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!!
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)