"Do You Give Up So Easily On Jesus?"

Thanks to The Anchoress for blowing my mind. This is truly heartwarming. And shaming at the same time.

Our senior priest just returned from Jerusalem and echoed much of the same sentiment. Americans are embarrassed, or timid, or just ashamed of our faith for fear of "offending" anyone. We apologize for our faith more than we defend it. Not so in countries where Christianity is in the minority.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: I think Jesus gave us "oppression" and "suffering" on purpose. It makes us better, stronger, more tenacious and more faithful to Him.

"Catholic Navy chaplain shares story of Iraqi conversion"

Father Bautista: Apostle in the Desert Joe Burns, War Stringer

A few weeks ago, I returned to the U.S. after spending a week with Army troops in Iraq. More specifically, I spent six and a half days with my son’s outfit, the 63rd Ordnance Company stationed at Al Taqaddum. Al Taqaddum is a former Iraqi airbase, nicknamed TQ, and lies about 50 miles west of Baghdad in the Anbar Province near Ramadi. My son Mike and I spent the first three days in Baghdad while I was processed for my press pass and then waited for a helicopter to become available to take us to TQ.

[...]

On the second day at Al Taqaddum, I was privileged to attend Mass said by Fr. Jose A. Bautista-Rojas, a Navy chaplain who ministers to the Marines and soldiers at TQ and in the Ramadi area. It was a hot, dry, windy and desolate day.

In the 30 minutes prior to Mass, Fr. Bautista discussed recent events of the day with the three of us: my son Mike, his commander Captain Tom Heilman, and myself.

The setting for our conversation was a makeshift wooden chapel, sparsely furnished with the plastic chairs we sat on and a small white table for an altar. Being inside this simple chapel was like finding an oasis in the desert. What made this oasis most refreshing was the time we spent with Fr. Bautista, a man of irrepressible good humor, joy and generosity.

The events of that morning for Fr. Bautista included a Mass he had just conducted in Ramadi at a Marine detachment. What made the Mass unique, was that his "congregation" consisted of one lonely Catholic Marine. When Father Bautista arrived in Ramadi along with his personal bodyguard, a strong young, well-armed Marine, he visited a detachment of eight men, only one of whom was Catholic. Undeterred, he told the Marine he would be happy to say Mass for him.
The young Marine confided to him, "You know Father, back in the States, I didn’t go to Mass that often, but out here I find myself longing to go to Mass again..."

As Fr. Bautista continued speaking with us, he described the fascinating story of a young Muslim woman who was entering the Church under his guidance through the RCIA process. Her story was moving. While working with Americans, this woman, who must remain anonymous, was touched deeply when she realized that the U.S. medical personnel not only treated wounded Americans and Iraqi civilians, but also treated wounded enemy combatants, including one who was known for having killed U.S. Marines. As she put it, "This cannot happen with us."

This dramatic extension of mercy even to enemy soldiers caused her to take the next cautious step. She asked Father Bautista to "tell me more about Jesus." As Father described Jesus and his life in the Gospels, one thing stood out among the rest for the Muslim woman he called "Fatima" (not her real name) and that was how kindly Jesus had related to, as she put it, "the two Mary’s." Fatima was moved to see how Jesus deeply loved Mary, his mother, who was sinless, but also how Jesus deeply loved Mary Magdalene, who was "a great sinner." As these discussions continued, Fatima reached a point where she said to Father Bautista, "I want to become a Christian."

Since Father Bautista sees himself as a chaplain for all troops, not just Catholics, he decided to introduce Fatima to other chaplains from Protestant and Orthodox backgrounds. After some time had passed, Fatima returned to Father Bautista and said, "I want to become a Catholic like you." When Father asked her the reason for her decision, she said, "You were the only one who told me about the other Christians, so you left me free to decide for myself. That’s how I knew this was the right decision."

As their catechetical lessons developed over time, Fatima’s family discovered her plan and was warned sternly by her father that if she continued on this path, she would be disowned by the entire family and would never have contact with them again. At this point, Father Bautista became concerned for Fatima's well-being and cautioned her to look carefully at the consequences of her decision and to think seriously before continuing her path into the Church.
Fatima paused for a moment and then looking intently at Father Bautista asked, "Do you give up so easily on Jesus?" The question took Father aback for a moment, but then he thought, This is incredible; this Muslim woman is already bearing witness to me about how important my own faith is!

As he related it, this woman’s question had caused him to give greater thanks for his faith and for the great privilege of sharing Christ with others. Fatima is currently continuing the RCIA process with great courage and joy.

In a wonderful irony, the first words she will hear spoken during the Liturgy of the Word in the Rite of Acceptance will be those spoken to her great ancestor, Abraham: "Leave your country (and your kindred and your father’s house), and come into the land I will show you" (Gen 12:1).
After sharing this moving testimony, Father Bautista excused himself to prepare to celebrate Mass for us. Moments later, as he led us in the prayers of Mass, I was struck by how blessed I was to be present in this moment, in the ancient dusty land of Abraham, who so willingly offered his only son to God. Now, together with Abraham and his son, Isaac, with all the angels and saints, with our own brave son and his commander, we returned to this same land and heard these magnificent words:

"Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as you once accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, the bread and wine offered by your servant Melchisedech …"

Here, in the same treeless, windy, dusty desert from which God had called Abraham, Christ had returned. Now, through the hands of his servant priest, Father Bautista, a perfect offering was made to fulfill the offering attempted by Abraham. And through this same priest, the Good News that was foretold to Abraham now returned to his homeland to bear witness to a courageous Muslim woman; a woman who was willing to sacrifice everything to know this Jesus who forgives even his enemies and who loves even the "sinful Mary".

Primer on the Word-of-Faith

This is in response to a little discussion we're having over at "The Nightfly".

I don't have time today to write a full dissertation on "The Word-Of-Faith Movement Within Protestant Christianity". But my qualifications to speak against it are many. Since 1998, I've either worked under or been close friends with dozens of Word-Of-Faith-ers. During that time, I've been a keen observer and listener to the ideas of the movement. The people I befriended and worked for are awesome -- AWESOME -- people. They'd do anything for you. They really do love Jesus Christ as they know Him and strive to do what they think He would have them do. I wouldn't have spent so much time with them otherwise.

But incredible pain has always lurked beneath the surface in my relationships with Faith-ers. The things I've seen and heard them say and do are astounding; some because of their incredible love and faith in God and some for their... misguided zeal. But I don't necessarily blame them. It is true that God has given human beings faculties and capacities to question and investigate and really THINK about His Word and His Person within the context of history and the workings of our own lives. And almost anyone can see how blatantly foolish and sometimes downright diabolical the Faith-er movement is.

But.

The Faith-ers I know came to the fold simply because a Copeland or Hagin or Hickey caught them at their lowest low and promised them fame, fortune, wellness, peace and prosperity. They were taken advantage of by charlatans who were well-versed in the abuses of charm, guile, personality and the soft (or hard) sell. I do think that most Faith-ers are guided out of genuine love for God. But it would be naive to say that their leaders are.

I spent over five years under intense spiritual abuse. Because I too came to Christ out of the lowest of lows. And I too was lured in by a charming and powerful charlatan. Leaving him and his church was one of the hardest things I've ever had to wake up and do. It was devastating to find that someone I had trusted with so much for so long had not only betrayed me, but betrayed the very God he supposedly served. It would have been much, much easier for me to just shrug at things that bothered me and keep my eyes closed. It would have been simple to place the blame on myself for not understanding and being unable to "get with the program" -- and many times I did. It was just THAT difficult for me to believe I was being deceived. For myriad reasons, some people just have a veil over their eyes and don't see the evil being done in God's name.

Needless to say, I mostly kept my mouth shut at work and simply continued to love and respect my co-workers and friends. But they knew enough to not invite me to their church or ask me to participate in certain spiritual things with them. I honestly don't know what they would think if they knew I'd become Catholic. The only opinions I've ever heard them espouse about the Church were damnable lies someone charming had sold them. I wasn't surprised when they believed them. After all, they'd been enticed into the Faith movement by lies. But it still hurt.

I chose my battles and my words (ironically) wisely and prayed for the best outcome. But little hurt by little hurt -- especially as we got closer and closer to our Easter confirmation -- I just had to leave. It was too painful. Things at work started to mushroom and the pressure to relent was just too great. The staff was increasing around me as our company grew and the new employees were all Faith-ers. It was wonderful to have them and they were great to work with, but I couldn't, in good conscience, stay. Especially not when thousands and thousands of dollars of company money were going to people like Kenneth Copeland and Jesse Duplantis every month. That's NOT what I was working for. I bristled at the notion that all my hard work and sacrifice was going to pay for another home or limousine for someone who was making money off the backs of the poor.

So for those of you who are unfamiliar with the Word-Of-Faith Movement or are not awake to how dangerous it is, I suggest a book by Hank Hanegraaff called, "Christianity In Crisis" -- especially the audio version. It makes a clearer delineation of the heresies of the Movement than I ever could.

And if you want to know the "basics" on the Movement and how wacky it is, here's a little folktale that encapsulates most of it -- with footnotes to quotes from the pulpit to back up the claims.

If you are in a situation of spiritual abuse, I HIGHLY recommend "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" by Jeff Van Vonderan and David Johnson.

Peace be with you.

Why Am I Catholic?

Feminists Hate Women and "Susan G Komen" is a Feminist

Well, this is surprising! Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation are in ca-hoots:

October has been designated Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and greater awareness is certainly needed... Unfortunately, for some groups, when it comes to breast cancer, it is “Selective Awareness” month.

The National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health) and some groups with an interest in “reproductive rights” or breast cancer research are keeping women in the dark about two risk factors for breast cancer: induced abortion and hormonal contraception.

The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation continue to deny the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. They make no effort to publicize (or they wholly ignore) the increased risk of breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive use.

The Komen Foundation affiliates (organizers of the “Race for the Cure” cash cow) go the extra 5K: It brings in about $200 million a year, expending three-quarters of that on breast cancer research grants, education, screening and treatment.

Yet, while ostensibly striving to eradicate breast cancer, Komen affiliates give about a half million dollars each year to Planned Parenthood.

Komen’s president and board members, many of whom have extensive links to Planned Parenthood, seem oblivious to this manifest cooperation with evil and to the quintessential irony of giving generously to the nation’s leading abortion chain and cut-rate contraception source. How exactly will that reduce breast cancer rates?

Even medical textbooks are not immune to this truth.

In The Breast, Drs. Kirby Bland and Edward Copeland explain why having a full-term pregnancy early in one’s reproductive years — universally recognized as a factor decreasing breast cancer risk — is not listed in their table of preventive factors: “Unplanned early pregnancy and an average of more than two completed pregnancies per woman have undesirable social and ecological consequences.”

Here, questionable sociology and a zero population-growth agenda have replaced medical decision making and the need for informed consent.

It’s also curious that groups like the National Cancer Institute readily draw attention to inconvenient facts, but then stop short of pointing out the inescapable conclusions to be drawn from those facts.

Premature delivery before 32 weeks more than doubles breast cancer risk, as does induced abortion before 32 weeks — and abortion’s effect increases in proportion to the length of pregnancy before that abortion.

In the Handbook of Diseases of the Breast (2nd ed., 1998), J.M. Dixon et al calculate that oral contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer by 30%. They then conclude that “considering the benefits of the pill,” this “slight” increase is not significant.

But women who develop breast cancer from this cause would probably consider it highly, even mortally, significant. The authors’ table of factors with “no effect” on breast cancer risk even includes oral contraceptives and induced abortion, contradicting their own estimate of a 30% higher risk.

[Emphasis mine]

When I was in college, studying to be a full-time feminist, it was jammed down my throat how the medical community (run by evil white men) was afraid of and therefore hated the female body. Statistics on the number of routine hysterectomies; the number of deaths reportedly linked to back-alley abortions (in the days before Roe v. Wade); and the disastrous effects of women having little to no access to birth control were waved angrily in my face -- as well as the faces of the other unsuspecting students. Like sheep, we blindly accepted the ideals and "data" from the Radical Feminist agenda. So I spent most of my college years pursuing that agenda, simply because I had been indoctrinated early and often and because no competing views were allowed on my campus.

But even before I became a committed Christian, I started to notice the effects of letting nature do her thing. As a pagan New-Ager, I was close friends with more than one couple who considered birth control an invasion of the natural rhythms of their bodies. Common wisdom spoke loudly to refute the idea that a foreign chemical taken in inappropriate doses was bound to backfire -- however similar to something naturally produced in the body.

Women were made (or evolved, depending on your point of view) to menstruate and give birth. The only reasons nature allows for the interruption of menses are pregnancy and menopause. And the only interruption of pregnancy it allows is spontaneous abortion -- an occurrence that almost always happens through the body's need to preserve the life of the mother or because the forming baby is profoundly flawed.

Really and truly, it doesn't take a spiritual person to understand this. Even if you are an atheist and big supporter of Darwinism, you can see how leaving nature alone to do what nature does perfectly makes all the sense in the world. Being a serious Catholic only helps one to see this in an even clearer light.

So as a sort of "new radical feminist" who believes in the sanctity of and right to life, I can only draw an inevitable conclusion. All the Women's Rights activists (of the stripe I was in my college days) who cart the "right to control their bodies" around like it's some inalienable gift from Darwin -- THEY are the ones who fear and hate the female body. THEY are the ones who despise the pregnant shape; the sanctity of motherhood; the fears and trials of menses, miscarriage and menopause; and the growth of the female body into something decidedly UN-manlike.

Why else would their feminine ideal be a non-menstruating, non-pregnant, promiscuous, workaholic she-male whose morphology is that of an adolescent boy? They don't want women to be women -- they want women to be little men. With all the earmarks. Anything that stands in the way of that goal (like carrying a child to term) must be eliminated. And this agenda must not be stopped. Even if it kills them.

The Number 23

A fertility update from my Little Garden.

Squishy Sacraments

We've been trying to have a baby for over a year; since January 2006. The medication (C*lomid) that my doctor put me on to "help things along" has not raised my levels significantly (from a 0.08 to a 0.15 -- with the goal being 15.00) so he raised the dosage and we're gonna' give it another go.

In the meantime, I'm getting all the things I can accomplished around the house; renovating, planting, cleaning, organizing. We still had a load of work left to do after we got married (like arranging picture albums, sorting through all sorts of brick-a-brack and hodge-podge) that I really have my hands full at the moment. Which is indeed good, I don't like sitting still. I like to get things DONE (which is probably why there are three stacks of books to be read beside my bed). But at the same time, I cannot help my longing for a child to care for and educate and watch grow... who has my husband's green eyes, I hope.

It occurred to me to ask our Deacon yesterday after 8:00 AM Mass about receiving the anointing of the sick. I told him our situation and he said I certainly "qualified". I asked when I might be able to receive it and he said to ask both our priests, but explained that our rector, the guy in charge, would probably not be able to do it because he's usually so busy. He instead suggested we ask the "junior" priest (who is in his 50's, ironically). I wouldn't mind asking either of them, they're both incredible.

So Tef and I scooted out the side of the cathedral and made way for the next wave of parishioners who were easing in early for the 9:30 Mass. Who should be coming out the door but our sweet, smiling rector? He thanked us for a gift we'd given the church a couple weeks earlier and we made small talk. I knew this would be a good opportunity to inquire about the anointing but didn't want to impose, especially with 9:30 Mass getting ready to start. But my husband's Yankee ingenuity stood up and asked for me.

"Well, when would you like to be anointed?" our father asked.

I shrugged cheerfully, "Whenever... I'm open."

"Why don't we do it now then?"

So we did. He went to get the necessaries and then he, Deacon, Tef and I stood in a little huddle on the sidewalk on that glorious spring morning and I was anointed in Christ's name for healing. It was quiet and peaceful and... perfect.

I've been anointed before -- Pentecostals will use any excuse to anoint anyone for anything. But I'd always been anointed under the impromptu declaration of a man's prayer who was himself willing a thing to happen. The force of his prayer was presumably what would do the healing, not the anointing itself. Or so it seemed.

This was not like that. This was a well-mapped prayer whose effectiveness rode on the shoulders of the Anointing and the name of Him in Whom it was offered. Our father was just there to carry it out through the benefits of his office.

The Mass is the same way. It doesn't rely on the priest so much as it does the actual service. I might go so far as to say that it doesn't matter who is officiating... but I won't. Different priests can do well or poorly. But the words themselves cannot be changed or rearranged to mean or impart anything else than Christ. Maybe that's why I've been so surprised by the number of joyful, surprised tears I've shed since we started attending Mass over a year ago. The quiet joy and holiness sneaks up on you. It doesn't announce itself and declare that you acknowledge it, it steals into your heart like a lover.

Here's praying with hope that the Lover's anointing has healed its beloved.

You, Alright?! I Learned It By Watching You!

For about as long as I've been a Christian I've been more than a little flummoxed by how to be one. I never could quite get a handle on it. While I was a Protestant Evangelical, being "a Christian" was kind of the standard equivalent to being an itinerant preacher, tither, program joiner and regular attender all rolled in to one. We were expected to know the Bible backwards and forwards in order to be able to quote it to anyone who needed quoting at and it was assumed that we would eventually go on at least one mission trip to sing songs and build a structure and pass out Bibles. We cared about people's souls and lives in an idealistic and almost Utopian way. If we could just raise them up to where we were, they would understand the Truth and be free.

And we respected our leaders. More often than not because of what they said or espoused as truth. And they said a lot. Often. (Though we generally wished they would say more with fewer words.) We understood which Commandments were the "greatest two" and all. But something never quite... lined up in practice. There was a missing element. I could never quite put my finger on it. It was always darting away in my peripheral vision; a thing I almost knew but couldn't see.

And then we started our journey towards the Catholic Church. The first person we met was our Deacon. He was like fresh water to a parched traveller; alive, funny, tender, tough, supportive, encouraging, uncompromising in his proclamation of the Gospel, self-deprecating, and real. He had (and has) an quiet intensity that didn't just talk about concern for someone else's welfare, it lived it every second of every day. In the first five minutes of our conversation, we knew and understood that this man, though he did not know us, loved us.

Over the course of our RCIA term, we shared stories and conversations with our two priests. And we learned what it's like to be a priest. How much they have to give of themselves. How much they have to bear and carry. How they are always rushing to the hospital at three AM to baptize stillborn babies, anoint car-crash survivors and victims of gunshot wounds, and to pray with the terminally ill. How many burdens of the church they carry in our confessions and how often they are deprived of sleep, privacy, and rest (one assumes money also, though it never entered conversation). Both our fathers draw from the same Well as our Deacon: so alive they almost cannot be daunted; so willing to help and care at all times; so able to put others first and themselves last, yet in the most blessed and quietly dignified way. They are seemingly so far above, but make themselves so much less that in so doing they raise themselves up, not for themselves, but for their Lord. And they lose not one shred of dignity in the process -- to the contrary, they gain. It's the oddest process. Almost dizzying.

And then there's our Bishop. Our priests were no doubt cut from his cloth -- the governor of 500-square miles who walked to Easter Vigil Mass carrying his own luggage then offered me his coat. He nearly blushes when we kiss his ring. He'll stand all day and talk to us as if we are the only people in the room. He came and visited our RCIA class, and even though there were less than a dozen people in the room, he gave a talk as if there were 300, then patiently answered questions for a half-hour. He issued a staunch and uncompromising encyclical defending the unborn and the Holy Eucharist, even as his own parishioners scoffed and sent him hate mail. He still does his own grocery shopping. And he goes out of his way to be available and present for his flock. He is seemingly so far above, but makes himself so much less...

And we've learned, watching these men, how this whole thing works. What it means to be a Christian. How it is to be done. There is not just one way to love, there are a myriad endless -- like sands on the shore.

But there is something else. The most important thing. Although we'd spent over a year in their company, I'd never connected all the dots and truly put this mandate of Love into action until something happened.

My first Eucharist.

It's God. It's Him inside us that makes it work. And you can't understand that until you've been through it. You can know it as an intellectual ideal, you can even believe it. But you can't have joy unspeakable that overflows into genuine, active and appreciative true Love until you've eaten at the Master's table. That's what all these men have in common. They seek Love, are willing to obey and make themselves subservient to Love, are nourished by their eating and drinking of Love, enabling them to live Love.

For almost nine years I've thought that the Christian life was essentially a myth. I thought Jesus, when He walked on Earth, was so far above me that I could never be where He was. This is still true in His Incarnation and Perfectness. But I misunderstood my Savior. I thought He would never want to reach down to where I was. That the distance was too great for the troubling. And that if He would, I thought it would only be to correct me and raise me up to where He was so I could understand the Truth and be free. Not for any other reason than my correction.

But that wasn't it at all.

He came down to where I was, clothed as a Servant, and washed my dirty feet -- not so I would love Him, but because He already loved me. He made Himself so much less than we so far below Him because He genuinely and really loved us. That is the kind of Love that does not demand its own way but gets it -- for what it pours out. That kind of Love draws lovers to it. And that is what we eat and drink at Eucharist.

That's how it works.

Catholicism Ain't Easy

As Sean Hannity surely knows.

Humbly acknowledging correction from a priest may make for lousy TV, but it makes for a good Catholic.

Sean Hannity might want to think about that.

Who's Afraid of the Virgin Mary?

Morning sickness. Bloating. Cravings. The first kick. The reaction of the child within to certain sounds, food and music. Contractions. Labor and delivery. The baby's face. Temperament. Skin. Hair. The way he suckles. His cries. His smile. His giggle. His first steps. His first words. His fears and dreams. His favorite toys. His abilities and skills. His favorite foods. His favorite songs and stories. The way he likes to be tucked in. The sound of him sleeping. A godly mother invested in the love and care of her son knows these things. And she knows them intimately.

As he grows she sees and observes all. She knows her son better than he knows himself sometimes, and can anticipate his moods and reactions, dispensing advice and reprove with a knowledge and understanding few will ever have of him. She will stand with him through all his trials, in a diminishing role as he grows in wisdom and stature, but her care and pride in him will increase as he matures. If she has done well, her child will not need her advice as much any more, but will (if he is as wise as she was prudent) take her words into consideration when they are given. Because she is his loving and precious mother; she sacrificed to make him happy, healthy, strong and wise, he will honor her by turning his ear to her. And she can counsel others on his temperaments and intentions. And what she cannot understand herself, she can concede to his authority.

How then, are we to integrate the Virgin Mary's place in our spiritual understanding of Jesus? We might begin by asking some questions:

1. What sort of girl is visited with this sort of message (from such a heavenly messenger)?:
   Luke1:35 -- And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."
2. What sort of girl gives this response, even though she is a scared and mortal virgin in her early teens?:
   Luke 1:38 -- And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."
3. Again, what is this girl -- moreover, what Light is within her -- that the Holy Spirit would overcome others (born and unborn) to respond to her presence with such joy and enthusiasm?:
   Luke 1:41 -- And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."
4. What sort of girl, after such high praise has been directed at her person and her goodness, denies her own merit, instead replying:
   Luke 1:46 -- "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for He has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. 50 And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with His arm, He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, 52 He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; 53 He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent empty away. 54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, 55 as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever."

Let us be clear, Mary as a stand-alone individual was a most righteous and pious little lady, brimming with the life and joy of God. Why else would He choose her and set her apart from the beginning of time to carry the Incarnate Life of His Son? She had to be holy. The physical and spiritual life of the Savior of the world depended on her prenatal care, motherly tenderness and the strength of her physical and spiritual rearing. The mother of any child must pay special attention to what she eats and drinks, how she conducts herself and her affairs, and how much time she devotes to prayer and meditation. How much more the mother of God on earth?

God chose to have His Son carry Mary's DNA. Christ was fashioned in the likeness of his Heavenly Father first and foremost, but (since He was fully human) He was also fashioned in the likeness of His mother... Perhaps He had her eyes. Perhaps He looked like her uncle or brother or any other member of her family -- just as any other child does. And just as a wise man may choose a holy and precious wife to carry on his name, so also was Mary chosen to bear the child of God. And who is more choosy: a very wise man or the Creator and Redeemer of the world?

Our Father in Heaven would not just arbitrarily decide on someone to carry His Son upon a roll of the dice. Thought was put into this thing inasmuch as thought was put into the creation of the world. And her original righteousness (the one she was granted and then kept through the Law as a good Jewish girl) was only intensified in God's anticipation of the Perfect Life which would grow within her. She was made to be the mortal bridge between the Old and New Testaments -- the living Ark of the Covenant, cradling the breathing Word of God -- and was the first disciple of Christ. Before He was even born she was learning about Him and His kingdom.

Who else was learning? Who else was privileged enough to have that access? Not many, since the gestation of our Lord was accomplished in such a way as to make it a thing of scorn and gossip. It was Mary alone who heard the secret whispers of the Peace of the Word of God echoing through her, body and soul. Each kick was a thrill of hope. Each cry was a chance to wait upon the Lord. Each bedtime story was a chance to share her "lowly" wisdom with the Son of God. Each instruction for completing His chores was taught our Lord by the guiding voice of his Mother. If He submitted Himself to her authority and wisdom, how much more should we call her our rightful and blessed mother, since Eve abandoned and orphaned us in the Garden for a ripe bit of fruit?

Still, the honor given to the Virgin Mary by the Bible itself is no more hotly contested than in the camps between the Catholic and Protestant churches. As a Protestant, I shrank in horror at the words of the "Hail Mary":

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

when, as we have seen, the words of the "Hail Mary" are condoned by Scripture -- with the full force and weight of God through His angels and His Holy Spirit. All Catholics ask is that she pray for us in her wisdom as the earthly mother and companion of God. And this is not out of keeping with a sincere and fruitful spiritual life. Were my own mother a praying Christian, I might ask her to pray for me since she would presumably be more mature in the faith than I. Why not (as Elizabeth so simply states) the "mother of my Lord"? Why not tap into the fruit of her quiet observatory wisdom regarding her Son -- my Lord, God and King? Why?

This is the bedrock of the Catholic rosary. A meditation on the life of Jesus with Mary as our motherly guide. She was there (Scripture attests to her presence in at least half of the mysteries of the rosary, including the wedding at Cana, the crucifixion, the finding of the empty tomb and in the upper room during Pentecost) so she can help us to better view and understand them. We thank her and tell her we love her for carrying, nurturing, teaching and disciplining her Son -- who was fully human as well as fully God and Who therefore needed a guide to overcome the temptations by which He would surely have been abused. And we can ask her to help us understand His earthly and heavenly actions. As the Gospels say in John, Chapter 2:

1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. 3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." 4 And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

His mother asked for His help and then conceded to His authority. He considered her request and then freely granted it, changing the water of the Old Covenant into the rich wine of the New.

Mary is not to be worshipped or adored in her office -- that privilege is for Christ alone -- but she is to be loved and admired as her Son loved and admired her. Just as we are to be imitators of His life and work and holiness, we are to love what He loves and to value what He values.

God the Father needed Mary to bear His Son. Christ the Son needed her to be His mother. In the Gospels, the Holy Spirit called her -- and no one else but Jesus -- blessed. Ask yourself what your relationship to Mary should be and then act on that judgment.

What Does the Catholic Church Believe? Pt III - War

(The introduction to this series on the teachings of the Catholic Church may be found here. Others in this series include the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion and capital punishment.)

There is perhaps no issue on where the teaching of the Catholic Church is more widely misunderstood than on the subject of war. Depending on one's own biases, the Church is either warmongering or pacifist in nature. Some Popes have called for war, others have called for peace. How does one reconcile what may appear to be contradictory positions on this crucial culture of life issue?

First, we need some understanding of what peace means.

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 [Matthew 5:21] our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,158,1 ad 3.] If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96 [Matthew 5:22]

Nations do not make war; people do. If war is made purely out of a desire for vengeance or anger, it is to be condemned as though one were trying to murder one's neighbor. Where the absolute pacifists go wrong is in failing to recognize that war is not always sought with vengeance or base motives in mind; the American entry into the two World Wars is a good example of waging war with justice foremost, whether it stemmed from a desire to protect innocents crossing the seas or from self-defense.

2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."97 [Matthew 5:44-45]

This, rather than technological innovation, is what made the 20th century so bloody. The limited wars of earlier times did not engage entire peoples, nor were propaganda machines so strong as to be able to whip civilian populations into frenzies of hatred toward their enemies. The suicide bomber tactics employed by Islamic terrorists would be utterly unthinkable outside the context of total warfare fanned by total hatred of the enemy. It is this blazing hatred which drives not only more warfare, but more brutality and inhumanity as well.

2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."98 [St. Augustine, De civ. Dei, 19,13,1:PL 41,640]Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.99 [Cf. Isa 32:17; cf. GS 78 §§ 1-2]

This is a very important distinction which many of the pacifist view simply fail to understand. Just prior to August 1914, Europe was not at war. However, the machinations undertaken by the nations of Europe to tip the balance of power in their favor meant they were sitting atop a powder keg. The assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne by Serbian anarchists was sufficient to drag the continent and much of the rest of the world into a bloody war the magnitude of which had never been seen. Moreover, it led to a period of peace which proved more explosive than the war had been, leading directly to an even worse catastrophe. Note the importance the Church lends to property rights here---this is no doubt in part because genocide often occurs in times of "peace" and begins with the state confiscating the property of the target people before the assault on their persons, dignity, and lives fully gets underway. Peace is more than the state between wars. It is the condition whereby we may live our lives without war clouds looming over us.

That is the true definition of peace, not a brokered ceasefire while hunkered down awaiting the next wave of attacks.

2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."100 [Isa 9:5]By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"101 [Eph 2:16 J.B.; cf. Col 1:20-22]he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."102 [Eph 2:14] He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."103 [Matthew 5:9]

There is a big difference between "peacemaker" and "peace negotiator" which I feel is often lost. The former presumes power, the latter mere influence. Christ was peacemaker because as God and man he had the power to drive lasting conciliation between creature and Creator and heal the breach riven by The Fall. This was no mere negotiation. Christ used his power to bridge the divide at enormous personal cost, and because he willed it so. We were the beneficiaries of his peacemaking, yet we did nothing to earn it, aid it, nor bring it to fruition. He had ample justification to hate us, to wage war upon us with raging water or falling fire, and yet he gave his own life for ours.

It should also be noted that in so doing Jesus was regarded widely as a troublemaker, a disturber of the delicate "peace" which existed between Herod's Jews and Pilate's Roman legions. Peacemaking is not comfort-making. Neither is it driven by lack of power or will, nor by fear.

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.104 [Cf. GS 78 § 5]

Pacifists within our societies serve the admirable role of keeping our consciences sharp and awake to the danger of loving the supposed glories and honors of war too much. The emphasize the injustice and tragedy which must invariably follow in war's wake. However, please note the clause, "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies."

Protest the Iraq War as you like. Organize demonstrations. Write your congressman.

But do not harass military recruiters. Do not spit upon soldiers. Do not sabotage military equipment. Do not sap the will of our people to fight whom we must in order to safeguard our liberty, our property, our lives.

Charity begins at home. It begins with your neighbors, who share not the pacifist's calling to absolute nonviolence and who bleed and die that they might practice their calling freely, until the day when that luxury is held by all, and not simply because the yoke placed upon us by our enemies allows no movement to strike them.

Our soldiers lay down their lives for us even as Christ did. Will those who profess peace and charity toward all despise them for their sacrifice?

If so, they ask their brethren to risk slavery and death where they will not hazard humility and gratitude.

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105 [Cf. GS 81 § 4]

This is wise counsel. Once the dogs of war have been unleashed, you never know who they'll bite.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106 [GS 79 § 4]

Some emphasize the "all peace efforts" part here a bit too much. Once war mobilization begins, war has begun. It is the height of folly to refuse to prepare for war. The initial diplomatic maneuvering also serves the purpose of buying time to mobilize, increasing deterrence of the enemy. Had the Allies put less faith in negotiation and more in preparation, Hitler never would have crossed the Rhine, nor entered Poland, for fear of the Allies' response. Instead, he mobilized, we hoped, and most of Europe was trod under the Nazi jackboot.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.


The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Here is the meat of "just war" doctrine, which is the heart of Western warfare.

Note that it does not require avoidance of warfare at all cost, nor acceptance of any proffered means of securing the peace, such as "convert to Sharia law" or "withdraw utterly from the Middle East."

Note also the role of proportionate response. It would not be just, for example, for Iran to wipe the nation of Israel off the map with nuclear weapons unless Israel deployed similar weapons against Iran. This is a point which rather gets lost on anti-Western commentators, who seem to believe that the rules for just war apply only to America and her allies.

Please note also that proportionate response likewise that great evils may require great destruction to eliminate them. Millions lost their lives in horrific ways in World War II. Given the brutality of the Nazis and Japanese, firebombing Dresden and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deemed just by most historians and commentators of the day, although we still find proportionality discussed heatedly in many quarters. Consensus does not preclude dissent.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107 [Cf. GS 79 § 5]

This is a very important passage. Catholics are required to meet their obligation to defend their nation, not excluded from it. They must do so honorably and in the service of freedom. So doing, they are a force for good. This is a paragraph to quote repeatedly to those who have lost all proportion in their desire for peace, a desire none share more than the soldier called upon to fight to attain it.

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108 [Cf. GS 79 § 3]

Students of military history and veterans know that there are no braver men than combat medics, who risk all that their armed comrades do while saving lives. They are universally respected and widely held in awe. Many are committed pacifists. This is one excellent way to reconcile one's commitment to life with one's duty to country. Men such as these are also in constant demand.

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109 [GS 79 § 4]

There is no army on Earth which takes greater pains to reduce the loss of innocent life or the property of innocents than the American army. To see these brave soldiers reviled for being willing to risk life and limb to preserve the architecture defiled by their enemies is to know what an exalted station the profession of arms has attained within our lifetimes. Scrupulous application of minimal force has become the American way of war, and America the light of the world in this regard as in so many others.

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

In the West, we have the Geneva Conventions to govern the rules of war and act to prevent the worst evils of it. Unfortunately, we Americans never fight anyone who honors such restrictions, and routinely see our prisoners subjected to torture, humiliation, and execution.

There is perhaps no greater crime than the mass slaughter of a people. Had genocide been practiced by the Egyptians or Babylonians against the Jews, one wonders what shape God's plan would have taken, or what He may have done to preserve His chosen people and to punish their enemies.

One must not lose sight of the fact that genocide may also be directed against one's own people, as has been the norm in Communist states. It is never justified, and those who profess admiration for the alleged "social justice" practiced in such regimes must not turn their eyes from the grave injustices implementing such schemes required and perpetuated. Peace on Earth is not the peace of the grave.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 [GS 80 #3] A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

This is one which hits right at the heart of the Western way of war, with its precision strikes against military targets. During World War II, such precision was not possible, and the annihilation of whole cities was practiced. There is much debate to this day over the necessity and propriety of such actions, but the Catholic position based on this experience is clear.

In the military art, this has also created a host of problems, not least of which is the enemy which hasn't so much been beaten as neutralized. The Iraq War saw an Iraqi army defeated within hours, yet the insurgency today is to a significant extent fueled by Iraqi veterans who were unharmed and hardly inconvenienced by the American campaign. How does one encourage a defeated enemy to give up the battlefield when they are not weary of it?

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 [Cf. Paul VI, PP 53] it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

This passage reminds me that the Catholic Church serves the world, not just our piece of it. While I note that America has the world's greatest armed forces, and the most weapons, she also spends far more on social spending than defense, while simultaneously shouldering the defense burden of the entire Western world. This paragraph does not seem to me to be aimed at America as a consequence.

There is no doubt that arms races are destabilizing in the long run, and that the deterrent impact is only as good as the opposing sides' R&D lifecycles are long. That said, nuclear weapons are a far better deterrent than spears, and I believe the saying that the greatest peacemaker of the 20th century was in fact Strategic Air Command.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

This strikes me as rather noncontroversial; my libertarian streak does not extend so far as private armies equipped with private nukes.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war.

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112 [GS 78 § 6; cf. Isa 2:4]

Summary

The Catholic Church's position on war is consistent with its pro-life positions and simultaneously pragmatic and idealistic.

Peace is not the absence of war, but rather a stable state of charity toward one's neighbors not predicated upon the belief that one could win a decisive war at acceptable cost. Balance of power politics does not yield peace, nor do diplomatic negotiations per se, nor does the accumulation of lethal arms. It arises from leaders who respect the dignity of their neighbors, who act with Christian humility for the betterment of their people, and who refrain from waging war as a first resort.

How the Church views a particular conflict's participants depends on whether they wage a just or unjust war. Fighting to protect innocents, to end evil, or in self-defense may be considered waging a just war, provided one's military response is proportionate, humane, reasonably likely to succeed.

War should be avoided if at all possible, though not at the expense of genocide, slavery, or similar great evils being loosed. War should not be embraced as a first or primary option, as wars invariably result in injustice and suffering, nor should they be entered into in a desire for vengeance nor to vent hatred of one's neighbors.

Military service is an honorable profession when soldiers wage just wars in a just fashion. Nations have a right to self-defense and their citizens an obligation to their self-defense. Where conscience prohibits violent action in defense, one is still obligated to assist one's neighbors in this valiant and noble effort.

War will not be vanquished until Christ's return; until then, it is to be waged sparingly, justly, and with least possible harm to life, dignity, and property.

Implications

Unlike abortion, the Catholic Church does not prohibit warfare, nor excommunicate those who practice it. War is a dangerous beast, but a useful one when evil force must be met by force.

American history in particular is rife with examples of such noble crusades as find favor with the Church under Just War doctrine.

America did not enter the First World War until the Germans began to practice unrestricted submarine warfare against the Triple Entente and neutral powers. Targeting innocent civilians for destruction at sea was an evil act which offended the conscience of the Wilson Administration and many Americans. The American entry into the war had the further positive impact of ending the bloody stalemate on the Western Front and bringing hostilities to a close by November 1918. As a result of her noble efforts, America took the lead at the peace table, and the Versailles Treaty bore the indelible stamp of her idealism.

America's entry into the Second World War is a good example of a just war through self-defense. Despite numerous provocations, the United States entered the war only after her Pacific fleet was largely destroyed in the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and once Nazi Germany honored her Axis pact by likewise declaring war on America. America's actions during the war were controversial, but given the atrocities routinely committed by the Axis powers and the genocide underway in Germany in particular, even such actions as the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally licit in the eyes of many.

The War in Iraq, a contemporary controversy, likewise holds up well to just war scrutiny. Saddam Hussein continued to attack American forces in the region in violation of the Gulf War ceasefire; harbored terrorists targeting American civilians; both possessed and had used in the past weapons of mass destruction aimed at indiscriminate death-dealing; was actively seeking the genocide of the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds; and had attempted the assassination of George H.W. Bush some months prior. The invasion itself was carried out with an eye toward eliminating death and injury to Iraqi noncombatants. It was swift, surgical, and restrained, even when conducted under the expectation that Hussein would employ nerve gas against the advancing Americans.

The War in Iraq is also an example of Catholic teaching that war is an unpredictable engine of misery and suffering. Despite the best intentions and unprecedented performance of American armed forces in Iraq, unforeseen situations such as the Iranian-backed insurgency, the last-minute decision of the Turks to not allow an invasion from their soil, Hussein releasing murderers and other violent criminals from Iraqi jails on the eve of the invasion and the criminal actions of troops at Abu Ghraib prison (who violated the Geneva Conventions repeatedly in their treatment of enemy POWs) all demonstrate that war may be waged, but not always controlled, even by the best military force the world has yet seen.

The Catholic Church's teaching on war is amply reflected in the American experience of it, as typified by Gary Jacobson's "A Combat Soldier's Prayer":

A Combat Soldier's Prayer by Gary Jacobson (c. 2002)

This combat soldier's prayer,
Who has served his time in Hell,
Is may we learn the lessons of war well,
That we not doom future generations,
The same old tales of horror to tell,
To endure what in youth they see mistakenly as glory.
Oh God, do not let our children repeat the same old story.
Make it so that America's babies live to grow old
In this land of the free and the bold.
Help us throw off the shackles of hate that bind
And grow old in a life of a peaceful kind.
Teach us that there is no glory in war,
Nor honor there that brave men should not abhor.
Teach us instead, one for another our brothers to love.
Shower us with thy Celestial message from above,
That we plant seeds of peace evermore
And make war-no-more!

But if I should die on some far, far away battlefield
Know I answered the call
For a grand principle of freedom to yield.
My fervent prayer is that my death may not have been in vain
Fighting for peace and right for the world to attain.
American roses standing by my side on alien soil dying
In the summer of my youth all the leaves around me falling,
Now I'm lying here still, in sunshine and in shadow,
Longing to hear, "brother next door, I love you so."
For moldering in the soft ground,
I feel you living and loving in the world above me
Standing tall because I fought that you might be...
Oh look ye down now, and tell me that you still think of me
Honor my red blood, spilt that others might stand free.
Tell me that I did not give my all for you in vain
That brothers and sisters do not look upon my sacrifice
With hateful, or even worse, uncaring disdain.
Do not forget me when my valley's hushed and white with snow,
Grass growing green in the summer of my meadow
Help me find the peace I lived and died for
Make my lonely grave richer, sweeter be...
That I might too, in your hearts live on, eternally free...

I Just Wanna' Watch A Movie, Is That So Wrong?

File under: "Mortification of the flesh is a tough and slippery thing" or, as Tef has so eloquently put it, "Ash Wednesday sucks".

This year I have forsaken television. That's right, no more "Heroes", no more "Anthony Bourdain", no more "Mythbusters", no more "Lost" or "24". Gone. All gone. (Until Sunday TiVo time, that is.) The only thing I'm allowing myself to watch are, "The Holy Land Rosary" on EWTN and my workouts, either on DVD or FitTV. Which is to say: unless it's something especially spiritual or physical that I can't get from a book or audio media, it's off limits (again, until Sunday TiVo time). And yeah, I could pray the rosary without a guide and I could figure out a fitness regime without the TV but this is Lent, y'all, not Auschwitz.

Same for food. I'm abiding by the Lenten "no-meat-on-Fridays" thing and adding a few little prohibitions of my own by cutting out "white things" like rice, potatoes, bread, pasta and sugar (except for the sugar in my morning coffee, again L-E-N-T) and/or especially rich things like ice cream, chocolate, and goodies of that ilk. But since I eat pretty healthy anyway, stuff like this is not as much of a sacrifice as it might be for someone else. I have the opposite problem, I go too far.

In the past I have undertaken such Lenten promises as "veganism" and "only 1500 calories a day and hour-long workouts everyday for 40 days". With my history of eating disorders, yeah -- not such a good idea. Plus, once you make an oath to the Lord you have to stick to it. And in the past I have bitten off more than I could practically chew. This year, my focus is on having more quiet time with the Lord and more headspace (if that makes sense) without the hairshirts. Reading more and being quieter so I can tune in to Life more adeptly is my focus. I don't see what's wrong with that. That's pretty much what Lent is right? Getting ourselves in order; Spring cleaning; getting to root of ourselves and our weaknesses and Christ's strength; looking forward to Easter and the Resurrection. It's the sobering up after the revelry of Christmas.

Anyway... sitting in Ash Wednesday services, listening to all the stomachs growling around me, I really, REALLY just wanted to go home and watch "The Fellowship of the Ring" and eat a PB&J sandwich -- something I haven't had a craving to do in.... well, ever, I don't think.

*sigh*

Isn't that the way it always is? You don't miss something until you can't have it. Sort of like a catch 22. Or like St. Paul's commentary on the Law in the letter to the Romans. The Law condemns and saves at the same time. Because with the Law the Jews could never measure up. And without it they were lost.

Am I rambling? I think I'm rambling. Must be the low blood sugar. I'm all wobbly in the brain pan.

Have a great Ash Wednesday. I gotta' go thaw some fish.