholic that title means something different than it says. To the secular person it sounds like the person has been away from home and is now moving back. Well, to the Catholic it also means that someone has been away from home and is now moving back. But from a Catholic perspective, "coming home" doesn't have to do with the location of your "stuff." It has entirely to do with the location of your soul.
After many years of prayer, my mother-in-law (God has blessed me with this amazing lady!) has decided to start going to Mass. Praise be to God!! It will be a long journey for her. Her marital situation will have to be resolved before she can be received into the Church, but she has her foot on the path.
With God, ALL things are possible. Thank you Jesus!!
After many years of prayer, my mother-in-law (God has blessed me with this amazing lady!) has decided to start going to Mass. Praise be to God!! It will be a long journey for her. Her marital situation will have to be resolved before she can be received into the Church, but she has her foot on the path.
With God, ALL things are possible. Thank you Jesus!!
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Have to '86 the Negative
I keep wanting to blog, but I just can't stay away from the negative articles right now. I don't know if they are finding me or I am finding them. I think the articles are getting so outrageous that we read them so we can protest them.
The latest, that I don't want to write about... (like that ever stops me...) is an article by a Jewish Rabbi who hosts a show called, "Shalom in the Home." I think he means well; um er maybe not. I actually don't think he means well. The article was found on a religious belief type website. I don't want to link to it, because I am hoping never to see it myself again. I honestly kept praying it was actually from the satire news source, "The Onion." It wasn't.
In a nutshell: He says breast-feeding is bad for marriage. He says that it destroys the man's erotic feelings for his wife when he sees her as the mother of his children. The Rabbi recommends that if she feels she absolutely must breast-feed, then she should cover it up around her husband. ACK!!!!
Again, like the previous book I reviewed, this goes completely against everything I stand for. And on this one, I do mean EV-ER-Y-THING! There was not a single point this man made that I can even agree with. He wants husbands out of the delivery room because the birth canal is just "not sexy." (Though he does brag about being there for all eight of his wife's labors.) Again, backwards to me. I was fine with my husband being in and out of the room during labor, but I wanted him and only him present for the delivery. We made that baby together, we sure as heck were bringing it into the world together!!
I just won't go into much more. It is all negative. His opinion came to light because of a couple where he said that the wife was ignoring the husband and nursing the baby and giving all of her attention there. The Rabbi very snidely said she was nursing, "well into the eleventh month." Oh dear!! *GASP* Eleven months! How could she? How dare she give her child such a perfect food for the first year of its life when she should be making her body the erotic, recreational playground for her husband! GoodNESS!! [/end sarcasm]
As I said, the rabbi had nothing good to say. My husband is a very involved parent from day one. Since he was so caring for our children and so attentive to me, it was a great source of joy for us to be intimate. I was more than happy to fill my role as a wife. But I can certainly say, if he had made me cover up while I nursed at home or, worse yet quit entirely, our marriage would not be intact today. I haven't read the article to my husband because I know what he will say about the author. One word: "Idiot!"
The advice this rabbi gives is nowhere rooted in fact. And it is actually a hold-over from a very prudish, recent time, the 1950s, when breast-feeding was nearly lost in our culture. Marriages start breaking up right and left as breast-feeding declines. His horrible opinion needs to be thrown out and never heard from again. How to destroy your marriage in one easy step: Stop viewing your wife as a whole person and instead look at her as a collection of erotic parts placed there for your personal entertainment. Worst. article. ever!
The latest, that I don't want to write about... (like that ever stops me...) is an article by a Jewish Rabbi who hosts a show called, "Shalom in the Home." I think he means well; um er maybe not. I actually don't think he means well. The article was found on a religious belief type website. I don't want to link to it, because I am hoping never to see it myself again. I honestly kept praying it was actually from the satire news source, "The Onion." It wasn't.
In a nutshell: He says breast-feeding is bad for marriage. He says that it destroys the man's erotic feelings for his wife when he sees her as the mother of his children. The Rabbi recommends that if she feels she absolutely must breast-feed, then she should cover it up around her husband. ACK!!!!
Again, like the previous book I reviewed, this goes completely against everything I stand for. And on this one, I do mean EV-ER-Y-THING! There was not a single point this man made that I can even agree with. He wants husbands out of the delivery room because the birth canal is just "not sexy." (Though he does brag about being there for all eight of his wife's labors.) Again, backwards to me. I was fine with my husband being in and out of the room during labor, but I wanted him and only him present for the delivery. We made that baby together, we sure as heck were bringing it into the world together!!
I just won't go into much more. It is all negative. His opinion came to light because of a couple where he said that the wife was ignoring the husband and nursing the baby and giving all of her attention there. The Rabbi very snidely said she was nursing, "well into the eleventh month." Oh dear!! *GASP* Eleven months! How could she? How dare she give her child such a perfect food for the first year of its life when she should be making her body the erotic, recreational playground for her husband! GoodNESS!! [/end sarcasm]
As I said, the rabbi had nothing good to say. My husband is a very involved parent from day one. Since he was so caring for our children and so attentive to me, it was a great source of joy for us to be intimate. I was more than happy to fill my role as a wife. But I can certainly say, if he had made me cover up while I nursed at home or, worse yet quit entirely, our marriage would not be intact today. I haven't read the article to my husband because I know what he will say about the author. One word: "Idiot!"
The advice this rabbi gives is nowhere rooted in fact. And it is actually a hold-over from a very prudish, recent time, the 1950s, when breast-feeding was nearly lost in our culture. Marriages start breaking up right and left as breast-feeding declines. His horrible opinion needs to be thrown out and never heard from again. How to destroy your marriage in one easy step: Stop viewing your wife as a whole person and instead look at her as a collection of erotic parts placed there for your personal entertainment. Worst. article. ever!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
How to Guide: Which Book NOT to Read on Courtship
I was asked by a friend to read and review a book on courtship and marriage. Right out of the gate he called the book "scary," so I had an idea where it might be going. Sure enough when it arrived in the mail, I was completely perturbed by it. Since it was a book by a Catholic author, I was even more concerned. Every single belief I have about healthy dating was rejected in this book. The book espouses a completely hands-off courtship as being a healthy way to start a marriage. Can I say one word? WOW!
This horrible idea is precisely opposite extreme of the pornographic approach often employed. And if I have said it once I have said it a hundred times, it is the extreme views of puritanism that is just the other side of the coin to pornography. The book is chock-full of negative ideas for courtship. And sadly, it is endorsed by some well known Catholic speakers. I have to put my voice out there and say that I completely disagree. It is entitled "Courtship and Marriage" and subtitled,"How to Prepare for Lifelong Love." The author is listed as John A. O'Brien. Now I am not sure who the actual author is because it appears that parts of the book were written in 1949 and someone thought it was a good idea to reissue and update it. I think it was a bad idea in 1949 and an even worse idea now.
Where do I even begin? There are many quotes from excellent encyclicals throughout the book. Those are the only saving grace that makes it worth the cost of printing. Outside of those quotes, I find no redeeming qualities and actually consider it a dangerous book due to the misconceptions on the so-called "passions of men and women." It begins on a negative note about why marriage fails and then makes huge leaps to ideas on how to overcome those problems. None of the ideas show any proof of leading to healthy marriage. In fact, from personal experience with people from other religions who employ the ideas, they can be downright dangerous.
First and foremost, they go so far as to say that since a man is more likely to push the boundaries of sex, that the woman should act as his conscience in addition to her own. Out of everything in the book, this was the most disturbing to me. The role of an auxiliary conscience is a role only appropriate to a parent or a mentor. Acting as a conscience to one's future spouse is a recipe for destruction. It creates a parent-child relationship in marriage. A wife can only form and follow her own conscience. Men being mothered by their wives is rooted in the very dangerous idea of being a conscience for another. I could go on and on about this topic alone. Even among non-dating peers it is dangerous to try to be a conscience for another. The individual must make the choice to walk away from a bad situation. If one can serve as an example to others, then that can be good, but peer pressure is defined by the idea of a peer pressuring a different idea than your own conscience wants.
Another huge problem I find with the book is the complete and utter misunderstanding of the female libido. If a woman were to believe the ideas in this book, she is setting herself up for a lifetime of denying her own sexual passion in marriage. Women and men are different sexually, but this book almost paints women as asexual! The author makes leaps about the sexuality of women that are downright infuriating. The idea that men are all about sex and women are just naive and innocent was a wrong idea in 1949 and still is today. Women ARE sexual beings!! I think the "hands-off courtship" idea is very detrimental to women. It presents her desire for marital affection as something to be feared. The author pushes the idea that if a goodnight kiss goes a "trifle to long" (his words) that the couple runs the risk of ruining the entire relationship, so it is best to not kiss at all. How absurd!!
If the ideas in this book were played out congruently, then single people wouldn't be able to do anything, since everything they do holds some risk to their physical and moral well-being. The concept of moderation is outright rejected by the author. Drinking is forbidden, being anywhere without a chaperon is scandalous, and dating during college leads to unchastity since marriage isn't right around the corner. In other words, the author asks these young people to cease being who they are merely because they have entered a marriageable age. The author forbids genuine friendship between men and women since he seems to think that they cannot ever be trusted alone together. Yet, he (rightly) says that a good marriage is rooted in genuine friendship! That blatant contradiction was just too much for me to accept.
For me, the saddest part of this book is that people seeking a healthy marriage will seek it out. And further, that people who have a lot of clout are recommending it is disappointing. The correct ideas that are presented here are readily available from other, better sources. The ideas that are unique to this book are the ones most dangerous. The horrible idea that simple affection is a bad thing is what led Hugh Heffner, (founder of Playboy magazine) down his path to pornography. Affection is good and healthy and wholesome. The author of this book does not seem to believe that, neither did Heffner's parents.
To tell my children that a kiss or a touch of the hand is off limits because it might "fan the flames of desire" negates every bit of affection I have given them throughout their lives! My job as parent is to be an auxiliary conscience as they continue to form their own. I do not want their peers to be their conscience, especially not as they contemplate marriage. I want my children to show affection, healthy affection, to both sexes. I hope and pray that they are able to understand the passions of their bodies and properly order them to their state in life. I will never ask them to deny their feelings. And I certainly do not want them behaving in a different manner when I am not around. I learned one of my greatest life lessons from my driver's ed. teacher. He said, "I don't care how you drive in front of your parents' house. I care how you drive when you turn the corner."
When the pendulum swings to extreme puritanism it is only a matter of time before it swings over to pornography. It is only by finding that narrow middle ground where the pendulum stills, that we can find the narrow gate to enter.
This horrible idea is precisely opposite extreme of the pornographic approach often employed. And if I have said it once I have said it a hundred times, it is the extreme views of puritanism that is just the other side of the coin to pornography. The book is chock-full of negative ideas for courtship. And sadly, it is endorsed by some well known Catholic speakers. I have to put my voice out there and say that I completely disagree. It is entitled "Courtship and Marriage" and subtitled,"How to Prepare for Lifelong Love." The author is listed as John A. O'Brien. Now I am not sure who the actual author is because it appears that parts of the book were written in 1949 and someone thought it was a good idea to reissue and update it. I think it was a bad idea in 1949 and an even worse idea now.
Where do I even begin? There are many quotes from excellent encyclicals throughout the book. Those are the only saving grace that makes it worth the cost of printing. Outside of those quotes, I find no redeeming qualities and actually consider it a dangerous book due to the misconceptions on the so-called "passions of men and women." It begins on a negative note about why marriage fails and then makes huge leaps to ideas on how to overcome those problems. None of the ideas show any proof of leading to healthy marriage. In fact, from personal experience with people from other religions who employ the ideas, they can be downright dangerous.
First and foremost, they go so far as to say that since a man is more likely to push the boundaries of sex, that the woman should act as his conscience in addition to her own. Out of everything in the book, this was the most disturbing to me. The role of an auxiliary conscience is a role only appropriate to a parent or a mentor. Acting as a conscience to one's future spouse is a recipe for destruction. It creates a parent-child relationship in marriage. A wife can only form and follow her own conscience. Men being mothered by their wives is rooted in the very dangerous idea of being a conscience for another. I could go on and on about this topic alone. Even among non-dating peers it is dangerous to try to be a conscience for another. The individual must make the choice to walk away from a bad situation. If one can serve as an example to others, then that can be good, but peer pressure is defined by the idea of a peer pressuring a different idea than your own conscience wants.
Another huge problem I find with the book is the complete and utter misunderstanding of the female libido. If a woman were to believe the ideas in this book, she is setting herself up for a lifetime of denying her own sexual passion in marriage. Women and men are different sexually, but this book almost paints women as asexual! The author makes leaps about the sexuality of women that are downright infuriating. The idea that men are all about sex and women are just naive and innocent was a wrong idea in 1949 and still is today. Women ARE sexual beings!! I think the "hands-off courtship" idea is very detrimental to women. It presents her desire for marital affection as something to be feared. The author pushes the idea that if a goodnight kiss goes a "trifle to long" (his words) that the couple runs the risk of ruining the entire relationship, so it is best to not kiss at all. How absurd!!
If the ideas in this book were played out congruently, then single people wouldn't be able to do anything, since everything they do holds some risk to their physical and moral well-being. The concept of moderation is outright rejected by the author. Drinking is forbidden, being anywhere without a chaperon is scandalous, and dating during college leads to unchastity since marriage isn't right around the corner. In other words, the author asks these young people to cease being who they are merely because they have entered a marriageable age. The author forbids genuine friendship between men and women since he seems to think that they cannot ever be trusted alone together. Yet, he (rightly) says that a good marriage is rooted in genuine friendship! That blatant contradiction was just too much for me to accept.
For me, the saddest part of this book is that people seeking a healthy marriage will seek it out. And further, that people who have a lot of clout are recommending it is disappointing. The correct ideas that are presented here are readily available from other, better sources. The ideas that are unique to this book are the ones most dangerous. The horrible idea that simple affection is a bad thing is what led Hugh Heffner, (founder of Playboy magazine) down his path to pornography. Affection is good and healthy and wholesome. The author of this book does not seem to believe that, neither did Heffner's parents.
To tell my children that a kiss or a touch of the hand is off limits because it might "fan the flames of desire" negates every bit of affection I have given them throughout their lives! My job as parent is to be an auxiliary conscience as they continue to form their own. I do not want their peers to be their conscience, especially not as they contemplate marriage. I want my children to show affection, healthy affection, to both sexes. I hope and pray that they are able to understand the passions of their bodies and properly order them to their state in life. I will never ask them to deny their feelings. And I certainly do not want them behaving in a different manner when I am not around. I learned one of my greatest life lessons from my driver's ed. teacher. He said, "I don't care how you drive in front of your parents' house. I care how you drive when you turn the corner."
When the pendulum swings to extreme puritanism it is only a matter of time before it swings over to pornography. It is only by finding that narrow middle ground where the pendulum stills, that we can find the narrow gate to enter.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Movie Woes
I just watched the movie "The Handmaid's Tale." That is two hours of my life that I will never get back. I cannot begin to describe the awfulness. It is based on a book that seems to be required reading for high school students. Every single thing in the story is against everything I stand for. The "good guys" and the "bad guys." Everyone is completely misguided about sexuality.
The bad guys are sterile fundamentalists who use "breeders." These are the handmaids. I can't begin to tell the story since it is so depraved. The "good guys" find comfort in promiscuity. They are the rebels.
Neither side values monogamy. It seems to be looked at as not natural. The supposed fundamentalists value concubines and the rebels seem to think that monogamy can't be done. I can't really write anything coherent about this awful story tonight. I just didn't want to forget.
It was written by a feminist in 1985. The whole story is degrading to authentic womanhood.
The bad guys are sterile fundamentalists who use "breeders." These are the handmaids. I can't begin to tell the story since it is so depraved. The "good guys" find comfort in promiscuity. They are the rebels.
Neither side values monogamy. It seems to be looked at as not natural. The supposed fundamentalists value concubines and the rebels seem to think that monogamy can't be done. I can't really write anything coherent about this awful story tonight. I just didn't want to forget.
It was written by a feminist in 1985. The whole story is degrading to authentic womanhood.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Two Posts I Didn't Want to Lose (Long read)
I participate in a Catholic bulletin board, including a thread on infertility. Since we never know when something might be lost on the internet, I wanted to save these two posts because they say a lot of what I wanted to say. The first is a response to a woman who had had IVF and was upset because we Catholic women didn't agree with her choice. She basically said, "Don't judge me because you have never been in my shoes." This was my post explaining very much how far I had traveled:
Yes, I have walked more than a mile in your shoes. For you to presume I haven't, is very telling in your reply. I have no idea whether or not you were in a state of sin in using IVF. That is not my job. (You probably weren't since you were given improper counsel, but again, not my place to know.) I am positive however, that IVF is an immoral act. Objectively speaking IVF is immoral. Opinion doesn't change fact, but intent can lessen culpability.
As my wise father says, "There are two things we must examine; wrong acts and the state of personal sin. One we must judge, the other we cannot. 'Judge not lest thee be judged' has entirely to do with a judging the state of another's soul. It has nothing to do with judging actions on the part of others and ourselves. To instruct the ignorant and admonish sinners are two of the spiritual works of mercy! I have been thankful in my life for those who instructed me in my ignorance and admonished me in my sinfulness. It has made me a better person.
I know the pain and heartache of infertility. I knew I was infertile for years and years before I married. I agonized over if I was even called to marriage. I always knew I wanted to be a mother, but wasn't so sure how I would do at the wife side of things. Would I forever resent being "only" a wife? Was I called to the religious life where I could have children in spirit, if not in flesh? Was it right to marry a man who said, now, that he was fine with never having children, but would those feelings change?
And oh the slaps in the face I received for my beliefs! At 23 and single, I was told to "have a baby or have a hysterectomy." Twenty-three, and they were already telling me to go outside my faith. Doctors who claimed to be Catholic were willing to do anything just to, "put a baby in there." The paths I went down in response were more painful than any others in my entire life. I fell into the pits of sin. I have repented of them all, but there are scars that stay.
But the light of Christ was always there. I found that the Church has always been consistent even if Her followers weren't. I also found that Church teaching had a freedom that nothing else had to offer me. Instead of being limited by Church teaching, I found I was healed. It didn't mean I could suddenly conceive, but it meant that I fully understood my role as a wife independently of my role as a mother. My infertility prepared me more fully for marriage.
My infertility reminded me that God wants husband and wife to be together even during (natural) infertility. It has helped me to be a voice for living authentic sexuality according to God's design. Infertility gave me the insight to help others keep from turning their marriage bed into a "stud farm." When you only ovulate every six months or so it is a real lesson in humility when God tells you to abstain during fertility! But he had a better plan in mind than mine. My two precious children are on HIS time, not mine. He, and only He, knows best.
As I enter the new phase of my life, being told by God that I am done expanding my (very small) family, I wait with joyful anticipation for whatever he has in store for us. So we enter into abstinence phases yet again, and I try to use that time for prayer to more fully accept God's will for my life.
And the second is an open letter asking for prayer:
I have been wanting to bring a request here for quite awhile and yet I haven't for many reasons. But because God is God, He has given me the chance now to say it.
I need prayer of a very different kind. As many of you know, I have struggled with infertility and yet was eventually able to conceive my two naturally. (Thanks prolifewife for your thoughtful defense of my place in this thread, and for all others who have treated me with compassion even though I am technically "on the other side of infertility" now.)
In fact that is why I haven't brought my prayer request to this thread. I am now really on the other side now. Through much prayer we have discerned that we are called to be done expanding our very small family. I am so sad about it, yet very peaceful in knowing that it is God's will. I haven't brought my prayer request here because I have felt so entirely humbled by knowing that I am in a place in my life that others here might envy. How do you ask for prayers for help being "done" having babies in a group of people where some have never even started?!
But the thing is, it feels a lot like I felt when I was infertile. It is a big fat 'NO' from a Father who knows so much more than I, and I want to stomp my feet and throw a temper tantrum like the tiny child I am. I even know the 'why?' of it, yet I don't want to accept it. Why couldn't He just heal my many, many physical problems instead? Why is the answer that I get no more children? Have I not done a good enough job with the ones I have? Have I not "earned" any more? Of course I know in my mind the answer to these questions, but my heart hasn't accepted it yet. I know in my mind, that some of the people who can't have babies, "deserve" them the most.
And then there are the big families. Those wonderful ones you see at Mass who are going a little crazy and their patient parents spend most of the time helping those many children become better people at the expense of hearing the gospel words themselves. And I look at them with jealousy in my heart crying, "I'm willing! Just please heal me!" And then I see the parents who have one child or five and yet don't really want to be parents so they do a slack job, and I just want to slap them silly. Again, "I'm willing! Please heal me!" And then there are those days when I do a slack job, when I fall into my own selfishness and realize that maybe I just saw them on their off day. And I am humbled yet again.
And then there is that moment once again where I realize what I am really mourning. It is that fluttering in my belly that says new life is present, that moment I felt in my dreams before I conceived, and feel again, now, in my dreams as I again mourn an empty womb. Since I know what it feels like in real life, I almost, but not quite wish I didn't know what I will be missing. But then I see the eyes of my friend who miscarried before she felt movement, and admonish myself and offer up my sadness in place of her own. I admit, the pain to never feel the flutter, is more acute. There is nothing that aches more.
Infertility has so many aspects to it that there are too many to name. I look into the eyes of my son who looks exactly like me and the eyes of my daughter who looks nothing like me and wonder, "Would I love them less if I suddenly found out they weren't really 'mine'?" No I couldn't. They are on loan from God for no matter how long I have them with me. Whether they came from my body or someone else's, I have the privilege of being their mother. I carried them, but they look different enough that they might as well be from someone else.
And finally I remember authentic Catholic teaching that we are ALL called to motherhood and fatherhood. The nuptial meaning of the body unites us as children of God and parents to all other children. I remember I need to continue in the act of procreation even when it doesn't reproduce. I still need to participate in the race to the end even when I am tired. I still need to leave the door open to God in case his answer wasn't just a 'no,' and was instead a 'not now.'
Please pray for me for an acceptance of God's will, not just in my mind, but in my heart as well. And please, especially for those who struggle with infertility more than I, please forgive me for asking in the first place. As I mourn the end, I will offer up all I can for the many couples who have never been able to start.
Yes, I have walked more than a mile in your shoes. For you to presume I haven't, is very telling in your reply. I have no idea whether or not you were in a state of sin in using IVF. That is not my job. (You probably weren't since you were given improper counsel, but again, not my place to know.) I am positive however, that IVF is an immoral act. Objectively speaking IVF is immoral. Opinion doesn't change fact, but intent can lessen culpability.
As my wise father says, "There are two things we must examine; wrong acts and the state of personal sin. One we must judge, the other we cannot. 'Judge not lest thee be judged' has entirely to do with a judging the state of another's soul. It has nothing to do with judging actions on the part of others and ourselves. To instruct the ignorant and admonish sinners are two of the spiritual works of mercy! I have been thankful in my life for those who instructed me in my ignorance and admonished me in my sinfulness. It has made me a better person.
I know the pain and heartache of infertility. I knew I was infertile for years and years before I married. I agonized over if I was even called to marriage. I always knew I wanted to be a mother, but wasn't so sure how I would do at the wife side of things. Would I forever resent being "only" a wife? Was I called to the religious life where I could have children in spirit, if not in flesh? Was it right to marry a man who said, now, that he was fine with never having children, but would those feelings change?
And oh the slaps in the face I received for my beliefs! At 23 and single, I was told to "have a baby or have a hysterectomy." Twenty-three, and they were already telling me to go outside my faith. Doctors who claimed to be Catholic were willing to do anything just to, "put a baby in there." The paths I went down in response were more painful than any others in my entire life. I fell into the pits of sin. I have repented of them all, but there are scars that stay.
But the light of Christ was always there. I found that the Church has always been consistent even if Her followers weren't. I also found that Church teaching had a freedom that nothing else had to offer me. Instead of being limited by Church teaching, I found I was healed. It didn't mean I could suddenly conceive, but it meant that I fully understood my role as a wife independently of my role as a mother. My infertility prepared me more fully for marriage.
My infertility reminded me that God wants husband and wife to be together even during (natural) infertility. It has helped me to be a voice for living authentic sexuality according to God's design. Infertility gave me the insight to help others keep from turning their marriage bed into a "stud farm." When you only ovulate every six months or so it is a real lesson in humility when God tells you to abstain during fertility! But he had a better plan in mind than mine. My two precious children are on HIS time, not mine. He, and only He, knows best.
As I enter the new phase of my life, being told by God that I am done expanding my (very small) family, I wait with joyful anticipation for whatever he has in store for us. So we enter into abstinence phases yet again, and I try to use that time for prayer to more fully accept God's will for my life.
And the second is an open letter asking for prayer:
I have been wanting to bring a request here for quite awhile and yet I haven't for many reasons. But because God is God, He has given me the chance now to say it.
I need prayer of a very different kind. As many of you know, I have struggled with infertility and yet was eventually able to conceive my two naturally. (Thanks prolifewife for your thoughtful defense of my place in this thread, and for all others who have treated me with compassion even though I am technically "on the other side of infertility" now.)
In fact that is why I haven't brought my prayer request to this thread. I am now really on the other side now. Through much prayer we have discerned that we are called to be done expanding our very small family. I am so sad about it, yet very peaceful in knowing that it is God's will. I haven't brought my prayer request here because I have felt so entirely humbled by knowing that I am in a place in my life that others here might envy. How do you ask for prayers for help being "done" having babies in a group of people where some have never even started?!
But the thing is, it feels a lot like I felt when I was infertile. It is a big fat 'NO' from a Father who knows so much more than I, and I want to stomp my feet and throw a temper tantrum like the tiny child I am. I even know the 'why?' of it, yet I don't want to accept it. Why couldn't He just heal my many, many physical problems instead? Why is the answer that I get no more children? Have I not done a good enough job with the ones I have? Have I not "earned" any more? Of course I know in my mind the answer to these questions, but my heart hasn't accepted it yet. I know in my mind, that some of the people who can't have babies, "deserve" them the most.
And then there are the big families. Those wonderful ones you see at Mass who are going a little crazy and their patient parents spend most of the time helping those many children become better people at the expense of hearing the gospel words themselves. And I look at them with jealousy in my heart crying, "I'm willing! Just please heal me!" And then I see the parents who have one child or five and yet don't really want to be parents so they do a slack job, and I just want to slap them silly. Again, "I'm willing! Please heal me!" And then there are those days when I do a slack job, when I fall into my own selfishness and realize that maybe I just saw them on their off day. And I am humbled yet again.
And then there is that moment once again where I realize what I am really mourning. It is that fluttering in my belly that says new life is present, that moment I felt in my dreams before I conceived, and feel again, now, in my dreams as I again mourn an empty womb. Since I know what it feels like in real life, I almost, but not quite wish I didn't know what I will be missing. But then I see the eyes of my friend who miscarried before she felt movement, and admonish myself and offer up my sadness in place of her own. I admit, the pain to never feel the flutter, is more acute. There is nothing that aches more.
Infertility has so many aspects to it that there are too many to name. I look into the eyes of my son who looks exactly like me and the eyes of my daughter who looks nothing like me and wonder, "Would I love them less if I suddenly found out they weren't really 'mine'?" No I couldn't. They are on loan from God for no matter how long I have them with me. Whether they came from my body or someone else's, I have the privilege of being their mother. I carried them, but they look different enough that they might as well be from someone else.
And finally I remember authentic Catholic teaching that we are ALL called to motherhood and fatherhood. The nuptial meaning of the body unites us as children of God and parents to all other children. I remember I need to continue in the act of procreation even when it doesn't reproduce. I still need to participate in the race to the end even when I am tired. I still need to leave the door open to God in case his answer wasn't just a 'no,' and was instead a 'not now.'
Please pray for me for an acceptance of God's will, not just in my mind, but in my heart as well. And please, especially for those who struggle with infertility more than I, please forgive me for asking in the first place. As I mourn the end, I will offer up all I can for the many couples who have never been able to start.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Disgraceful Reporting about the Pope
This post needs very little from me. The link explains it much better than I could. It seems that journalistic integrity flies out the window when the topic is the Catholic Church. In this case journalistic integrity flew out the window, dodged a few cars, played chicken for awhile and finally ended up smashed on a windshield. It is official: nothing is sacred any more.
“Associated Press” Disgraces Itself With Error-Ridden and Malicious Attack on Pope
Friday, April 9, 2010
Define Irony
My pastor has struck again. Usually, I write on ways to better communicate and help people better understand Catholic teaching. I do my darndest to show fidelity to my pastor, my bishop, and of course, my most Holy Father. Usually my concerns are about what has gone wrong with secular society and how that has spilled over into what people believe about the Church. Usually. This posting is different. Since my pastor has side-stepped our bishop and then bashed the Holy Father, I am not going to post with fidelity to him. And he has done it all while not noting the plank in his own eye while pointing out the speck in another.
In fairness I need to post a link to the article. But not knowing how long our local paper will keep it active, I am trying to decide how much to pick out and quote or how much to merely comment on the article. The title of this post however, is due to a direct quote so I will show that in context.
The article is here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/04/06/1142699/a-stronger-younger-pope-is-needed.html#ixzz0kauO0i2i
And the part I am specifically addressing is quoted here:
He basically claims he was "asked to weigh in" on the most recent sex abuse scandals and how the allegations are currently handled. While he does not identify the person or persons who asked him to weigh in, he does a fair job of explaining, albeit vaguely, for anyone but the fairly knowledgeable Catholic, the process the Church now has in place for preventing future occurrences and weeding out past ones. He begins to go off the rails when he claims that while the Church herself has a good system in place, there are still problems at the diocesan level.
His solution is that most bishops should have retired 10 years ago, especially and specifically including our most Holy Father in that list of the "much too old for strong leadership" category. (I was really glad our bishop responded to the article and set a few things straight because our pope is not too old, and Father was speaking without any authority whatsoever.) Now all of this was just one man's opinion and while I completely disagreed with his assessment of the facts, I do feel he has a right to voice his opinion on the age and competency of his fellow priests as long as he is very clear it was merely his (ahem, ill-informed) opinion.
But where I finally took umbrage was to the bolded sentence in the above quote, "They might be nice people; they just made terrible errors in administrative judgment." It is in bold again so no one can mistake my reason for my break in my normal blogging style. Administrative judgment, eh? Errors? Let me take you back to 2004 and show some "terrible errors in administrative judgment" concerning the exploitation of children.
There is currently only one person in the Catholic clergy who has been accused (and convicted, I might add) of crimes against children in the valley, and possibly in the entire diocese which includes the whole state of Idaho. That person was a deacon found to have copious amounts of child pornography on his computer. Which parish you might ask? Mine. Under the "watchful eye" of my pastor. Now I will grant that the awful images were on a computer at his employment and not at the parish. But it was a crime against children by someone in close contact with our pastor.
I do not hold Father personally responsible for the crime since he was not the perpetrator, but I do hold him accountable for the "terrible errors in administrative judgment" he showed after the fact. When was Father informed of the crime? Oh, sometime in late Spring, early Summer. When was the deacon relieved of his duties? Oh, sometime in early Fall! When did I come in contact with the deacon? When I was arranging for my infant son's baptism after he was born in mid August. There was only one good thing that came out of my son's illness at birth, a delayed baptism. He was too sick to be around people, but not so sick that he was in danger of death. So we delayed his baptism...until early November. The deacon had just been relieved of his duties a few weeks before.
Our entire parish was up in arms with our pastor's handling of the situation. We all felt so lied to. This was 2004! We were fresh on the heels of when the first scandals broke. Our priests and bishops had promised a "transparency in dealing with past abuse cases." It even went so far as our bishop writing a letter of apology for his part in a transfer in another diocese decades before. We knew that many people, back then, believed a pedophile could be rehabilitated. We understood that if you had only been in contact with one person, you would do what appeared to be the "normal and correct way of handling it." Our bishop asked our forgiveness and came clean with it. We didn't need to know the details because he was being upfront about it. We laid it to rest fairly quickly.
But when the scandal broke in our parish many people felt so betrayed that our pastor KNEW and yet he DID NOTHING! This was 2004! What did our pastor think; that because they were only images that real children weren't in danger? Didn't he learn anything? Pedophiles begin their crimes by those who are closest to them. This man was a husband and father. This man handled small children over a baptismal font! And yet this pastor felt it was fine to keep this under wraps for months on end. How absurd!!
The opinion piece by my pastor in our local paper brought up some very strong feelings in me. When my newborn son was in the NICU it was this deacon who came to give him a blessing. While I know because of my faith that the office of deacon gave my son the blessing, so it was therefore valid, I still can only see the image of a pedophile handling my newborn son. For my pastor to have the nerve to go to our paper and accuse others of "terrible errors in administrative judgment" based almost solely on their age is beyond ridiculous. That he does so now, in the shadow of his own reprehensible errors, is the definition of irony.
In fairness I need to post a link to the article. But not knowing how long our local paper will keep it active, I am trying to decide how much to pick out and quote or how much to merely comment on the article. The title of this post however, is due to a direct quote so I will show that in context.
The article is here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/04/06/1142699/a-stronger-younger-pope-is-needed.html#ixzz0kauO0i2i
And the part I am specifically addressing is quoted here:
[Emphasis by me]It is my opinion, for what it is worth, that 10 years ago many American bishops should have been retired. They might be nice people; they just made terrible errors in administrative judgment. I think the same thing should happen today throughout Europe. I think it would be best if Pope Benedict were to retire. He may be a saintly man, but he is much too old to lead the church through this mess. We need a strong leader who will call the church to humility and penance for our past.
The central focus of the sex abuse scandal always has to be the victims. With that in mind, I have confidence in the good people who make up the church. Our managers have failed us in the past years, but management has never been the heart of the church: God is the center and that has not changed.
He basically claims he was "asked to weigh in" on the most recent sex abuse scandals and how the allegations are currently handled. While he does not identify the person or persons who asked him to weigh in, he does a fair job of explaining, albeit vaguely, for anyone but the fairly knowledgeable Catholic, the process the Church now has in place for preventing future occurrences and weeding out past ones. He begins to go off the rails when he claims that while the Church herself has a good system in place, there are still problems at the diocesan level.
His solution is that most bishops should have retired 10 years ago, especially and specifically including our most Holy Father in that list of the "much too old for strong leadership" category. (I was really glad our bishop responded to the article and set a few things straight because our pope is not too old, and Father was speaking without any authority whatsoever.) Now all of this was just one man's opinion and while I completely disagreed with his assessment of the facts, I do feel he has a right to voice his opinion on the age and competency of his fellow priests as long as he is very clear it was merely his (ahem, ill-informed) opinion.
But where I finally took umbrage was to the bolded sentence in the above quote, "They might be nice people; they just made terrible errors in administrative judgment." It is in bold again so no one can mistake my reason for my break in my normal blogging style. Administrative judgment, eh? Errors? Let me take you back to 2004 and show some "terrible errors in administrative judgment" concerning the exploitation of children.
There is currently only one person in the Catholic clergy who has been accused (and convicted, I might add) of crimes against children in the valley, and possibly in the entire diocese which includes the whole state of Idaho. That person was a deacon found to have copious amounts of child pornography on his computer. Which parish you might ask? Mine. Under the "watchful eye" of my pastor. Now I will grant that the awful images were on a computer at his employment and not at the parish. But it was a crime against children by someone in close contact with our pastor.
I do not hold Father personally responsible for the crime since he was not the perpetrator, but I do hold him accountable for the "terrible errors in administrative judgment" he showed after the fact. When was Father informed of the crime? Oh, sometime in late Spring, early Summer. When was the deacon relieved of his duties? Oh, sometime in early Fall! When did I come in contact with the deacon? When I was arranging for my infant son's baptism after he was born in mid August. There was only one good thing that came out of my son's illness at birth, a delayed baptism. He was too sick to be around people, but not so sick that he was in danger of death. So we delayed his baptism...until early November. The deacon had just been relieved of his duties a few weeks before.
Our entire parish was up in arms with our pastor's handling of the situation. We all felt so lied to. This was 2004! We were fresh on the heels of when the first scandals broke. Our priests and bishops had promised a "transparency in dealing with past abuse cases." It even went so far as our bishop writing a letter of apology for his part in a transfer in another diocese decades before. We knew that many people, back then, believed a pedophile could be rehabilitated. We understood that if you had only been in contact with one person, you would do what appeared to be the "normal and correct way of handling it." Our bishop asked our forgiveness and came clean with it. We didn't need to know the details because he was being upfront about it. We laid it to rest fairly quickly.
But when the scandal broke in our parish many people felt so betrayed that our pastor KNEW and yet he DID NOTHING! This was 2004! What did our pastor think; that because they were only images that real children weren't in danger? Didn't he learn anything? Pedophiles begin their crimes by those who are closest to them. This man was a husband and father. This man handled small children over a baptismal font! And yet this pastor felt it was fine to keep this under wraps for months on end. How absurd!!
The opinion piece by my pastor in our local paper brought up some very strong feelings in me. When my newborn son was in the NICU it was this deacon who came to give him a blessing. While I know because of my faith that the office of deacon gave my son the blessing, so it was therefore valid, I still can only see the image of a pedophile handling my newborn son. For my pastor to have the nerve to go to our paper and accuse others of "terrible errors in administrative judgment" based almost solely on their age is beyond ridiculous. That he does so now, in the shadow of his own reprehensible errors, is the definition of irony.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Why Don't People Get It?
I was reading an article of yet another crime involving pornography. It is again child pornography. This is child pornography is called "Class 4" or something similar under British law. The only worse classification is 5. The height of tragedy is that these images, concocted by Satan himself, were held by a child murderer. This child murderer was a child himself when he murdered a toddler. He was let out at age 18 and given an entirely new identity. All of this was in the interest of his safety.
A child, from a horrible background commits a horrible murder. And society believes it is too expensive to house the murderer and attempts "rehabilitation." Few people believe it is really possible, yet the attempts continue.
I am going to assert that as long as any pornography is considered "normal," then rehabilitation is impossible! As long as images of degradation of any human being are tolerated in the mainstream, these crimes will continue and escalate. It has not been proven that the murder of this child was sexually motivated, only that sexual assault was included. I really don't care about the motivation. I care about the results!
Child pornographers are "motivated" by greed. The result is pure evil. I know it can be argued, even by me, that those very pornographers were victims themselves at one point. That is where this evil comes from. It is passed from generation to generation, spreading and mutating like the horrible virus it is. The mutations are caused by each generation slacking more and more in accepting immorality.
Each of us has been there. I've seen the steamy movies and watched to the end just to know how it turned out. I have sought to balance an artistic eye, only to have it assaulted by an image I can't erase from my mind. I have had the nightmares that the evil I have allowed in my own life, has played on. I don't hold myself innocent here and instead, find that speaking out against these atrocities is a way to heal and help the images fade.
The idea that we are allowed to muck around in the mud and still come out clean is even an idea touted by many evangelical Christians. They have this image of us being "dungheaps covered in a blanket of snow" that is Christ's sacrifice for us. But that is just plain not good enough! Either God actually makes us clean, or He doesn't. This idea that we are merely "covered by Christ" is what has led many to a path of continued depravity.
The whole point to authentic Christianity is an actual uniting of ourselves with Christ on the cross! It is not a simple, "Gee thanks for dying for me Jesus, now I will try to do better because I love you so much." That is absurd, and yet it is what many churches teach, (and sadly many Catholics who are not in union with Church teaching.) Every time a crime is committed against a child we are to re-examine our own lives and nail to the Cross each crime we committed against Christ. Every time we caused a child to doubt the love of God, a "great millstone" is hung around our necks.
The only way to stop the advance of evil is to grow in holiness. The only person I can change is me. And the only Person I can truly allow to change me is Christ Himself. He lives in us all and we must recognize him at every turn and invite him to each moment in our lives.
A child, from a horrible background commits a horrible murder. And society believes it is too expensive to house the murderer and attempts "rehabilitation." Few people believe it is really possible, yet the attempts continue.
I am going to assert that as long as any pornography is considered "normal," then rehabilitation is impossible! As long as images of degradation of any human being are tolerated in the mainstream, these crimes will continue and escalate. It has not been proven that the murder of this child was sexually motivated, only that sexual assault was included. I really don't care about the motivation. I care about the results!
Child pornographers are "motivated" by greed. The result is pure evil. I know it can be argued, even by me, that those very pornographers were victims themselves at one point. That is where this evil comes from. It is passed from generation to generation, spreading and mutating like the horrible virus it is. The mutations are caused by each generation slacking more and more in accepting immorality.
Each of us has been there. I've seen the steamy movies and watched to the end just to know how it turned out. I have sought to balance an artistic eye, only to have it assaulted by an image I can't erase from my mind. I have had the nightmares that the evil I have allowed in my own life, has played on. I don't hold myself innocent here and instead, find that speaking out against these atrocities is a way to heal and help the images fade.
The idea that we are allowed to muck around in the mud and still come out clean is even an idea touted by many evangelical Christians. They have this image of us being "dungheaps covered in a blanket of snow" that is Christ's sacrifice for us. But that is just plain not good enough! Either God actually makes us clean, or He doesn't. This idea that we are merely "covered by Christ" is what has led many to a path of continued depravity.
The whole point to authentic Christianity is an actual uniting of ourselves with Christ on the cross! It is not a simple, "Gee thanks for dying for me Jesus, now I will try to do better because I love you so much." That is absurd, and yet it is what many churches teach, (and sadly many Catholics who are not in union with Church teaching.) Every time a crime is committed against a child we are to re-examine our own lives and nail to the Cross each crime we committed against Christ. Every time we caused a child to doubt the love of God, a "great millstone" is hung around our necks.
The only way to stop the advance of evil is to grow in holiness. The only person I can change is me. And the only Person I can truly allow to change me is Christ Himself. He lives in us all and we must recognize him at every turn and invite him to each moment in our lives.
Monday, March 8, 2010
People Are Genuinely Good.
I really believe that. People are genuinely good. I haven't blogged in awhile. My computer was broken and then I just couldn't get my spirit into it again. This is really for me, I guess, since I have about 3 regular readers (Hi there!) so thanks for reading. I suppose if I got that "follow button" going I might have more, but it just hasn't happened yet, so here I am, me and my keyboard.
I really want to get this out. I almost put it in my private journal but I wanted to type it and my last private journal got lost in the computer crash. For whatever reason, I want this out there. I want it out in cyber-space so that I could somehow find it again if I need it. I think it is one of my more important "confessions."
I selfishly want to know everyone. I believe, no matter what, that people are inherently good and I want to know them all. I say that is selfish because at the heart of it, it is. It is all about me. I, I, I. I want to know the goodness in all people. I want to experience it. And mostly I want to measure up to it and be worthy of knowing that goodness.
Like all epiphanies, this one had a catalyst. (That word means "a beginning" or "an ignitor" for one of my readers who says I use too many big words.) And epiphany, in this case means "a big new thought or revelation." The catalyst was my friend's step-dad died of cancer. (Basically closer to her than her natural father, and helped her become the woman she is.) Death often makes people mull over life and examine their conscience, so I guess I am no different.
But in this case, I am doing all of it for entirely selfish reasons. See, I didn't know him. Without having reconnected with an acquaintance from high school, he would just be another name. But that is what is getting to me. He lived this exemplary life and I didn't know him. His funeral is going to be huge, and I never heard of him until I reconnected with someone I barely knew in high school. I feel like I missed out. He was this major contributor in the life of someone who I have come to know and respect. And I never got to witness it. Somehow, it makes me feel very insignificant.
I am going to the funeral, but again, I doubt my motives. Am I going just to go? I want to "be there" for my friend, but it feels so weird. Why would I need to "be there" for her when people who knew him already are? It isn't like she or I lack friends. She has dozens and so do I. If it were a small funeral I wouldn't hesitate to add some comfort to a small number. But this was one of those genuinely good men who had a devoted wife, lots of friends, and was a giver to society. He didn't share my religious beliefs and I know little of his politics other than the two governors who will attend. So why am I going?
Because he mattered to someone who matters to me. Because I wish I had made different choices in life and had gotten the chance to meet him. Again, all about me. How selfish am I that I shed tears for "what might have been?" He was a good man, from what I hear, a great man actually, and all I can think of is, "I missed out." And on a deeper level I want to be able to support my friend because she represents the one type of friendship that I have never had. I have never had a truly close friend who is on nearly all of the same common ground as me. I don't have to explain my religious beliefs, or political stance, or parenting style, or my husband's idiosyncrasies, or my family, or anything. She just "gets it." That hasn't happened with any close friendship, ever. But I didn't know him. So we aren't on common ground.
One of the things I have come to know in my almost 39 years is that I have common ground with everyone. I have never met a stranger and I don't believe that evil is inborn. I believe we all have a natural predisposition toward evil but we are all inherently good. The Catholic Church refers to it in terms of "Original Sin," and "concupiscence," which is a tendency towards sin. We all have it and we all can overcome it. Without getting into too much theology, It is the teaching that we can all come to God even if we don't exactly know how, if we genuinely seek Goodness. My hope is to be one who fulfills the great Bishop Fulton Sheen's prophetic words, "There will be many surprised people in heaven." Surprised that I made it and surprised at who else did too.
In the end I think it all comes back to this idea of "control" that I am finally attempting to give to God. I can't save the world. I can't even really change the whole world. But I want to have at least known of as many people as possible who have touched it. I want to experience people. I want to see, first hand, joy and sorrow and distinguish the two while at the same time know that they are often two sides of the same coin. I don't make joy and sorrow, God does. Sorrow can be a very beautiful thing. What is the joy of reunion in heaven without knowing the sorrow that preceded? In heaven it is everlasting joy. What will it be to know everyone who ever was and ever will be and to fully know God? I have no words. I have no words.
I really want to get this out. I almost put it in my private journal but I wanted to type it and my last private journal got lost in the computer crash. For whatever reason, I want this out there. I want it out in cyber-space so that I could somehow find it again if I need it. I think it is one of my more important "confessions."
I selfishly want to know everyone. I believe, no matter what, that people are inherently good and I want to know them all. I say that is selfish because at the heart of it, it is. It is all about me. I, I, I. I want to know the goodness in all people. I want to experience it. And mostly I want to measure up to it and be worthy of knowing that goodness.
Like all epiphanies, this one had a catalyst. (That word means "a beginning" or "an ignitor" for one of my readers who says I use too many big words.) And epiphany, in this case means "a big new thought or revelation." The catalyst was my friend's step-dad died of cancer. (Basically closer to her than her natural father, and helped her become the woman she is.) Death often makes people mull over life and examine their conscience, so I guess I am no different.
But in this case, I am doing all of it for entirely selfish reasons. See, I didn't know him. Without having reconnected with an acquaintance from high school, he would just be another name. But that is what is getting to me. He lived this exemplary life and I didn't know him. His funeral is going to be huge, and I never heard of him until I reconnected with someone I barely knew in high school. I feel like I missed out. He was this major contributor in the life of someone who I have come to know and respect. And I never got to witness it. Somehow, it makes me feel very insignificant.
I am going to the funeral, but again, I doubt my motives. Am I going just to go? I want to "be there" for my friend, but it feels so weird. Why would I need to "be there" for her when people who knew him already are? It isn't like she or I lack friends. She has dozens and so do I. If it were a small funeral I wouldn't hesitate to add some comfort to a small number. But this was one of those genuinely good men who had a devoted wife, lots of friends, and was a giver to society. He didn't share my religious beliefs and I know little of his politics other than the two governors who will attend. So why am I going?
Because he mattered to someone who matters to me. Because I wish I had made different choices in life and had gotten the chance to meet him. Again, all about me. How selfish am I that I shed tears for "what might have been?" He was a good man, from what I hear, a great man actually, and all I can think of is, "I missed out." And on a deeper level I want to be able to support my friend because she represents the one type of friendship that I have never had. I have never had a truly close friend who is on nearly all of the same common ground as me. I don't have to explain my religious beliefs, or political stance, or parenting style, or my husband's idiosyncrasies, or my family, or anything. She just "gets it." That hasn't happened with any close friendship, ever. But I didn't know him. So we aren't on common ground.
One of the things I have come to know in my almost 39 years is that I have common ground with everyone. I have never met a stranger and I don't believe that evil is inborn. I believe we all have a natural predisposition toward evil but we are all inherently good. The Catholic Church refers to it in terms of "Original Sin," and "concupiscence," which is a tendency towards sin. We all have it and we all can overcome it. Without getting into too much theology, It is the teaching that we can all come to God even if we don't exactly know how, if we genuinely seek Goodness. My hope is to be one who fulfills the great Bishop Fulton Sheen's prophetic words, "There will be many surprised people in heaven." Surprised that I made it and surprised at who else did too.
In the end I think it all comes back to this idea of "control" that I am finally attempting to give to God. I can't save the world. I can't even really change the whole world. But I want to have at least known of as many people as possible who have touched it. I want to experience people. I want to see, first hand, joy and sorrow and distinguish the two while at the same time know that they are often two sides of the same coin. I don't make joy and sorrow, God does. Sorrow can be a very beautiful thing. What is the joy of reunion in heaven without knowing the sorrow that preceded? In heaven it is everlasting joy. What will it be to know everyone who ever was and ever will be and to fully know God? I have no words. I have no words.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Bring It On or Let It Go?
Obviously I have some differing opinions than many people I know. Yes, hello, I am Catholic, and many people I know are not.
So a cousin of mine posted a "news article" about a topic upon which we disagree. She noted that it was an "excellent article written by a conservative lawyer" supporting her point of view. I read through the article, to the end, and did my best to stay objective. I failed. I will never get those five minutes of my life back. I don't miss them terribly, but I still can't decide if I should say something or not and lose another five or ten minutes. I guess pointing out that the lawyer was "conservative" (whatever that means) was supposed to say something like, "Look a liberal (whatever that means too) likes this article!" The problem was, the article had nothing in it that actually addressed the concerns of the opposing viewpoint.
I have learned that the way to show objectivity is to actually present the opposing argument in a way that a person who holds that point of view would actually recognize as his or her own. In the film, "Listen to Me" about a group of debaters, there is a wonderful scene where their coach makes a young woman switch sides of a debate after making her opening statement. The subject? Abortion. It was an excellent movie. A really well informed debater can do it without anyone knowing where he or she stands.
This wasn't that kind of article. This was the kind of article known as a "strawman argument." It means that you build a false picture of your opponent's point of view and then proceed to knock it down. Then for the kicker, you claim victory.
I try to keep away from strawmen. I think one of the ways to do so is to actually view your opponent as an intelligent person who came to their beliefs through careful study, faith beliefs, or legitimate experience. I have often said to an opponent, "I get where you are coming from. If I had your same experiences, I would probably hold the same point of view." So my job, I believe, in getting the word out on authentic marriage and authentic sexuality is to present the side they haven't considered and then Let. It. Go. Walk away, and take my soap-box with me. I fail at it far more often than I care to mention, but that is still my job.
We all want victory. If what we hold as important really is The Truth, then victory would really mean no one actually lost. But, we are all fallible humans. We will make mistakes. We will misrepresent the Truth eventually, accidentally of course. But we still have an obligation to interact even when we are slightly misguided. We aren't on this big chunk of dirt and water alone. We have to live together. We have to communicate and not just talk around each other. We have to know when to remain silent and be thought the fool instead of opening one's mouth and removing all doubt. A huge piece of of this is knowing when to bring it on and when to let it go. As of right now, I still don't know. Please pray for me.
So a cousin of mine posted a "news article" about a topic upon which we disagree. She noted that it was an "excellent article written by a conservative lawyer" supporting her point of view. I read through the article, to the end, and did my best to stay objective. I failed. I will never get those five minutes of my life back. I don't miss them terribly, but I still can't decide if I should say something or not and lose another five or ten minutes. I guess pointing out that the lawyer was "conservative" (whatever that means) was supposed to say something like, "Look a liberal (whatever that means too) likes this article!" The problem was, the article had nothing in it that actually addressed the concerns of the opposing viewpoint.
I have learned that the way to show objectivity is to actually present the opposing argument in a way that a person who holds that point of view would actually recognize as his or her own. In the film, "Listen to Me" about a group of debaters, there is a wonderful scene where their coach makes a young woman switch sides of a debate after making her opening statement. The subject? Abortion. It was an excellent movie. A really well informed debater can do it without anyone knowing where he or she stands.
This wasn't that kind of article. This was the kind of article known as a "strawman argument." It means that you build a false picture of your opponent's point of view and then proceed to knock it down. Then for the kicker, you claim victory.
I try to keep away from strawmen. I think one of the ways to do so is to actually view your opponent as an intelligent person who came to their beliefs through careful study, faith beliefs, or legitimate experience. I have often said to an opponent, "I get where you are coming from. If I had your same experiences, I would probably hold the same point of view." So my job, I believe, in getting the word out on authentic marriage and authentic sexuality is to present the side they haven't considered and then Let. It. Go. Walk away, and take my soap-box with me. I fail at it far more often than I care to mention, but that is still my job.
We all want victory. If what we hold as important really is The Truth, then victory would really mean no one actually lost. But, we are all fallible humans. We will make mistakes. We will misrepresent the Truth eventually, accidentally of course. But we still have an obligation to interact even when we are slightly misguided. We aren't on this big chunk of dirt and water alone. We have to live together. We have to communicate and not just talk around each other. We have to know when to remain silent and be thought the fool instead of opening one's mouth and removing all doubt. A huge piece of of this is knowing when to bring it on and when to let it go. As of right now, I still don't know. Please pray for me.
Monday, January 11, 2010
That Old Feelin'
Through much prayer and waiting we have discerned that God has called us to a small family. We are still leaving the door open if God has another plan for us, but everything has pointed to being called to be done having children. The reasons are many, and all are valid, some even extremely important, but it doesn't take away the hurt.
It is that old feelin'. Am I just falling back into a contraceptive mentality? I hope not. Do I just want more children on principle to prove a point? Very possible. Or am I just really having all of my maternal instincts in high gear? Most likely. It is so natural for a woman to want to have babies. But in recent decades it seems that our culture has tried to condition us out of our instincts.
Women want marriage and family and all of the trappings that come with it. For years there was a faction of people trying to convince society that women really wanted "freedom." They were right on one point. Women were enslaved in one way or another. But it wasn't our precious babies who enslaved us. It wasn't even really men, although they were the ones bore the responsibility for the outcome. No, it was and has always been we women who have kept ourselves enslaved.
I deep look at human history shows that every time women sought "sameness" with men is when men made their bad decisions. We have always been equal, since the dawn of time. What we have never been is the same. And this isn't the struggle of the civil rights movement to have to overcome "separate but equal." No. That was a certainly a battle that needed to happen, because they most certainly were not treated equally, and you cannot live anywhere on this earth and be "separate" from anyone.
No, this battle was a dog digging in his heels at the vet. This is the battle against neutering. Now I am all for neutering pets when needed. They have no self-control. But we humans do. So why don't we show it more often? Of that I have no real answer.
But this attempt at sameness was and is a battle of neutering. If women are less like women and more like men, then where does that leave men? Neutered, unless they dig in their heels and fight back. Every time in history when women stayed women, men did not fight back and our rights were maintained. We are equal simply because we are not the same. We are complementary. It is the universal yin and yang, push and pull, positive and negative. To be neutral has no power. It is through our complementarity that we have balance AND power.
It is that old feelin'. Am I just falling back into a contraceptive mentality? I hope not. Do I just want more children on principle to prove a point? Very possible. Or am I just really having all of my maternal instincts in high gear? Most likely. It is so natural for a woman to want to have babies. But in recent decades it seems that our culture has tried to condition us out of our instincts.
Women want marriage and family and all of the trappings that come with it. For years there was a faction of people trying to convince society that women really wanted "freedom." They were right on one point. Women were enslaved in one way or another. But it wasn't our precious babies who enslaved us. It wasn't even really men, although they were the ones bore the responsibility for the outcome. No, it was and has always been we women who have kept ourselves enslaved.
I deep look at human history shows that every time women sought "sameness" with men is when men made their bad decisions. We have always been equal, since the dawn of time. What we have never been is the same. And this isn't the struggle of the civil rights movement to have to overcome "separate but equal." No. That was a certainly a battle that needed to happen, because they most certainly were not treated equally, and you cannot live anywhere on this earth and be "separate" from anyone.
No, this battle was a dog digging in his heels at the vet. This is the battle against neutering. Now I am all for neutering pets when needed. They have no self-control. But we humans do. So why don't we show it more often? Of that I have no real answer.
But this attempt at sameness was and is a battle of neutering. If women are less like women and more like men, then where does that leave men? Neutered, unless they dig in their heels and fight back. Every time in history when women stayed women, men did not fight back and our rights were maintained. We are equal simply because we are not the same. We are complementary. It is the universal yin and yang, push and pull, positive and negative. To be neutral has no power. It is through our complementarity that we have balance AND power.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Contracepting Lawnmowers
I wrote at an earlier date about a movie (unnamed here so I don't have to worry about legal issues) where the trailer begins with a young girl saying these words, "Most babies are accidents..." I was shocked down to the tip of my toes to hear that, but now it gets worse.
I saw an ad for a reality show where a couple has decided to try to conceive. So far they have been unsuccessful and are apparently seeking infertility treatment now. This woman is in her mid-30s and says a line that saddens me deeply. She says, "We spend all of our lives trying not to get pregnant and when we go to get pregnant we can't."
How upside down have we really become? Is it really so shocking to society that if you break something that it doesn't magically fix itself? Here's my thought: Let's say I have a riding lawnmower. I decide that it is fun to drive around. I can do fun little quick turns and make fancy maneuvers. But it has that pesky blade on the bottom. I can't go everywhere I want to go because I risk mowing down the daisies. I think the daisies look nice so I would like to save them for now. Maybe when they are not looking so hot I will go ahead and mow them down. But for now I want to drive right where those daisies are, and my blade is just stuck in the engaged position. I can't disengage it. Wherever I go, scattered daisies lie in my wake.
So I flip my mower over and smash the heck out of my blade with a sledgehammer. I keep bending it and smashing it until it will not mow daisies no matter where I drive it. The blade can spin and spin but will never reach the daisies. Now I can drive it wherever I want, on whomever's lawn I want and it will do nothing but make fancy maneuvers.
Then one random day I decide I want to mow. my. lawn. I want the blade to do what a blade was designed to do. I have decided that it is best to stay on my own lawn and stop driving over the daisies. I have decided this because I finally cultivated a good healthy relationship with my very own lawn. I would finally like to have a beautiful, manicured lawn of my very own. But it is too late. The blade is mangled. It will take professional intervention at great cost to straighten out the problem. I have to use precious time to fix what should have never been broken, (by me I might add,) in the first place. Can it be repaired? Well of course. It is just a silly lawnmower blade! Just rip it out and put in a new one! I can just do that so easily so I will.
So why would anyone mangle a perfectly good lawnmower blade just to be able to drive over the daisies? "What a silly analogy!" some might say. No one would do that to a perfectly good lawnmower just to go for a joyride! We see the idea of mangling a lawnmower blade as such a silly idea. So why do we treat our bodies with less respect than a lawnmower? What value have we placed on our human sexuality that we see corrupting a lawnmower as completely ridiculous, but corrupting our own bodies as perfectly reasonable? Word to the wise: Cultivate your own lawn and stop mowing over the daisies! You will be happier in the end. No mangled blade to fix.
I saw an ad for a reality show where a couple has decided to try to conceive. So far they have been unsuccessful and are apparently seeking infertility treatment now. This woman is in her mid-30s and says a line that saddens me deeply. She says, "We spend all of our lives trying not to get pregnant and when we go to get pregnant we can't."
How upside down have we really become? Is it really so shocking to society that if you break something that it doesn't magically fix itself? Here's my thought: Let's say I have a riding lawnmower. I decide that it is fun to drive around. I can do fun little quick turns and make fancy maneuvers. But it has that pesky blade on the bottom. I can't go everywhere I want to go because I risk mowing down the daisies. I think the daisies look nice so I would like to save them for now. Maybe when they are not looking so hot I will go ahead and mow them down. But for now I want to drive right where those daisies are, and my blade is just stuck in the engaged position. I can't disengage it. Wherever I go, scattered daisies lie in my wake.
So I flip my mower over and smash the heck out of my blade with a sledgehammer. I keep bending it and smashing it until it will not mow daisies no matter where I drive it. The blade can spin and spin but will never reach the daisies. Now I can drive it wherever I want, on whomever's lawn I want and it will do nothing but make fancy maneuvers.
Then one random day I decide I want to mow. my. lawn. I want the blade to do what a blade was designed to do. I have decided that it is best to stay on my own lawn and stop driving over the daisies. I have decided this because I finally cultivated a good healthy relationship with my very own lawn. I would finally like to have a beautiful, manicured lawn of my very own. But it is too late. The blade is mangled. It will take professional intervention at great cost to straighten out the problem. I have to use precious time to fix what should have never been broken, (by me I might add,) in the first place. Can it be repaired? Well of course. It is just a silly lawnmower blade! Just rip it out and put in a new one! I can just do that so easily so I will.
So why would anyone mangle a perfectly good lawnmower blade just to be able to drive over the daisies? "What a silly analogy!" some might say. No one would do that to a perfectly good lawnmower just to go for a joyride! We see the idea of mangling a lawnmower blade as such a silly idea. So why do we treat our bodies with less respect than a lawnmower? What value have we placed on our human sexuality that we see corrupting a lawnmower as completely ridiculous, but corrupting our own bodies as perfectly reasonable? Word to the wise: Cultivate your own lawn and stop mowing over the daisies! You will be happier in the end. No mangled blade to fix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)