I never understood why...

Samuel L. Jackson ever agreed to play such a wimpy and uninspiring role in the new Star Wars episodes.

This is how it should have gone down.

"How-DEE! I'm just so proud to be here!"

Well, I haven't been mentioned in a poem before; except, of course, for that one about me and a motorcycle, but I never did like that one. Thanks to LarryD for the Christmas wishes!

Christmas wishes to all of you as well, though Christmas is half over (though not completely, as some would think). Being married to a starving church musician doesn't make for a quiet, simple holiday schedule, so we caught up on sleep and celebrated Christmas with some of our extended and adopted family on Saturday.

I know I haven't been here much, and I hope to chime in more soon. Work's been busy, I've been searching for and just was hired for a part-time tutoring job, we're trying to sell our home and buy another one with little money of our own, and we've had two feet of snow and a few family sicknesses thrown in just for fun! I know, that's supposed to be some sort of excuse for not blogging everyday? pssh, whatever!

God bless!

A Portrait in Contrasts

...between what happens when a conservative is at the podium versus when a liberal is at the podium:

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/health/healthy_living/health-care-reform-and-abortion-clash

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/leftist-thugs-shut-down-sheriff-joe-arpaios-free-speech-at-asu-first-amendment-forum-video/

Now, in the Kennedy case, Christopher Young shouldn't have thrown the DVD. That, I believe, is really what got the ball rolling for him getting thrown out of the forum. But Kennedy never answered the salient point. Because there's no good answer.

Just in case you think eugenics is cool...

go check out this article at Causa Nostrae Laetitiae.

Ban divorce?

The sad fact is that this idiot has a point...if only he'd get off his high-hubris to recognize it.

Smarter people than me have pointed out that "gay marriage" is not a death-threat to traditional marriage in this county. It's just the slimy kid down the street poking its already decaying carcass.

The real threat to marriage is no-fault divorce. Now, I'm not talking about situations where there is mental or physical abuse. People have a right not to be abused and should be able to get away from their abusers.

I'm talking about, "You know, honey, I woke up this morning and I don't feel like being married to you anymore" kind of divorce. The month-long Hollywood "irreconcilable differences" divorce. The "I just want to find myself and it's not with you" divorce.

Before my wife and I got married we made a pact- no divorce. Period. As a product of a home shattered by divorce, my wife experience first-hand the pain and destruction that a failed marriage leaves behind. The hurt, resentment, mistrust, anger and doubt that it leaves on children, especially.

Some might think our pact naive. To those who would say so, I would point out that when a couple gets married with the possibility that if things "don't work out" they have an exit door, it's only a matter of time until they use it. When you decide that there is no leaving, you make every decision differently. You find a way to forgive, to reconcile, to ask forgiveness. You find a way to be patient and caring when you don't feel like it. You seek counseling if necessary. You make sacrifices. You pray and work and struggle to put the other's welfare first. Conversely, when the marriage is by definition, not permanent, why take the trouble to care?

To others, though, our pact seems redundant.

Until the culture as a whole sees such a pact as redundant, marriage will continue to travel down the cultural path towards the realm of quaint, irrelevant leftovers of an earlier time.

Until we appreciate what marriage truly is, there is no argument against "gay marriage".

The Manhattan Declaration

If you haven't signed it, get to it! It's double-plus good!

Back when Hollywood still viewed Catholicism

...as a force for good in the world, it produced The Trouble with Angels. Released in 1966, I just recently saw it for the first time. Probably run of the mill kid fluff at the time, I was really impressed with its treatment of Catholicism in general and the religious life in particular.

The plot is simple: two rambunctious girls attend four years at an all-girls Catholic school run by an order of religious sisters. Watching this movie struck a chord with Wifey and me, because my wife was the rambunctious redhead at a school just like this one. My wife started laughing when the eldest retired sister was asleep at the dinner table. (I thought maybe she had died, so I didn't get the joke. But her school was, like in TTwA, also the Motherhouse of the order, so she had elderly nuns asleep at the table all the time.)

Haley Mills plays Mary Clancy, the antagonist of every prank in the movie. Rosalind Russell is stunning as Reverend Mother. The Trouble with Angels is a character study. The charm of the movie lies the growth into maturity of Mary Clancy and her friend Rachel Devery, along with the softening process as Mary begins to see Reverend Mother as less the dragon who thwarts her "scathingly brilliant ideas", and more the strong, devoted woman who quietly but passionately loves her Lord and her girls.

It's a fun movie to watch and the kids enjoy it. Unlike its changing-with-the-times hip and vapid sequel, which should be avoided like bells on Good Friday, I highly recommend The Trouble with Angels.

Time management

Last week I was complaining and whining like Luke Skywalker about how I feel like I'm going nowhere. Rob K made a good point that it might be an opportunity to discern if God wants me to do something differently.

It's a point well taken and one that I had been pondering. I was assessing not just blogging, but how I've been spending much of my time. And it hasn't been good lately.

I work for a small company that is pretty casual about guidelines. As long as the work gets done, there's a lot of leeway. So if I get to work at 7:00, great. If I get there at 9:00, fine. If I have errands to run on the way in, even later is acceptable. Nobody hounds me about it. It just means I stay later.

The problem with such permissiveness is that it's ripe for cultivating bad habits. And getting to work later had become a bad habit for me, one that was affecting other areas of life. Especially considering my 45 minute commute, I'd get out of work later, missing the kids, or I'd get out at the normal time to help my wife with something-or-other and end up with a shortened payday. And at a period of time when I'm also keeping an eye out for a part-time job that fits my schedule, this is not helpful. In general, I've been experiencing diminishing returns and general frustration. And there's nobody to blame but me.

I need to set a deadline for myself. Otherwise, the snooze button is my best friend. After all, without a firm time to be somewhere, what's another few minutes of blissful sleep?

God's solution to my problem was obvious.

I've been enjoying a better use of my days. Today I was out of the house before wifey was up, had a full day at work, came home, and made dinner for the kids and me (mom is out tonight). We brushed teeth, got Frac his medicine, read two library books, and sang extra night prayer songs (and a Star Wars theme)--both at the kids' request. And all of that because I had the best start to the day that there is.

7:00 Mass 1/2 mile from work.

Elena's Notes

If you're looking for a Christmas present for anyone and everyone, please consider Notes Left Behind, a book chronicling the story of Elena, a beautiful girl whose story is truly heart-breaking and -warming. Faced with terminal cancer, Elena hid dozens of love notes and drawings for her parents and sister to find when she was gone. Read her story, look at her artwork and support the cause to find a cure for this deadly disease.

(Just so you know, I contacted thecurestartsnow.org, affiliated with the project, and they informed me that they do NOT fund embryonic stem cell research, so buy the book in good conscience.)

H/T CMR.

Flashback

My wife and I were watching this online the other night and couldn't help but think that such a skit today would be lost on the audience, as so many of the predictions of 1984 and Brave New World have come true, that many people wouldn't recognize the irony that made this skit funny when it aired. Note the question at 3:15 and the audience reaction. They could laugh because the Culture of Death hadn't yet progressed from abortion-rights to promotion of outright infanticide.

Veterans--

Thanks

Obama shows his cards on abortion and health care

Obama's reaction to the House passage of the health care legislation with the Stupak amendment reveals where this is all going.

The Stupak amendment bans federal funding of abortion, which means that those who wish to have an abortion or who think they might need one in the future will either have to pay for one directly or will need to purchase the insurance with abortion coverage at their own expense.

Then Obama expresses concern that the amendment will restrict women's choices and opportunity to get such "health care."

Is he really afraid that purchasing private health care will be an actual restriction on procuring an abortion? That could only be the case if there is no private health insurance. There would only be no private health insurance if we move to the single-payer system, which Senator Obama declared was a goal of his. Many people have criticized the government intervention in health care as paving the way for single-payer health care, a charge that President Obama, Pelosi and Reid have vehemently denied. Who do you believe, them or your own eyes and ears?

Blogging

...has become a bit of a chore as of late. I'm finding that I do well with the format of online conversation, but I often get saddled with writer's block when I sit down to post my soliloquies. I really liked the older format of the CatholicVote website and that, essentially spurred my activities here. Someone would invariably say something utterly stupid and in need of immediate correction and explanation and that fueled my fire, so to speak. I found an avenue to discuss Catholic teaching and relate it to current events.

Lately, I've been spending too much time reading other blogs. I started out by checking out what other people were doing, getting ideas, and linking to stories that piqued my interest. But now I find that I use up all my blogging time just weeding through what others post. Then I'm overwhelmed by the sheer number of topics to address.

I don't like drive-by posting. On other people's blogs, there have been so many items I'd like to comment on, but the topics are important enough to warrant lengthy conversation, but since I don't have the time lately to do that, I'd rather not leave any comment at all than leave a provocative one-liner that I'm not around to defend.

Note to self:

snipped shamelessly from Diogenes:
quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's 1984 address to German seminarians:

The ability to accept and weather suffering is a fundamental condition for succeeding as a human being. Where it is never learned, existence is doomed to failure. Being up-in-arms about everyone and everything contaminates the ground of the soul, so to speak, and turns it into barren land. The priest must learn how to cope with pain -- formerly one spoke of asceticism in this context. No one likes this word any longer; it becomes more palatable when we translate it from Greek into English -- training. Everyone knows that without training and the will-power that goes with it there is no success. Nowadays one trains for all kinds of skills with enthusiasm and persistence, and in this way record performances in many areas are possible that were once deemed inconceivable. Why does it seem so outlandish to train for real life, for the right life -- to practice the arts of self-denial, of self-control, and of freeing ourselves from our addictions?

As a reminder of this, near my desk is a small copy of an illustration from an old copy of the Imitation of Christ, where Christ is being whipped and mocked by the soldiers in his cell. The caption: "Cease to complain, remembering my Passion."

Man, do I need to be reminded of that often.

And while I'm redirecting you to other blogs...

I've found Shameless Popery to be very enriching, especially the post today answering the Protestant hang-up on the Eucharist and Mary. It's worth checking out.

The Paschal Mystery

As I'm reading Fulton Sheen's "Life of Christ" and loving every minute of it, Fr. Longenecker's post today about the centrality of the Paschal Mystery to the Catholic's relationship with Christ is knee-deep frosting on the cake.

Sweetie-Pie Baby Girl

Sporting her "I Love My Daddy" bib.

Not only is she now crawling, but this week, she cut two teeth.
Oh, yeah, and in other minor news, SHE SAID DADA! (Mom is still moping.)

The Dog That Didn't Bark Finally Barks

President Obama said to a joint session of Congress that his plan for health care reform would not use Federal dollars to pay for abortions. Yet we knew even at the time that he was lying.

When he announced in his plan to make the Federal government the biggest health insurance provider in the nation that it wouldn't pay for abortions, do you remember the giant uproar it caused among abortion providers and their supporters? Remember the hand-wringing that went on by those worried that abortions would be underfunded and the abortion industry would be left out in the cold unable to offer their necessary services to women who need them? Oh, wait, that's right. There was no uproar. In fact, they didn't say "boo." No rants by Maureen Dowd, no e-mail campaign by Planned Parenthood, no released statements by Naral. Nothing. Not even a wimper by Pseudo-Catholics for Free Choice.

Apparently, they had reason to think that President Obama either didn't mean what he said or there was a giant loophole in his meaning. Well, Congressman Stupak provided the answer to that riddle. Obama was talking about a bill that didn't exist while the bills that existed in reality did and still do cover abortions with Federal (taxpayer-supplied) dollars, despite numerous attempts to amend the bills otherwise.

But even when pro-life amendments to the House and Senate bills were proposed, there was still no uproar from the abortion industry; that is, until now. Planned Parenthood is attacking the Catholic Church.

It is now perfectly clear that abortion will be covered under the plans that President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are pushing. And the Catholic Church is pushing back. In the last couple of weeks, the USCCB declared that unless abortion is taken out of the federal coverage and meaningful conscience protections are put in place, it will be forced to oppose the single reform that the Catholic bishops have been hoping for since the 1950's.

The only problem is, I don't know if they'll keep pushing or if they'll cave. History is not on our side. The Plan B "contraceptive" debacle that embroiled the State of CT and the CT Catholic Conference a few years back paints a disheartening picture: the bishops loudly declare that they'll fight to the end, then timidly release a statement on page A9 at the last hour admitting that the abortifacient would be allowed in Catholic hospitals.

I believed then that the bishops had a much stronger position than they either imagined or were willing to put on the table. If the Church had threatened to close its hospitals in the state--and I don't mean sell them to another health care company-- I mean, lay off the staff, demolish the buildings and set the land as a nature preserve, the state would have backed off in a heartbeat.

But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a half-hearted hope that the pill which was known to have abortifacient properties might not actually be acting as such. Sigh.

I fear that the bulletin-insert campaign (which, btw, many readers at CMR report didn't happen in their parishes this past weekend) is a little too little, too late.

Maybe I'm being naive, and if someone can help me understand this, please do. Why can't the bishops threaten to close Catholic hospitals if the health care proposal covers abortion with taxpayer dollars? Why can't they threaten it now unless a pro-life amendment is passed? What government body is going to find the funding to rebuild hundreds of hospitals throughout the country? And what politician is going to want that on his resume-- (I forced Catholic hospitals to close)?

I never met a cheeky imp...

...that I didn't love.

Happy 3rd Birthday!

The International Olympic Committee

shows that it is full of racist, right-wing teabaggers.

Carly Simon and Roberta Flack point to Christ?

Last week for days I couldn't get this song out of my head. Roberta Flack's recording of "Will you still love me tomorrow?" by Carole King. [My apologies, I couldn't find the actual recording, but here is a beautiful cover (of the cover). Now before I get to the point, let me just say, yes Roberta Flack had a low alto voice and this guy can sing as high in the tenor range as I can, but I can't sound soft and sultry like this. It's kind of creepy, but a great recording...]

Anyhoo, I've always found this song to be haunting, but I never put my finger on why. But the more it played over and over again in my head, a clearer understanding began to form. For the same reason that this song has captivated so many people (and been re-recorded by just about everyone who ever sang into a microphone) is that is expresses a longing, fragile tenderness that exists in every human heart. This song, whether the singer knows it or not, is about the search for God.

At first glance, that may not be what you see. In fact, at first glance, you could assume that this song is either about a couple growing serious in their affection for one another and about to make love (out of wedlock, we assume) or it could be about a one-night stand.

Now, let me get something out of the way. A good friend of mine frequently makes the "poop in the brownie" argument, which goes sort of like this: Good stories don't need to engage in gratuitous sin, even if it's just a little bit. After all, just a little bit of dog poop ruins the brownie batter. When she first made that argument it disengaged me, knocking me from my perch, rendering me unable to press for what I believed. Yet that argument, while relevant in many discussions, doesn't enter here. I'm not talking here about a gratuitous sex scene that adds nothing to the plot of a story, but is obligatory in order to reap box office cash, nor am I talking about torture porn (read: "Saw"), no matter how compelling the story may have ended up being. I'm talking about the glimmers of hope and transcendence even in sinful endeavors, the rays of light that may peek into a darkened corner that nonetheless reveal that there is a sun above.

The woman in this song is about to give herself to her lover, opening her body to his, revealing her inmost self. And in a moment frozen in time, she stops to question him. She is suspended in time while he stands before her, oblivious to the torrent of her heart within. Like Tevya, she wrestles with questions that may not have an answer. She looks to her lover to question him, but no answer comes, for the question remains only in her heart. But also like Tevya, it's not the answer that's important for the moment, but the fact that she grapples with the question.

Tonight you're mine completely,
You give your love so sweetly,
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes,
But will you love me tomorrow?

Is this a lasting treasure,
Or just a moment's pleasure,
Can I believe the magic of your sighs,
Will you still love me tomorrow?

Tonight with words unspoken,
You said that I'm the only one,
But will my heart be broken,
When the night (When the night)
Meets the morning sun.

I'd like to know that your love,
Is love I can be sure of,
So tell me now and I won't ask again,
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Will you still love me tomorrow?
-Carole King

What she is looking for, what we all are looking for, is not a love that is illusory, nor a love that only seeks its own pleasure, for that is not love at all. She seeks a love that lasts, a love that has no bounds. She wants a love that is everlasting. The woman in the song is playing at a dangerous game of trust, and she knows how dangerous it is, yet she can't do anything but trust anyway. She needs to trust, she needs to succumb to a love outside of herself. She needs to fall, hoping that her lover will catch her, though she knows that he may fail her.

Why, then, must she fall anyway? Why do we all run headlong into the abyss seeking after something that in this life seems never to fulfill but always to disappoint?

It is because we are made that way. We are created with one goal in mind: love. God, who is Love itself, created us with the sole intention that we might be one, in love, with Him for all eternity. But God does not force this love upon us. We must choose Him, Who loves us so much that he gave himself up for us, yet still allows us the freedom to love Him in return.

"27The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists, it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator."

Psalm 63:2-8

O God, you are my God-- for you I long! For you my body yearns; for you my soul thirsts, Like a land parched, lifeless, and without water.

So I look to you in the sanctuary to see your power and glory.

For your love is better than life; my lips offer you worship!

I will bless you as long as I live; I will lift up my hands, calling on your name.

My soul shall savor the rich banquet of praise, with joyous lips my mouth shall honor you!

When I think of you upon my bed, through the night watches I will recall

That you indeed are my help, and in the shadow of your wings I shout for joy.

The woman in the song is not looking for sex; she's looking for unending love. Like that quote from Chesterton, every man who walks into a brothel is looking for God.

Btw, if you want to read about other songs in our culture that in their own way point to the reality of Christ, visit Twisted Mystics.

My wife sent me the link to this today...

And I agree that it is one of the greatest things ever.

Completely Random Movie Quotes #3

"No! The world must be peopled."

[Quote noticeably absent from the movie: "Whoa."]

If you like logic

...and enjoy tearing apart the ridiculous arguments made by people who clearly don't understand it, then I think you'll enjoy this read at American Papist.

There's a new sherrif in town...

We were at the house of a family this weekend with which we are very close friends, as are our children, who are about the same age. We were having a great time, the adults inside kabitzing, making dinner, oogling over the baby, when the inevitable happened. You know.

One of the kids came in crying with the extra sound of injustice in his voice. Our friend's son, we'll call him Thomas, claimed that his sister, we'll call her Sandra, and my oldest son, here known as Fric, hit him and knocked him to the ground. Oh, boy, here we go.

Thomas' dad, mom and I summoned all the appropriate witnesses to the bailiff's quarters (the porch) and commenced the interrogations in the judge's chambers.

One by one the involved parties were questioned, with Thomas' story distinctly different from Sandra's and Fric's, neither of whom had a moment together to corroborate their stories. To get to the point, Thomas started by hitting Sandra with (I believe) a wiffle ball bat when she retreived the frisbee before he did. And what did my son do? Why, he knocked Thomas over by hitting him in the chest, because, hey!, you don't. hit. girls.

That's my boy.