Yesterday...

When tragedy strikes, like yesterdays attack at the Boston Marathon, I always feel like I should have some amazing blog post spilling from my finger tips.  It never happens though.  Because instead I just feel a mixture of sadness and horror and thankfulness for my sister-in-law who posted that everyone in the family was accounted for before I even knew that anything had happened since I hadn't been online or seen the news all day, and didn't know what happened until my mom called from California where people in the fabric store she was in were asking if anyone had updates on what was going on.

I  turned off Dora, which had been on all day since we're still a house of sick people here, although who's sick seems to be rotating, and turned on the news and watched with that same sinking feeling I had after the shootings in December... the same drop in my stomach when I heard about 9/11 on the radio and wondered if it was some sort of hoax (because it was a radio station where the DJs were never serious about anything) and then saw my friends face as I pulled into the parking lot and knew instantly that it was not.

And I also knew, as I watched that cloud from the blast form over and over again on the news, that I had absolutely nothing to say of value to say or to add... because what can be said in the face of such evil, other than that it's wrong, so very wrong, which we all already know?

So we add our prayers to the many prayers being sent up for the people hurt and killed at the race yesterday, but beyond that I'm sure that there are many posts already out there that make so much more sense and add so much more to the moment than my simply repeated:  "Why?  Why? Why?" which is playing on repeat in my mind.

Prayers for the people of Boston, all those at the race, and for the conversion of those who planned and put into motion this great evil.  May God touch there hearts so that they may realize the horror of what they've done.

Ramblings on the Senselessness of Yesterday's Tragedy

If your like me, it's hard to even put yesterday's events into words, and yet at the same time, I find that I can't stop talking about them, so that Paul's already exhausted eyes were glazed over by bedtime last night (which was eight o'clock for him after a couple weeks of hardly sleeping) because I'd blabbed on and on since we first saw the report that said "a kindergarten class is unaccounted for."  

Every time I saw a new update on what happened in Newtown Connecticut I'd start up again, as if I had to share.  I found myself shake my head with fresh tears welling up because the whole thing was just so horrible.  Until I had to stop talking when we were out in town and I tried to share something with Paul that I'd seen on the news ticker of a TV high up on a wall and felt tears threatening to fall if I didn't stop and take a deep breath and tilt my head back and hope that they just stayed put.  And that in itself was bizarre for me, because in the whole of my life I can't ever remember crying about a disaster... I find myself sorrowful for those involved and feeling absolutely terrible about what happened, but at the same time removed enough that I just usually don't cry.  

But this time it was different... maybe because I have an almost four and a half year old now and while I just can't imagine what those parents were and are going through, I can almost imagine and almost-imagining it takes my breath away.  

When it happens in high schools it's just as horrible, but somehow it's slightly less shocking because high school is tough and kids are bullied and some are cruel and it's not all that hard to imagine someone just snapping and lashing out... but little kids who are hardly more than babies, slain by an adult?  The sickening idea of this sort of violence becomes even more impossible to fathom.  

When it happens with students who are older we hope that there are policies that can be enacted to ensure that this sort of thing never happens... but when it's a mad man lashing out at small children it's hard not to feel helpless.  Sure there are things that can be done to make areas more secure, but we can't guard everywhere... and that makes this all the more frightening.   

The realization that this sort of evil exists, that people are capable of this, is staggering.

Again and again I  find myself asking: How could someone do this? knowing that the answer is that it's because there is evil in the world and insanity... because people are broken and lash out, destroying the beauty around them.  

And so we pray, because there's little else we can do.  We hug our children tightly and give thanks that they are safe in our arms, knowing all the while that we will be sending them out into a world where this type of thing feels more and more common.  With hope we teach them to love, praying that they will shine the light of God's love into this broken world, but also knowing that our world as it is now will never be perfect and that there will always be pain this side of heaven.... and if you're like me you find yourself rambling on and on about the tragedy, hoping that somehow talking about it will make it make sense... even while knowing that it is entirely senseless...  

Prayers for all the people affected by this horrible tragedy...

The Worrying Trend of Blaming Children for the World's Ills

I'll admit that one of my first thoughts earlier in the month, when the Supreme Court upheld Obama Care, was a small, nagging worry that I very much wanted to ignore.  Yet I couldn't help but wonder:  If the federal government can force us to buy something, and tax us if we don't, what else will we find ourselves being taxed for in the future?

My mind went back to that story going around the internet a few weeks ago that was out of China (warning: this link does show graphic, incredibly saddening pictures), with the picture that I just couldn't click on to see because I knew that at that point I simply couldn't handle the site of a murdered baby laying next to his grieving mother.

I remembered reading that had the family been able to pay a fine of 40,000 yuan (a little over $6000) the baby would have been sparred.

Pay a fine and we won't kill your baby.  

The line between a "fine" and a "tax" is so thin these days that even courts and lawmakers can't seem to find a real difference.

I'd like to believe, wholeheartedly, that the possibility of something like this happening in our culture is out there in the realm of fanciful, overly paranoid conspiracy theory.  I really hope that it is.

But with many politicians and lawmakers in office these days that don't seem to see a connection between the existence of future taxpayers and the existence of programs like Medi-Care and Social Security (much less put any stock in the innate value of human life) I can't help but feel a bit edgy about the possibility.

What will we be asked to do next "for the good of our nation and society"?  And when will we cross the line from being asked to being told that we have no other choice?

In England, a senior government official, has seen the solution to their problems in telling mother's with large families not to have any more children.  After reading the article, detailing her complaint, I found her seeming obsession with "shaming" women into not having children to be even odder.  She says that 1 in 5 of the problems she sees are within large families.  1 in 5?  So 80% of the problems she's dealing with don't involve large families?  And yet large families are somehow the problem (there's a quote about how she's sure there are lovely large families out there, but she's certainly never met any)?

I think the problem is that the answer in much of the developed world, to any problems pertaining to poverty, is to throw contraceptives and "family planning methods" at the problems until they go away.  Then there is shock when an estrogen pill doesn't cause all of a woman's problems to magically evaporate and turn into a cheesy commercial with women picking out which house and husband they'd like in a store, along with a trip to Paris.

Sure it seems that large families make up a rather small minority of the group this senior official encounters, but their problem must be that they have too many children. It couldn't possibly be associated with the other ills found in a culturally relativistic society that tells us that nothing is really wrong or right and then wonder why making the wrong yet immediately gratifying choice doesn't make us happy, could it?

The delusion that children are the root of the problems in society, is especially delusional and repellant. I can imagine who came up with it.

"I know!  We'll get them to believe that children are the root of all the problems in the world!  And if they just get rid of them all, they'll all be rich and happy and carefree!" seems to be a perfectly diabolical approach to the destruction of a society who'd already like to completely separate sex from it's intended outcome of both bringing a family together, and building that family towards a grace filled future.

Yes, the fact that our politicians wail about the evils of bringing children into the world, and then give themselves the power to "tax" or "fine" pretty much anything, makes me more than a little nervous...

From Communist to Conservative: My Story (part 2)

This is Part 2 of this series.  Read Part 1 first, here.

I’ll begin to explain my political transformation, by trying, in my own small way, to bridge a bit of the understanding gap that exists in our nation.  I’m sure plenty of my conservative friends saw their facebook news feeds light up after this week’s Supreme Court ruling with comments about how we hate women and children and poor people and how we just want rich people to get richer (and while apparently it’s not cool to be offended by anything, I’ll freely admit that I am offended by the obnoxious name calling that goes on in the name of politics).  At the same time I know it’s tempting for conservatives to think that liberals just want to take everything they’ve made and spread it around to everyone, until the entire country is bankrupt. 

I think a good starting place in creating understanding, is to begin by giving each other the benefit of the doubt.  Neither side is trying to destroy our country.  However we do see the same problem and we’ve come up with very different solutions to that problem. 

Liberals, in the United States at least, tend to see problems and see a government solution to that problem.  Conservatives tend to look at the same problem and see a more local solution, or a private sector solution. 

Let’s take the problem at hand: the sorry state of health care in our nation.

I doubt there are many on either side who are going to deny that there is a problem and that something has to be done.  However the solutions are quite different.  Obviously a number of people, although according to every survey I’ve seen, less than 40%, believe that government funded health care is the solution.

Once upon a time, I would have agreed wholeheartedly and thought that the Supreme Court ruling was the greatest thing to happen in our country in a very long time.  Yet after spending half of my life paying attention to politics, I have to say, I wouldn’t trust our government to take care of my cat, much less my health.  I do not believe that health care should be managed by a government that has proven over and over again that the only thing it really excels at is giving scandal and partisan bickering. 

I’m actually not against Medicaid or any number of other state run programs that help the poor (even those that receive federal funding).  I do believe that there should be a safety net for those who have fallen upon hard times.  But having experienced Medicaid first hand when Paul lost his job after Sadie was born, and having marveled for a year and a half at the mind boggling level of incompetence that was repeatedly demonstrated (it took me a year and a half to get a person to talk to me, despite my repeated calls…), I have to say I’m not enthusiastic about turning over the health care of the entire nation to our federal government. 

You see, I think that we could come up with alternative solutions to the problem at hand that wouldn’t involve creating a giant bureaucracy, which is bound to have the same flaws our current government has.  I think our country would be much better off if the government didn’t continually kneecap charities who are working to serve the poor.  And, I believe that we might have tried encouraging interstate insurance competition to drive down prices, along with legislative action to crack down on frivolous lawsuits that drive up malpractice insurance prices, and drive up the cost of health care.  Because let’s face it: my c-section didn’t cost $64,000 and the fact that that was what our private insurance was charged (they passed on a $17,000 bill to us) was ridiculous. 

I also don’t believe that excessive taxation is going to stimulate our economy and send us, as a nation, in the right direction.  I don’t see individuals having less to spend, and the federal government having more, as something that’s going to send businesses hiring back the workers that they laid off 4 years ago.  And I do believe that a thriving economy is the best way to help the people in this country who are struggling to survive and put food on the table each month. 

So the next time you encounter someone who is against the mandate you might consider that it isn’t because they enjoy seeing children without access to medical help.  It’s much more likely that they believe the old saying: “you can give a man a fish so that he can eat for a day, or you can teach a man to fish, so he can eat for a lifetime,” has more than a little truth to it.

The Destruction of Freedom

I feel a little naive this morning.  Naive and yet at the same time, hardly surprised.  You see I'm not sure that there's anything that can happen during this administration's horrible rein that can surprise me any longer.  The first amendment?  Out the window with a simple mandate decreed from on high.  States rights?  What are those?  Does anyone remember?

Yet I feel the sting of my naivety because I did truly believe that the Supreme Court was going to uphold the Constitution this week.  Perhaps I had too much faith that they would uphold the rule of law?  I'd waited, more or less patiently, for the ruling to be handed down, clinging to the belief that the justices would at least be able to see that compelling every person in our country to buy anything was quite simply unconstitutional.

I'm sure there are people out there who will tell us that we can't really know what we're talking about (I've already heard that sentiment once this morning).  After all, this is Constitutional Law.  It's much too big and scary for us lowly commoners, with our mundane thoughts and the day to day concern of feeding our families, to understand on our own.  We haven't heard our own feet echoing up and down the hallowed halls of academia for nearly long enough to begin to wrap our little brains around such lofty ideas, right?

I disagree.  Before eighth grade I didn't have a clear understanding the freedoms that our Constitution promised us.  Then I sat in Mr. Vogel's history class, and we basically had to memorize the entirety of the information in the Constitution so that, if a section of it were removed, we could pen in the missing words.  And plenty of spaces were blank on the test.

Was it a challenge to memorize what each bill said?  Absolutely.  But if my thirteen year old mind could handle it, and process what I was memorizing, I'm quite certain it's not beyond the reach of the average American to understand the freedoms that the framers of the Constitution recognized needed to be protected.

Those men, penning the laws that they fervently hoped would stand to protect our freedom, didn't have much patience for an overbearing federal government that levied taxes simply because it could.  They thought that they were throwing that heavy, nation crushing weight off their own shoulders, and creating a nation where men wouldn't be weighed down under that same burden.

They didn't impose a system where the federal government could decide that it "knew better" than the majority of it's citizens and didn't frame a system to allow that government to take steps to protect us from our own irresponsibility, as a parent protects a young child.

Maybe you live in a country with socialized medicine and you love it (I lived in a country with socialized medicine and I watched as a friend suffered with a life threatening malady that would have been likely dealt with in one doctor's appointment in our own nation... so I am considerably less impressed with what I saw...).  If you do, please remember that your love for your country's system does not mean that this law is legal in this country.  It quite simply isn't something that is given to the federal government here.

Not only is it not legal, but it's never even been supported by a majority of the citizens of our independence loving nation.

This law is being forced upon us, first by an administration and legislature and now by a court that believes that it knows better than it's citizens (that's dangerous with elections creeping ever nearer) and who have now committed themselves to playing the part of nanny to those citizens.

They are telling us:  You have to buy this and if you don't buy this we'll fine/tax you for not buying it (so that you are still essentially buying it).  This is not freedom and it's certainly not legal with our existing Constitution.  It is a massive expansion of federal power and it leaves me wondering what the government will force us to buy next.  This year it's insurance and contraception.  What will they next decide we must buy "for our own good"?  Even the dollars that we manage to eke out of this horrible economy, after taxes, are no longer our own.

One hope remains through all of this:  Perhaps I was naive to trust in the courts and the rule of the law while this administration holds the reins of power.  I still cling to the hope that the voters across this nation will remember this treachery to freedom in November, and vote out those who participated in enacting this blight upon our country.

Let's remind the "leaders" of this nation that we are adults who have a say in our own destinies, by making our voices heard from the ballot box this November.

Freedom From Religion Campaign Aimed at Oppressing Catholics

Yesterday, while sitting on the ground pinning snoods during nap time and watching a news channel, I caught one of the worst commercials of all time.  Last week I remember seeing comments asking questions like: "What exactly does 'cultural Catholic' mean?" but in the rush of finishing up Sadie's birthday presents, I didn't take the time to figure out what everyone was talking about.

Then I heard these words and for the first five seconds I thought it was a joke, because the entire statements was just so ludicrous.  Then I realized that the speaker was serious:

"Hi, I’m Julia Sweeney, and I’m a cultural Catholic. I am no longer a believer and I even wrote a play about it called “Letting Go of God.” But I wanted to let you know that right now Catholic Bishops are framing their opposition to contraceptive coverage as a religious freedom issue. But the real threat to freedom is the Bishops, who want to be free to force their dogma on people who don’t want it. Please join the Freedom From Religion Foundation and help keep church and state separate..."

Let me begin by saying that, at the start of that commercial, I had no idea who Julia Sweeney was.  I did a little googling and read for a few minutes on her Wikipedia page and found that she actually identifies herself these days as an atheist, not a Catholic.  By identifying herself as a brave "cultural Catholic" (who just doesn't happen to believe), she's bucking the system, which must just sound so much better to those folks over at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, perhaps because it sounds like more of the Nancy Pelosi-esque "no-one-but-a-bunch-of-old-men-believe-this-anyway-and-we-don't-have-to-respect-their-freedom" propaganda that's been going around lately.

Of course, not a lot of actual thought is put into the questions that should be raised whenever nonsense like this is spoken out loud or typed out on a screen and shared with the public.  

So I'm sure we won't get to hear Sweeney's responses to questions like:  How does my refusing to subsidize your sex life, and the sex lives of other women across the nation, infringe on their freedom of religion?  When did contraception become an enshrined right?  You realize that no one is saying that you can't poison your body with your carcinogen of choice, right?  I just don't want to have to pay for it (and yes with 100% of our income plus some going to one of those private Catholic institutions that would be forced to purchase this coverage, our family most definitely would be subsidizing this evil).  

Nor will I get to hear a response if I point out that forcing Catholics to pay for something that they find evil infringes on our freedom of religion.  

Some would say it's not an infringement on our freedom to exercise our consciences because we could just quit offering these surfaces.  We could close down our schools and hospitals, or we could stop offering health care coverage altogether, seriously harming the employees at these institutions and harming the institutions ability to operate and provide services (which are often services that help the poorest of the poor).  

After all, the government isn't yet pointing a gun at our heads and saying: "Fork over the money for the pills or I'll pull the trigger."  But our freedom to exercise our beliefs isn't only infringed upon with the threat of actual violence or imprisonment.  It's trampled upon when the government puts up laws and regulations that tell Catholics that they can pay for this, or be harmed by the consequences (and not offering their employees coverage would be seriously harmed).  

You see the government has absolutely no constitution right to regulate our involvement in this, and force us to participate in this grave evil, while at the same time we are constitutionally protected by the first amendment and the men who penned the Bill of Rights, firmly believing that people shouldn't be compelled to violate their consciences.

I don't see anyone being forced by our government to march into a Catholic Church each Sunday for Mass, and I don't see the Bishops rounding up people in the streets and forcing the sacraments on them.  

I do see the government forcing their own brand of morality upon Catholics across this great nation.  And that's why the Fortnight for Religious Freedom is a far more appropriate cause to support in these troubling times.  

Even if you aren't Catholic you might want to pause and offer up a prayer... because the infringement on our freedoms always begins with one group... but it never ends with that group...  The government will continue this overreach of power unless we make our voices heard, both in prayer and in the public arena.

Dangerous and Outdated?

Paul can’t help but getting fired up when reading the suggested stories on the Yahoo news ticker and this morning was a special treat when he announced that Yahoo had suggested he read an opinion piece titled:  “The Catholic Church is Dangerous, Outdated and Should Dissolve- Yahoo! News”. 

The article is one of those special pieces of writing that seems designed to take as many anti-Catholic stereotypes and misconceptions as possible and weave them together into a masterpiece of epic proportions.  Fortunately for all of us, the author doesn’t even know enough to hit on the most commonly used pieces of anti-Catholic ignorance and so instead he relies entirely on CNN’s most recent reports. 

I shouldn’t be surprised when Yahoo’s contributions to social commentary are sub-par.  This is the site that regularly tackles such tough topics as “should children be banned from eating in restaurants” and “how to tell if this relationship is the one that will last.”  Their greatest highlights are generally pieces with titles like: “Who wore it better?  Pippa or Kate?” and honestly, after reading this article I wish they’d stick to what they kind-of-sometimes-almost get right (or at least puff pieces that do the least amount of harm to the general population and aim at killing the smallest number of brain cells).  

Instead we’re treated to quotes like:

"Another CNN report talks about the Vatican's recent attack on American nuns. The statement from Rome says they have gone rogue and have become radical feminists. The reason? The Pope thinks they should spend less time supporting social justice and more time opposing same-sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia. The Vatican is enforcing sanctions against the nuns, taking punitive action to get them back in line. The Pope is essentially telling each of these nuns, "Shut up and get back in the kitchen where you belong, woman." Apparently in the mind of the Pope social justice just isn't a big deal.”

 and:

“It's possible the Pope thinks he's making the right decision biblically -- and he might be correct. If so, his scripture is broken. It's ancient mythology that treats women like property. It's making him think social justice is irrelevant.

The Catholic Church is out of touch with reality and cares little for social justice and women's rights. Any religion so broken should dissolve and give its adherents a chance to live better lives without it.”

But not to worry because the author has already assured us that the Church is on her last legs:

“The Catholic Church is hammering so many nails into its own coffin that even an outside observer like me is left shaking his head at the ridiculous behavior of its leadership… Let's look at how the two situations prove the Catholic Church is on its last legs…”

I’m really not even sure where to begin…

It’s sad that such a large media outlet publishes such mistakenly twisted commentaries.  It’s even sadder that the author genuinely seems to believe what he’s saying.  The man obviously has no knowledge of the Church’s rich history that extends right up unto this moment, helping the poor and defending truth and justice. 

And I have a feeling he’ll be more than a little surprised when the Church outlives his expectations and is still vibrant, helping the poor and downtrodden when the bloated secular based plans for social justice which are so popular at the moment, collapse on themselves under their own weight.  

"But Everyone's Doing It!" and Other Lies About Why the HHS Mandate is Okay

Ever since the lawsuits against the HHS Mandate were filed last week the issue of religious liberty has reemerged in the forefront of my thoughts and this morning I'd like to address another angle that's often used by the media and opponents of religious freedom everywhere when attempting to force practicing Catholics to embrace and personally subsidize behavior they know to be evil.  It goes something like this:

"But everybody's doing it.  Even Catholics.  In fact, 98% of Catholic couples use contraception.  This is just a bunch of old men trying to force their own beliefs on everyone else."  

With this argument it can be hard to know where to begin, because there's so much wrong with it.  Let's start with oft quoted statistic of 98%.  Even the Washington Post felt the need to point out that the data was skewed.  I've already written about the dishonesty in these statistics but thought it was worth bringing up again.

Honestly, I personally, wouldn't have been surprised if a pollster went out and asked 1000 women on the street and got the 98% statistic, because people who identify as Catholic have very different views of what that means.

I have friends who identify as Catholic who haven't been to Mass in years and who disagree with pretty much everything that the Church says.  I've known people who seem to look at the label as "Catholic" as a sort of add on to an ethnic label, while the actual religion has no bearing on their lives.  There are Catholics who pick out the teachings that make them feel warm and fuzzy and ignore the rest.  Some of these Catholics attend Mass and some don't.  There are Catholics who say: "The Church was established by Christ and guided by Christ.  He promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Bride and honestly, I believe him.  I submit to the teachings of the Church, and I'm going to do my best to live them."  And there are a whole lot of people somewhere in the middle.

So I wouldn't have been shocked if the 98% statistic had been right.  Thankfully, it's not.  It's highly skewed (what else could we expect from Planned Parenthoods happy little polling organization!).

But even if it wasn't, does the government have the right to force a small group to violate their religious principles to pay for the recreational sex lives of the general population?  Can the government force us to violate our consciences using the logic that:  "Everyone else is doing it!"

The simple answer is no.  That was a key ingredient that went into the mix during the formation of our great nation.  Religious liberty was to be protected.  And while these days some people seem to think that means freedom from religion, it is actually freedom of religion.  Yes, the Constitution states that the state can't establish a religion.  But it also guarantees the free exercise of religion.  And a big part of the free exercise of my religion is not paying for babies to be killed (and that includes being prevented from implanting after a new life has been formed).

See, the fact that we all sin, doesn't make sin suddenly acceptable.  That's basically what you're saying when you use the "but everyone's doing it" argument.  Does saying:  "Well everyone sins, so it's okay for the government to mandate that we do something objectively evil!" make sense to you?  

The thing is, a lot of people, from the media to various self proclaimed dissenting Catholics, would like the Church to be a democracy.  They'd like us to be able to vote for what we think is right or wrong this week and be led my the court of popular opinion.

I'm a bit baffled by this, since it's pretty simple to exit the Church and find another church where you could vote on right or wrong and do whatever it is you want... but for some reason these particular Catholics would like to take the ship down with them.  I guess it's probably a nudge from the one who's been trying to take the Church down since it's foundation with Peter.

This response extends to the argument that says that "Catholic institutions aren't following Church teaching perfectly so it's okay for the government to force them to do other things that they find morally abhorrent."

After all, we complain about Catholic In Name Only (CINO) institutions all the time.  They're already not following Church teaching, right?  So how's this any different.

Repeat after me:  The government isn't to prohibit the free exercise of our religion.  It's the law of the land.  Even if we reveal our imperfect humanity with our mistakes and extremely poor choices, we're still allowed to strive for perfect unity with Christ.  The government can't take that from us.  

Besides, there are plenty of Catholic institutions with plenty of Christ loving Catholics who are doing their best to align their lives with Church teachings.  It's easy to focus on the bad, and the embarrassing Catholic College mistakes.  I've certainly done it... a lot.  And as a result I'd like to point out (although I think it's beside the point) that there are plenty of Catholic institutions that are seriously striving to do the right thing.  Off the top of my head:  Ave Maria University...  Franciscan Steubenville University... Christendom University... Saint Thomas (in Southern California.. and the one in New Hampshire... and the one in Houston!).  EWTN...  The list goes on and on.  I'm sure many of you could add to it.

But honestly, the fact that there's "CINOs" out there that fall short, doesn't mean we should codify those short comings into an illegal law.  And it doesn't justify the fact that the media has completely ignored the existence of people and institutions that do follow Church teachings to the best of their ability.

So please, don't swallow the lies the media is peddling about the Church, Catholics or Catholic institutions, hook, line and sinker.  Pray.  Trust that the Bride of Christ will overcome this assault, just as she's withstood the others.  And speak out about the evils of contraception as it continues to damage our culture.

A Sadie and a Mae Frown for...

I hadn't posted a "Sadie Frown" for a while, but the news today most certainly deserved double Sadie and Mae frowns.  The stories were just that bad:

This was one of those mornings where I checked facebook and began seeing links to various stories that made me feel physically ill.  They're the kind of stories that leave no doubt that evil is real, very, very real... and they're also the kind of stories that make one wish they could rinse out there eyeballs with bleach (there's the warning... it's really that bad...).

First I saw this story.  Over the years I've heard outrage over rhino and elephant tusks being sawed off for various supplements, and seahorse populations plummeting for the same reason, yet apparently this horrifying story broke back in August there was hardly a murmur.  Maybe that's because people would have to admit that the steps that lead up to powdered supplements made of 90-something percent dead babies, is also a grave disgusting evil (abortion) and that the taking of sweet innocent life, which so many condone in our country, is just as unimaginable as what these "supplement" makers are doing.

I mean logically does it make sense to be horrified by what's happening to the dead bodies, but be totally fine with the act of murder?  And let's face it, even in this morally relativistic culture we live in, ingesting dead babies is still going to turn the stomachs of most of us, right?  I like to believe that we're not so far gone that that's starting to sound okay to anyone who isn't a sociopath (although some people think that using them in skin care products is okay).

This post on NCRegister also talks about the similarity between these pills and the hotly debated stem cell research and wonders how disgusted we'd be with dead-baby-pills if they actually worked.

Another story popped up at the bottom of the page on the baby pill story, which I can't even manage to link to (instead I'll link to a fellow blogger who shares her disgust and a portion of the article).  It also sickening.  It's about the horrendous abuse of a five month old baby girl, who's mother was apparently running for worst-mother-of-all-time.  All I can say is that we should pray for that sweet little baby, who's now three years old and living with her adoptive mother.

After that I saw a link to a story about the founder of Calvary Chapel stating that children are no longer "assets," but "liabilities," because they no longer help bring in the dough for their parents.  Apparently if you really twist scripture so that it's no longer recognizable and you disregard other parts of the Bible and say "they don't matter anymore... God only meant that for them... not me..." you can come to that conclusion.  It also helps to begin with a belief that what God really wants for you is to be rich in this lifetime to reward you for your awesomeness, even if that disregards quite a few of Jesus' words, because that probably was also just meant for those people back in the first century and couldn't possibly apply to us now when he wants us all to have nice houses and at least three cars just for being our super awesome selves.

And here's why that story is lumped here with the others:

Maybe the message in that last story, that children are only blessings if they bring about financial gain, isn't that different from the sick message in the first story, where children weren't seen as blessings (at least by their government, depending on the circumstances of the abortion), but were seen as something that could be converted into currency ("assets" if you will).  Even the mother in the second story thought, through some convoluted logic to somehow gain and keep men by using her daughter as an "asset."  As long as we keep  missing the point, that children are always blessings and that life is always a beautiful gift, regardless of the circumstances, we can't really be shocked when evil like this unfolds and is brought to light.

Waking Up to Tragedy...

I keep reading the articles that pop up on the various news tickers about the tragedy in Norway. After an evil event has unfolded it’s difficult for many of us look away, as our brains work overtime to try to make sense out of senseless violence. And so the media works to give us every detail, and we absorb those details, trying to put the pieces together and understand the motives of someone who obviously had major problems (that feels like the understatement of the year).

My heart breaks for the people of Norway, for the young lives that were lost and the families that are mourning children and brothers and sisters… but also for the country as a whole, because I imagine that for many, even those not connected directly to the tragedy, life will never be quite the same.

There’s a feeling that I get now and then when I wake up in the morning, that’s been with me for about ten years (has it really been that long?) that will probably remain for the rest of my life. It’s the uncomfortable knowledge that something horrible can happen, while we’re asleep and that we may just wake to find that the entire world has changed in a way we’d never imagined. It’s usually just a fleeting thought, a question almost, of whether or not this morning, when I turn on the radio or check my computer, some horror will have played out while I was safe and sound in bed.

Before that day a decade ago, we’d all seen awful things on the news, but usually they were half a world away, and while horribly sad there was a certain distance that existed between the living room where I would watch the news and the scenes that played out in quick clips from around the globe at six o’clock each night. Attacks that are closer to home feel… closer to home…

And so I pray for the people of Norway and all who have lost loved ones to violence, and for those who have had their world transformed by that violence. And I pray that the mornings where we wake to such horrible news are few and far between…

The Case Against Parenthood?

Do you ever see those articles about the cost of having children and think, there's no way it costs that much, because I know how much we make and I know how much I spend and even if we multiply it by 18 it's only going to be a fraction of that cost!

I think kids cost... however much you have to spend...

There's a disturbing slant to this article, when you read the whole thing, that makes me think the author heartily agrees with the conclusion: "It's just not worth it!"

Here's the newest from Shine from Yahoo!:

"...Even before the Shepherds left Asheville, North Carolina, for Sichuan province, they'd made their life decision based on the experiences of their "childed" friends. "We watched them struggle to pay bills, find suitable apartments or houses to fit their families, and work at jobs they didn't like because they needed the insurance," Cynthia says. So she and Anthony enthusiastically took a pass on parenthood, an increasingly common decision for America's couples.

Considering the state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that the ranks of the child-free are exploding. The Department of Agriculture reports that the average cost for a middle-income two-parent family to support a kid through high school is $286,050 (it's nearly half a million dollars for couples in higher tax brackets). Want him or her to get a college education? The number jumps to nearly $350,000 for a public university, and more than $400,000 for private. Though if your kid's planning to major in Male Sterilization, it could wind up being a good investment: The vasectomy business seems to be one of the few in America that is booming. In the past year, the Associates in Urology clinic in West Orange, New Jersey, has seen a 50 percent jump in the procedure. So you could stress over starting a college fund, or you could consider that you can get a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood for less than the cost of a Bugaboo Cameleon stroller. Unless you're among the less than 2 percent of Americans who farm for a living and might conceivably rely on offspring for free labor, children have gone from being an economic asset to an economic liability.

But for the child-free, the benefits go beyond dollars and cents. There's less guilt, less worry, less responsibility, more sleep, more free time, more disposable income, no awkward conversations about Teen Mom, no forced relationships with people just because your kids like their kids, no chauffeuring other people's kids in your minivan to soccer games you find less appealing than televised chess..."

Read the entire article here.

And then there are the assumptions that this article makes. Want your kid to go to college? You better pay for it or it's not going to happen!

While this article can tell you all the great things about not having kids, the author doesn't find a way to put into words the many great things about having kids (in fact she parrots the research that claims that people with kids are less happy). And don't read the comments section unless you want an eyeful of hate on why it's evil to have kids and how "stupid" "breeders" are "overpopulating the world."

I wonder how many people are going to regret the decisions to sterilize that they made in their twenties (I have a friend who tried to convince her OB/GYN to do an elective hysterectomy when we were in our early twenties. She now has a beautiful baby girl!)... I have a feeling the numbers looking for reversals, and hoping those reversals work, will be very high.

Sadie Frown of the Week: Parents Signing Young Children Up For "Gender Reassignment"

In our world, it's trendy to say a great many things that simply aren't true. It's seen as normal for a mother can enlist a doctor's help in murdering her unborn child. So I guess the sort of control over children's bodies that is being reported in India isn't that far of a stretch. After all, if you can kill your child, why shouldn't you be able sign on the dotted line for a little (major) surgery?

The logic is mind boggling in both cases, and falls apart after anything more than a cursory glance and yet... everyday women kill their children. And according to recent reports, in India, families who feel the pressure to have a boy are signing their small children up for sex change operations. Here's the report:

"...Wealthy parents from Delhi and Mumbai are reportedly flocking to Indore, a city in the centre of India, for the relatively low cost £2,000 treatment to surgically 'correct' their daughters..."

"...Seven genitoplasty experts in Indore boasted each of them had turned 200 to 300 girls into 'boys' so far, with only one being older than 14, the legal age of consent to such an operation..."

Read the entire article here.

h/t Creative Minority Report

As I read more and more articles lately claiming that sexual identity is entirely a social construct (did you hear about the Swedish preschool that banned the words "him" and "her"?), I can't be entirely surprised by this newly reported form of evil. After all, if all that matters is how we're treated, than it shouldn't matter if we're born male or female. Another myth, but a myth that is rather trendy at the moment. This article shows that not only is the logic untrue, it's dangerous.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every child was welcomed into their mother's arms, regardless of gender, without the risk of being aborted for whatever reason? I have to say, being all of eight weeks pregnant, that I'm already tiring of the "I hope you have a boy" comments I've been getting a couple times each day. That is, apparently, the standard reaction to seeing a woman with two little girls who is pregnant.

I would love to have a boy. I would love to have another girl. But what I'm really praying for is a healthy baby for Sadie and Mae to dote on. Is that really such an odd wish these days? Are we really so desperate to control everything about our bodies and our lives that we're willing to murder our children and mutilate the ones who are allowed to be born?

The main difference I see between India and the US is that in India the families can't have ultrasounds to see if the baby is a girl and abort it. If a family in the US doesn't want another girl, they can find out and have it "taken care of..." After all, it's the mother's body and the mother's "choice." It seems so easy, for some, to forget, or ignore the fact that the body that's ripped apart isn't her body and the life that's lost isn't hers to take.

May 2nd, 2011

How are you all feeling this morning?

I find myself going back and forth...

The phone rang last night at around 7:30 and when I heard Grumpa's name on caller id I thought, "seriously guys, you know it's bedtime!" When I picked up the phone, holding a crying Mae and sounding grumpy, the first words I heard were "I'm sorry to call at bedtime but I had to tell you, they're saying on the news that Osama bin Laden was killed." And then I had to hang up the phone and call Paul at work and tell him and listen to the silence followed by, "I wasn't expecting that."

Paul knew someone who died in one of the towers.

Mae and Sadie and I had been in the middle of our rosary when the news came. We went back into the room and I added our intention for the night, half heartedly, more because I knew that it was what I should do than for any actual desire to do it (but life is just like that sometimes). I prayed that he felt remorse at the end. That he accepted God's grace. And we went on praying.

And, as I'm sure many of you did, I remembered September 11th, 2001, when I was driving to school and heard on the radio that the twin towers had been attacked and thought it was a War of the Worlds type joke, because the DJ giving the news was the joking sort... and that it wasn't a very good joke. When I pulled into the parking lot at school I saw on of my closest friends (she's now a Marine and Mae's godmother) and when I looked at her face I suddenly knew without a doubt that it wasn't some awful made up story... it was true.

Paul brought home a beer (which we split) and two ice cream cones and we watched people celebrate around the country.

I'm glad none of the Americans involved in this operations were hurt. And I'm glad that Osama bin Laden won't be able to plan any more attacks.

At moments I feel giddy. At other moments I feel relieved. And sad.

I find myself wondering how I'm supposed to feel at a moment like this...

Sadie Frown of the Week: Bearing False Witness

I just read about one of my favorite high profile priests and found that accusations have been leveled against him and that he has been placed on administrative leave. He vehemently denies the accusations and I believe him (I'm not mentioning his name, although I imagine it will be in the news soon enough, because I don't want to help the slander spread in any way, even in defense of him...). Unfortunately the words of his former employee mean (apparently) that he must be placed on administrative leave while the situation is investigated. As he points out on his own site he is being treated as guilty "just in case" and now must try to "prove" his innocence.

My first thought when I read this horrible news was this: There is a sin I would not want to have to explain to God on judgement day. Seriously. "Hi God, um... remember that time when I bore false witness against a priest who had helped people around the world with his direct, straight forward explanations of the faith? Yeah... I was just... um... kidding?"

Sex abuse is horrible. Yet in a different way, these types of lies, both against clergy and against lay people (often times men who have tried to help their communities and made enemies) can be just as damaging and traumatic. Lives are destroyed. Reputations are lost. Cases drag on for years and years and then, after being dragged through the mud the accused is acquitted with a whisper. After all, an acquittal doesn't quite get the same ratings that some drug addled woman ranting about sex or harassment gets.

Anyone can say anything. And in a society where a premium is placed on getting what we want, instead of doing what is right, telling a little lie for money, or attention or to hurt someone in a position of power that we've decided we don't like, may not seem all that bad anymore.

I'm sure Satan attacked this particular priest from every angle. After all, he's a man who has strengthened the faith and understanding of many. When that didn't work Satan decided on the next best thing: an attempt to discredit his work and all the good that he has done by leading someone weaker into sin.

We should pray for all involved. Maybe Saint Gerard Majella is a good patron saint for this case. He was falsely accused (google him to see how he became the patron saint of expectant mothers) and the woman who accused him finally repented and told the truth. What a sad day...

Journalists Don't Just Misunderstand the Church...

I just finished reading this article by Dr. Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT. It's really interesting (okay, I was a science and math geek as a kid, so I realize that "interesting" is relative and that what I might find interesting my husband and many [most?] other people would find brain-numbing):

"I repeat, there was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity from the damaged Japanese reactors.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.

I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). By “not free of errors” I do not refer to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism – that is quite normal these days. By “not free of errors” I mean blatant errors regarding physics and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of facts, due to an obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of the way nuclear reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error..."

Read the entire article here.

I'll admit, my first thought when I read the final paragraph was "Wow, that many errors? And the report isn't about the Catholic Church (and more specifically the Vatican?)?" A three page report on CNN where every single paragraph contains an error? I bet we could beat that...

But I digress. The article is, in itself definitely worth reading.

The Future of the Internet

I write a monthly article for a local political journal and while exploring the options for this month’s piece I stumbled across a small story (that I can’t find now!) that said that the Obama administration was pressuring a group called ICANN, who controls Internet domain names to hand control of the whole domain name process over to the United Nations. The story was instantly alarming.

I began to turn the arguments that would be inherent in such a situation over in my head. Which would be preferable? Would it be better to have governments, with their own agendas and issues with censorship and free speech, controlling domain names? Or would it be better to have a private company (although ICANN is a non-profit) holding the reins?

I have to say that as encroachment on religious rights becomes the norm (Catholic colleges can’t opt out of providing abortion coverage? And there’s the ever present threat the stating Christian beliefs may soon be classified as “hate speech…”) I am exceedingly uncomfortable with the idea of any government controlling the Internet in this way. So I set out to learn what ICANN does and what is really happening at the moment.

When I first began my search I found a bunch of old conspiracy theory sites. Then I found a Time article and from there was able to launch a much more effective search and find answers to my questions. First off, in layman terms, what does ICANN do? Here’s the answer (I tried to simplify it!):

One of ICANN’s jobs is to ensure that the internet has stable and secure identifiers. They coordinate the domain names system (DNS) and numeric addresses that are used to reach computers who are online. These DNS names help users find what they’re looking for online. Each computer has an IP address, but these IP addresses are long strings of numbers. A DNS allows familiar letters to be used instead of numbers and that is what a domain name is. So instead of typing in 9 numbers, you type in http://awomansplaceis.blogspot.com to get to my blog.

Five years ago the US government renewed ICANN’s contract to continue with this job for another five years. This fall, the contract is up and there are many people who would like to see this job turned over to the UN. Here’s an important quote from the Time.com article:

"Last month the U.S. circulated a proposal that would have essentially given world governments a veto over any new proposed TLD “for any reason.” That proposal was ultimately softened under public pressure, but the Obama Administration continues to place pressure on ICANN to give governments more say over its policy decisions. If it's too principled about free expression, the logic goes, ICANN and the U.S. may face overwhelming pressure to cede authority to the UN."

One of the reasons foreign powers are pressuring the turnover is because they feel that the US could use the US based company to unfairly control the internet. An example of one of these worries in action is shown in an article in the Washington Post in this way: Say the US decides Syria is misbehaving and decides to use ICANN to retaliate. They could, theoretically, use Syria’s country code domain -.sy (which you’d see at the end of Syrian websites) to direct people to freedom of expression sites.

At this point the commerce department worries that a large number of foreign countries are going to lobby the U.N. to take control of the system. And the International Telecommunications Union, a 145- year old agency of nearly 200 nations and Territories, is eager to take over.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the entire situation is the anti-ICANN quotes that I found attached to many articles. There is certainly a movement demanding that ICANN step aside so that other nations can decide through “consensus” what is appropriate and what is not. This makes me very uncomfortable. This “democratic” process could easily be used to control the speech of dissenters across the political spectrum. I find that to be incredibly troubling.

And that is one of the main reasons I hope that ICANN does end up successfully renewing their contract this September. I’d rather see a “too principled” company allowing free expression online, regardless of what opinion is being voiced, than have the countries of the world deciding by consensus which voices shouldn’t be heard.

Canadian Court Rules Baby's Life Support Removed Against Parents Wishes

This story is heartbreaking. When I saw the link posted on a friend's facebook page I hoped I'd somehow misunderstood the title. Unfortunately 'Death Panels:' Canadian Court Rules Baby's Life Support Removed Against Parents Wishes doesn't leave much room for doubt about the direction the story, and the Canadian government, are choosing

“...Monday at 10 am they will kill my baby,” Moe Maraachli, Joseph’s father, told LifeSiteNews shortly after the ruling. “There’s no more humanity. There’s no more chance. I’ve tried everything for him. No more appeals, nothing.”

“I asked them: why not send him to Windsor and let him die at home?” he continued. “They said they will give him injection, but I don’t want to...”

“...Is it that they want to simply say, we have control?” he asked. “If it’s about their control, then we’re in serious trouble. They now control when someone lives and when someone dies, and who makes those decisions, and how those decisions are made.”

Schadenberg said the court appears to be saying that hospitals and doctors can make decisions for patients whether they like it or not. “It’s worse than the death panel concept that’s being debated in the US. It really is, it’s much worse,” he said. “They’re saying ‘we will decide’, they’re not even going to converse with you. ‘We have the weight of the Court, we have the financial bearing of a massive government institution to be able to force this on you.’”

“That has serious repercussions, because you simply cannot trust the moral authority of the health care institution or the doctors,” he added...

Read the entire article here.

Paul's been planning on applying to a canon law program in Ontario in addition to the other schools he's already applied to... and this makes me not want to even consider moving there while he studies... This is such an appalling decision. And as a parent it's frightening.

Sadly, this shows the next step a government may take when it fails to see the value of human life...

Photo from LifeSiteNews.com.

Sadie Frown of the Week: The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals

I know, I know... Can we really be surprised, or even disappointed by any ruling that comes out of this particular court? Sometimes, however, their rulings are so outrageous that I still find myself wondering what on earth they're thinking. Here's the latest:

“Absurd results that disfavor religion”
U.S. Supreme Court asked to review appeals court ruling on San Francisco’s anti-Catholic resolution

The Thomas More Law Center filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 15 asking that it reverse a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a resolution adopted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors nearly five years ago vilifying the Catholic Church.

“San Francisco’s resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, refers to the Vatican as a ‘foreign country’ meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as ‘insulting to all San Franciscans,’ ‘hateful,’ ‘insulting and callous,’ ‘defamatory,’ ‘absolutely unacceptable,’ ‘insensitive and ignorant,’” the Law Center said in announcing the appeal yesterday.

The resolution went so far as to call on Catholics to disobey the Vatican. “The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada,” the resolution said in part...

Read the entire article here.

Planned Parenthood: Responses to Live Action's Expose

Here's a little more information on the video released yesterday by Live Action:

"...Phyllis Kinsler, chief executive officer of PPCNJ, stated that the conduct recorded in a newly released undercover video “violates PPCNJ policies, as well as our core values of protecting the welfare of minors and complying with the law, and appropriate action is being taken,” according to an Associated Press report.

The national Planned Parenthood office has similarly called the employee’s videotaped conduct “not consistent” with the organization’s policies, saying the video was “under review.”
The undercover footage released by the pro-life group Live Action shows a PPCNJ manager on Jan 11, 2010 advising a “pimp” and his female companion at length on how to keep their illegal sex trafficking operation under the radar while obtaining STD testing, birth control, and abortions for prostitutes as young as 14.

After several liberal critics questioned the “heavy editing” of the film, Live Action quickly released the uncut version of the footage to prove that the Planned Parenthood employee’s words had not been distorted by the group...

...In a Facebook post today, Planned Parenthood said that, “What appears on edited tapes made public today is not consistent with Planned Parenthood’s practices.” The post referred readers to a Media Matters article that suggests that the Live Action video is a “hoax,” because “Planned Parenthood reported the potential sex trafficking to the Attorney General and the FBI. So clearly, Planned Parenthood wasn’t trying to cover anything up.”

Read the entire article here.

Many media outlets would very much like this to be a hoax, but after following Lila Rose and her undercover investigations for the past year I would be shocked if that were the case. Particularly considering Planned Parenthoods response. It seems that they'd like us to believe it's a hoax, but are covering their bases for those who see past another lie. After all, when you're in the business of killing babies for a living, other evils (like lying and allowing young girls to live in slavery and be abused) aren't quite as big a deal. Once a conscience is warped, it has a very difficult time determining what's right and what's wrong.

Of course, I feel passionately about Planned Parenthood. I volunteered at PP through my CINO college for a political science class...

photo from Live Action site.

Planned Parenthood Expose

I was completely done blogging tonight, but since Live Action is asking that people pass this on, I'm posting one last time. This video exposes the incredible evil that takes place in Planned Parenthood offices. It's pretty horrifying: