Thursday, March 29, 2012

Good Films for 12-year old Girls - 7QuickTakes

My 12-year old will not be watching The Hunger Games any time soon. She hasn't read the books. Some of her friends have read the books and saw the movie at the midnight premiere. I think if I described the books' plot (I have read them), she would be happy that I am not permitting her to go with "everyone" who is watching the movie. I am taking my big girls and some of their friends to see Mirror, Mirror this weekend. I hope it will be a fun, appropriate film. My quick takes are some of my favorite movies that I think work for this age: 


My Fair Lady (1964) - I love the songs, but this film leads to many discussions on relationships (like really- she ends up with Henry Higgins?)



The Song of Bernadette (1943)- religious, but not overly sentimental. It's a great example of positive 'girl power'


The Sound of Music (1965)- a good film to discuss vocation and God's will


Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea (1985)- lovely- I've never seen the third installment, and I hope my girls won't succumb to the temptation. Even though The Road to Avonlea series is not perfectly in line with L M Montgomery's books, I'm okay with the changes and expansions there as the 'story girl' books aren't so sacrosanct. 



Lark Rise to Candleford (2008)- a British series about a small village girl working in the big town.




The Truman Show (1998)- I just like it, and I think my girls will, too.




Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken (1991) - It has been years since I've seen this movie, but I think my girls will like it! Bring your hankies!




Other possibilities: Miss Potter, Newsies, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (almost any musical), A Walk to Remember
Animation that I like: The Incredibles (an intact family! mom stays at home but is a super woman!), Tangled, Mulan
Sometimes the rating doesn't matter so much- I'm thinking The Pursuit of Happyness (PG-13) and The King's Speech (R) would both be good for my big girls to see with me in the near or not so near future
dear reader- please add your movie suggestions in the combox

more quick takes at conversiondiary.com

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Substandard & Slipshod Search Word Poetry


fair trade christmas lights
annoying orange party rock
helen keller's bachelor's degree

queen mary mom of god
christ is risen
but we must cultivate our garden

priests wife
byzantine catholic
byzy

fear not little flock blog
fear not little flock
fear not

annoying orange party rock
cheeky pink
pink
 compare and contract mozart and bob dylan

Easter in Ukraine
polish easter baskets
mary magdalene red egg

mother of guadalupe
mother teresa taking vows
mama of fatima

no fear


Monday, March 26, 2012

Artificial Contraception, Why Not? NFP, Why? A Guest Post from Bear


Thank you, Bear, for this guest post! Bear has been a semi-frequent semi-anonymous commenter of this blog from its beginning who is:
-Byzantine Catholic
- a Philosopher with interests in logic and analytic philosophy
- interested in early music, opera, film, swimming and riding
- owned by a bossy cat

"Reading this other US based blogs, there seems to be a bit of contention among Catholics in the US about the use of NFP and whether it is equivalent to using artificial contraception, and whether it permissible to use. There is a lot of discussion about the Ends - the procreative and unitative  aspects of marriage and the "marriage debt". While such a discussion is often helpful and illuminating, it obviously does not answer the entire question: a more rigourous person could argue that when engaged in sex, the couple should actively intend both ends.

I think that it could be useful to consider why the Church considers Artificial Contraception wrong.
What is the problem with Artificial Contraception?
The difference between NFP and other fertility control is that NFP does not disrupt the natural function of the body or the act. Other fertility control methods either engage in post facto acts of violence (abortion and IUDs) or inhibit the act (condoms and some forms of the pill).

In a Thomist context to remove or to disrupt a natural and good function or ability is disordered: it equivalent to mutilation, such as amputation: one does not cut off a finger for cosmetic reasons, but if it has gangrene then one cuts it off to save the person. This is also the reason why intoxication, whether from alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, crack, heroin &c., is also wrong - because it inhibits the faculty of reason, and often has other side effects.

While this does not mean disordered acts are automatically prohibited and can not be done, there are a couple of consequences. This act can not be the primary reason. That is, it can not be done on its own or be the actual end of an action. There needs to be a good reason for the act. If there is a greater good - for example, saving the life of someone with gangrene - then this mutilation is permissible for that greater good. This is the principle of "Double Effect".

What does this mean for artificial contraception? It means that things like the pill can not be used for contraception, but can be therapeutic reasons to assist a women. Consider, a women is under significant stress and she has menses every two weeks and is becoming anaemic. She is can take medicine to control her menses to ensure that she stays healthy.

My mother used to say about the pill "You don't give medicine to healthy people" - especially if it is to stop their natural functions.

Thus, given that NFP does not alter any natural function and is in the context of marriage, there is nothing disordered with the means. So any objections to NFP will be in the intent of NFP.
Intent
Intent is the purpose of the action (or inaction). Knowledge, while intrinsically good, it a double edged sword. We can use knowledge for good or evil. So while the action of something may not be intrinsically morally disordered, the context and the purposes maybe. For example, genetic sequencing of a virus.

Good if the intent is to find a treatment and a possible immunisation for the virus.
Evil if the intent to determine the best way to genetically engineer the virus so that no one will have immunity then to weaponise this pathogen. The action in each case is the same - sequencing a virus. But the intent is vastly different.

Similarly, NFP uses a body of knowledge about human physiology that allow a couple to know when they are fertile. How the couple use this knowledge is really up to them, and one will have to judge on their intent. 

The most common object to the intent of NFP seems to be that its use is rejecting God's providence, and not showing trust in Him. This is a rather narrow view of God's providence. It also ignores that God has given us reason, and the desire for knowledge and the ability to understand our world. God's providence means that we use our abilities and talents cooperating with the Almighty's plans - the parable of the Talents certainly emphasises that. There are a number of stories and jokes about Gods providence, such as rescuing a man from flood or winning the lottery. There are two points made with these stories. We are expected to exercise our natural reason and talents. It is not a passive acceptance of the divine will and that angels will do our work for us.

God may work in ways we do not expect or understand. Consider a couple who decide that they will trust in God's providence and not work or actively seek a means of living to support their family. We would not consider that an appropriate view of God's providence. We would certainly not think this is an example worth emulating and promoting: and telling couples who are working that they wrong because they are not trusting in God's providence.

This is a rather old problem - the Apostle Paul had this difficulty in some of his own converts, who refused work to trust in God's providence. As the Apostle wrote in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-13. While we were with you, we gave this order: “If anyone doesn't want to work, he shouldn't eat.” We hear that some of you are living in idleness. You are not busy working you are busy interfering in other people's lives! We order and encourage such people by the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. Brothers, do not get tired of doing what is right. So if one wants to say that NFP is not trusting in God's providence, one will have to argue that using the knowledge of human physiology and fertility is somehow disordered.

The usual approach is to argue that NFP intrinsically promotes a "contraceptive mentality". Unfortunately, this is a very vague accusation and since it usually comes as an assertion without arguments, it is difficult to know what it actually means. While, yes, it can be used for contraception, the couple could also abstain altogether, or have a "Josephite Marriage" for contraceptive reasons. I rarely find those opposed to NFP also opposed to "Josephite" marriages.

NFP is also used to assist couples to conceive - again this knowledge is good. If one is opposed NFP for birth spacing, is one also opposed to it for this reason? If so, why? The problem is that the knowledge is there and it is up to the couple how they use that knowledge. To attack NFP is to fundamentally question the motives and virtue of those involved without providing an argument stronger then "I don't like it". This is not really a good argument.
Final Thoughts
When Jesus, our Divine Master, was teaching, he criticised the Pharisees for placing heavy burdens upon people and not lifting a finger to help them. I think He was also speaking directly to us: warning us that we should not lay burdens upon people without considering how it will affect them or providing them with the means to carry the burden. We should also take the Apostle's instruction seriously in getting on with our own lives and work and not interfere with other people's lives.

So unless there is a solid argument that using NFP is disordered, we should not place another burden upon families. Yes, we should trust in the providence of God, but God gave us reason, knowledge and intelligence. These are the highest faculties given in creation, and these are to be used to cooperate with God's providence."

LIFE- worth fighting for


"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them." Susan B. Anthony 1889

"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our  children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."  Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1873

"I am in no position to judge other women, you know. But I mean, why did she get pregnant? It's not good for women to go through the procedure [abortion] and have something living sucked out of their bodies. It belittles women. Even though some women say, 'Oh, I don't mind to have one,' every time a woman has an abortion, it just crushes her self-esteem smaller and smaller and smaller." Dolores O'Riordan: Lead Vocalist, The Cranberries: (Source: You! June/July 1996)

I found the above video link at Faith and Family Live, and I just had to share it here. Gloria Purvis is speaking from a Catholic standpoint, but I think many other Christians and freedom-loving Americans will find truth here, too. If you or a friend have been hurt by abortion, there are places of healing- the one I know of is Rachel's Vineyard which offers help from Catholic and other Christian perspectives. Feminists for Life and Atheist & Agnostic Prolife League would be a resource for abortion healing with a secular focus. 

"But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practiced under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception."  Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, no. 13, March 25, 1995
UPDATE:
A pro-life thing we can all do today: DONATE to Malcolm's adoption fund so he is not sent to an adult mental institution.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Does Jesus see me as "bothersome" & "tiring"?


"This is a blogger that reaaaaalllly bothers me.

At first I was only bothered by her presence EVERYWHERE in the Catholic blogosphere - every commbox possible, yup, she's there. From superty-duperty conservatives like Father Z to touchy-feely Catholics like Elizabeth Esther, she ("Priest's Wife") really gets around! Playing both sides of the fence in such a way that I don't really know what she believes or where she's coming from.

And then I saw her blog for like ten minutes and I get it: She's the black sheep trying desperately to fit in.
Well, it's not likely to happen.
Mamby-pamby, nicey-nicey isn't my cup of tea. Pick a side. And while you're at it, stop dominating every conversation!
End rant."- written by Cheeky Pink Girl (March 6, 2012)
__________________________________________________________________________


'Cheeky Pink Girl' doesn't like me or my blog. Most of the commenters don't like me either. I would try to forget about her post about me and my blog, but she identifies herself as a 'conservative Catholic'- so we should be on the 'same team' even if we are playing different roles in this life that is our salvation history. Atheists hate Jen Fulwiler. Ultra-liberal Catholics hate Fr. Z. Pro-Abortion activists hate Life Site News. Jen, Fr. Z, and Life Site News probably take the hatred in stride because it comes from the opposing view- but when someone who you have a faith in common with detests you enough to publish a short blog post....wow. 
This is the link to the actual blog post- If 'Cheeky Pink Girl" asks me to delete her post, I will. 


- What is wrong with commenting occasionally on Fr Z and Elizabeth Esther's blogs? Fr Z gives one perspective, and he seems very knowledgeable. And as a sometimes touchy-feely person myself, Elizabeth Esther has a very interesting take on life and her continuing conversion from a cult-like church. I find it sad when we have to put things into little boxes. I am a confusing, bothersome person who prefers my Divine Liturgy ad orientem (anyways- that's normal for my church- sorry to dominate the conversation with that) but who still tears up when I hear On Eagle's Wings- it was the theme song at my first Catholic retreat when I was thirteen. So, "pick a side"? Nope, I'm trying to be CATHOLIC and celebrate diversity!

-I am not "everywhere" in the blogosphere. I just have a tendency to comment whenever I read an article or post. So if you read five comments of mine a day, I have read five articles that day- and really, if you "see me all over the Catholic blogosphere" that means you are all over the Catholic blogosphere- just not leaving comments to give feedback to the blogger or continue the conversation. 

-I am still not clear how a two or three line comment out of many comments "dominates" the conversation. But I'm just a little housewife. So if you are annoyed by my comment, try to skip over it.

-My blog is tiny. I write about a truly miniscule part of the Catholic world. In the Middle East, fellow Eastern Christians (Eastern Catholic and Orthodox) are being slaughtered every day. So, forgive me if I am concerned about our survival. Our survival depends on the Roman-rite Catholic world knowing who we are and accepting our traditions in our own churches. 

-Yes, I am a "black sheep"- all Eastern Catholics in the US are "black sheep." We are a tiny minority who have been persecuted in the past in the U.S. Thousands of Byzantine Catholic left for the Orthodox Church when it was clear that our traditions were not going to be tolerated in the States. So much has improved with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, thank God. 

-But I am most certainly not trying to "fit in." Even if I weren't the wife of a priest, I wouldn't fit in. I have never fit in anywhere except my own family. I pray, I fast, I live a non-drinking, non-smoking, no contraception kind of life, but a favorite music group of mine is Queen (I turn it up horribly loud) and I love Harry Potter (but I do focus on classics of true literature). Hypocrite? I don't think so- I am an individual, not something you can just put into a box like "conservative pro-life homeschooling part-time-working Catholic who wants to agree with distributism but doesn't see how that would quite work and who happens to have married a future priest." I might be boring, annoying and bothersome- but there is more to me than the box people think they can put me in- just as your blog, cheeky pink girl, shows only certain sides of you.

- If I were trying to fit in, I would be cowering and hiding, trying to not confuse people. How many clergy wives have blogs? Not many. It is a risk to write about my life- especially when I am trying to preserve the privacy of parishioners, children and my husband. This is just a little diary that I hope informs some people. I am who I am. I wish I could be a better writer and develop my posts more -especially with theological and historical posts- but I am lucky to have time to spell-check.

-I comment about five times a day at different places. For 'cheeky pink girl' to write a blog post about how much I annoy her- wow- I must really annoy her. I just needed to explain myself. And then take a few Advil. 

-She says that I shouldn't mention being a different rite than the majority. She says most practicing Catholics know there are other accepted rites. Sorry, but this just isn't true. Most people think I am Episcopalian or Orthodox. And when she says "just be Catholic!"- that sounds like someone who has never had an experience out of the majority rite. This "just be Catholic!" attitude is what led to the destruction of the minority rite in the US because most people think "Catholic" equals mandatory celibacy, rosaries, adoration and year A, B and C. This is true of being majority Catholic- being minority Catholic is different. But this is annoying to you. Do you know what is really annoying? The slaughter of the minority rite Catholics (and Orthodox and other Christians) in the Middle East.  


____________________________________________________________________
The following comment is the primary reason why I've acknowledged Cheeky Pink Girl's post:
Alice said...
I read Priest's Wife's blog and I hadn't noticed her being particularly nicey-nicey. She has next to nothing nice to say about the Latin Church and nothing nice at all to say to people who believe that ordaining married men to the priesthood might not be the best policy. I hadn't noticed her dominating conversations unless they were about the Eastern Church or the ordination of married men either. I don't find any of that surprising since she is, after all, an Eastern Catholic priest's wife. I find her attitude toward the Latin Church tiring, though, because surely she can understand that many Latins, like myself, may not be too excited about less than reverent Masses and the like but don't want to become pseudo-Slavs to fit in the Byzantine Church.                                         MARCH 7, 2012 11:21 AM


So- I'm not kind to Roman-rite Catholics in general and I have "nothing nice at all to say to people who believe that ordaining married men to the priesthood might not be the best policy." 
First of all, I have tried to be really careful in not telling another rite what to do. My family of origin is Roman-rite (that sounds stupid- like 'some of my best friends are ____')- but isn't it best to prefer what you are? I have Roman-rite friends who like our Liturgy, but they feel more at home at their Mass because that is who they are. It is the same with me. I just love the Roman-rite Easter vigil (who doesn't?), but you will find me at my church because that is who I am.

Because I am the first and last person to tend to practical things at my church (like getting music books to people, singing if the cantor doesn't show up, setting up coffee hour, etc), it might be tempting to be critical when I am visiting a different church. But to be critical about (why didn't they sing during distribution of the Eucharist? Why no coffee and donuts at this mega-parish with 2 priests and 10 [married, no clergy collars allowed] deacons and five thousand families?) a parish I am visiting  would be like going into someone's house as a dinner guest and start giving opinions about their drapes. That's just rude and I don't do it. I don't allow my children to do it. And I hope visitors are merciful too when they visit our missions. We are all sinners and perhaps clergy-types are the worst offenders because of their responsibility.

I had a friend from Poland. Let's call him Peter from Poland. He really, really loves his country. But he usually doesn't talk about all the great things about Poland. He insults all the bordering countries and the decadence that is the United States. So, I could be Peter from Poland. I could talk about celibate priests with secretary/gate keepers. I could talk about celibate priests who own planes. I could talk about celibate priests who....but what good would that do? I will try to focus on the positive/neutral about married priests in the Eastern rites and let the other arguments fall. Talking about mandatory celibacy is impossible. If I try to defend the possibility of married men being ordained priests (in the Eastern rites- I have written time and time again that it is not my business to give even an opinion on this issue for the Roman-rite)- it's impossible.


The lesson I have learned from Cheeky Pink Girl (EDIT- leaving Alice out of this sentence after re-reading- I stand by the rest of my post)  is that she wishes we 'other Catholics' would go away- at least from the blogosphere- the only place they have encountered us minority Catholics. And I know a lot of people feel this way. We complicate things even though we are totally unimportant and small. We probably won't survive another generation. oops- opinion on the Roman-rite coming!- The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, after ordaining over 45 married deacons last year, will not allow them to wear clerical collars. So the Church needs them and uses them and doesn't give them a stipend, but it doesn't give them their dignity as clerics. So- writing about a married priest family that isn't all that bad- another way to be Catholic (meaning- "Universal")- is a challenge to those who want the entire Church to be just like their local parish. Anything else isn't "Catholic." 

a few of my posts for 'Alice' (by the way- that is on my top ten list of favorite female names- I always think of St Thomas More's wife)

The Challenge of Celibacy- is this where I am all negative?
Sad Days- please read the last paragraph! That is the theme of this blog- "bothersome" and "tiring" as it is.

Surfing around, I didn't really find much about the Latin-rite (except a few guest posts written by Latin-rite Catholics who are friends and some 'reports' of visits) because that isn't the focus of this blog, so I don't really understand how I have been unkind. The Latin-rite brought me into the Church. I love the entire Church. I love the Holy Father. I pray for understanding, forgiveness and unity.