Friday, September 26, 2014

Quick Takes: What? No slippery slope?

1)  So, I think I have at least six readers left, and at least two of them have actually contacted me to ask me if I am okay, since I have been so scarce around here!

Yes, I am definitely okay, and I truly apologize for being such a pathetic excuse for a blogger. My story this time is that I went to visit my second daughter and her new husband in Charleston, SC! So much fun! I am completely, 100% over my fear of flying (I even took the red eye alone to get to the east coast and thoroughly enjoyed it) -- I guess the desire to see one's children can crush a phobia.

Meanwhile, my husband went to his 25th college reunion at Emory University in Atlanta for a couple of days, and then he joined me in South Carolina. And oh my goodness, for a few moments he and I sat blissfully in the lobby of the Francis Marion Hotel in downtown Charleston -- the site of the 2015 Edel Gathering!! It is gorgeous, ladies! Consider making the trip!

Thanks to my wonderful mom and my oldest son (a senior in college) for helping to care for the kiddies while we were gone! It's been a million years since Dean and I have flown off and had a vacation together far away. Usually we do 24-hour getaways just down the street, but now that I'm flying again, we may be going to far-flung places a lot more often!

Anyway, since I've been traveling, it's been hard for me to catch up with everything else in my life and to clear the way for blogging. I trust that will change now that I don't have trips planned for a while.

Also (in case you're interested in my psychology), I find that it's so much more fun to have the interesting combox conversations than it is to write the original post in the first place. I think it's because I'm too picky about my own writing and it takes so long to satisfy the editor in my head. :) Maybe I need to let some of that perfectionism go so that we can actually have some combox conversations again!

2) Thank you to my wonderful son-in-law Dirk for helping my husband fulfill his dream of (finally!!) shooting a gun. More than one gun, in fact. And he was a good shot! Killed a zombie or two, and some bad guys.

We had a wonderful time at the range, and seeing the salt of the earth folks there -- husbands with wives, women alone and with friends, law enforcement and military -- just made me feel good to know that if ISIS comes around, there will be plenty of citizens that are not going down without a very strong fight!

3)  So many people deny the slippery slope when it comes to issues of sexuality and marriage, but I just wonder if they are following the news at all? It's so obvious that one "progression" leads to the next, and it happens with such predictability that I am baffled when people still scoff. Here is the latest, but certainly not the last:

Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

According to the ironically-named "German Ethics Council":
“The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”
You got that? Sexual urges are paramount. They trump all.

Look, Germany has the premise all wrong about the truth and meaning of human sexuality, but if you accept the faulty premise, then the logic is sound. If the standard is that "consenting adults" may do whatever they want sexually, then incest is perfectly legit, and should be legal. Marriage equality, y'all. People who say it should mean it, no? And more and more, they do mean it. Just last week I was debating gay "marriage" with a young man, and when pressed, he admitted that he has no problem with incest.

From a German academic, via Professor Robert P. George on Facebook:
"And here comes the best of it: Immediately [after the German Ethics Council's decision] discussions started about legalization of zoophilia. Recently there were reports of increased sex tourism to Denmark where zoophilia is legal already."
Western European nations are the "enlightened" nations, keep in mind, and the legalization of bestiality is being openly discussed and in some places is already allowed.

But remember, "There is no slippery slope!"  ;)

4)  I love this C.S. Lewis quote, posing a conundrum about atheism that has always puzzled me. Namely, why do atheists trust their brains to give them truth?

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

Anyone have a good refutation of his argument?

5) What kind of granny would I be if I did not post more pictures of Felicity Virginia??

There is her serious look (much like her own mother, who was always "thinking" at that age):

Three months old! This was taken on her mother's 23rd birthday.

There is also her amused and whimsical look:

And of course, practicing for her future canonization, there is her look (and pose) of sanctity:

6) Lest anyone accuse this granny of playing favorites, here is my second beautiful grandchild! Sex still unknown, but isn't he/she beautiful?? I can hardly wait till March! Ahhhhh!

Thank you to our dear daughters and sons-in-law, for being so open to life! What a gift that is to our whole family!

7) If you or someone you know is open to the gift of a child for your family, please consider happy and lovely seven-year-old Angelina, who has spina bifida:

Click my photo for more info!

From her information page:
From a family who met her in June 2014:  "Somebody come get this girl, Angelina.  She is such an awesome kid.  So happy and smart. She just needs a family and she will thrive. She is 7 and may be in an institution soon. She does not belong there.” 
A family who met her in 2011 says she’s the happiest child, always smiling and laughing.

Please pray for Angelina and spread the word!


Have a joy-filled weekend, and thanks to Jen for hosting!


  1. I enjoy your blog...never quit! Thanks for sharing the pictures of the beautiful babes. Precious!

  2. Yes, even if readers are down (if in fact, they are) keep on writing anyway. People always come back, checking in from time to time. Even if I don't comment often, it's simply because I've learned that I don't know how to debate but that doesn't mean that I don't come to learn or throw in my 2 cents from time to time! It's from your blog posts that I learn the heart of our faith and from the comments that I learn how to stand up for it. So please don't stop--we need your blog. You teach the deepness of our faith with simplicity.

  3. I sent the CS Lewis quote to my 26 yr. old son,(formerly devout Catholic), and he replied as follows; I would appreciate any comments as to how to respond to his
    arguments, as I'm at a loss right now, of course except prayer. Thanks in advance.
    "Some counter-replies:
    1. We can't always trust our own thinking to be true. There are countless times I've thought I was right and then later discovered I was wrong. "Truth" is the correspondence of thoughts with reality. In order to determine the veracity of a thought, I compare the sensory input I receive from the external world with the characteristic of the thought in my head. For example, I have the thought that there is a thing called "gravity" that accelerates objects toward the ground. So I use my eyes to observe objects that fall at a faster rate the longer they've been let go from my hand, and I then describe that thought as true because it corresponds to the sensory input I receive from the external world. But my sensory input can be mistaken, so I compare my observations with those of other people. If they agree with me, then I'm confident that my thought is most likely true.

    2. "It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London." -No, because a milk jug does not have sensory organs that can observe London and then repeat that observation in the form of a map.

    3. Who designed God's mind? Who designed the mind that designed God's mind? Etc. If trustworthy intelligence requires a designer, then why do we stop asking that question at God's mind and simply accept that God can trust his own thinking to be true?

    4. Why should we trust that God created our minds to be accurate? An omnipotent being could make us believe literally anything he wanted. He could, at the most fundamental level, make us believe he's good and trustful all the while being a master deceiver. Proposing God doesn't get us anywhere in trusting our own thinking."

  4. Here you go:
    Son, you've missed the whole point (and context) of that Lewis quote. And, you've refuted yourself in the process.

    [Lewis' point is that there is a necessity for a Designer who undergirds our thoughts, otherwise thoughts (any thoughts!) are non believable because they otherwise wouldn't be geared toward the purpose of thinking, as Lewis says lastly in that quote.]

    Son, if thoughts aren't grounded in a higher reality, then why are you going the route of "making observations"? Of pattern-finding, of data collection/convergence? Why are you trusting other peoples' calculus? By your own methodology here, you can't even trust your own.

    You're self-refuting by saying, "I use science, even though my thoughts are as randomly inaccurate as the next guy's. So, together that means we all have completely inaccurate, yet agreed upon, findings." Makes no sense. And it in no way disproves God. In no way. Tell him his data source is incomplete to make that proclamation (cannot use data from the world to disprove anything outside of the world).

    As to his questions about the mind of God, etc. he'd do himself an extra large favor by reading up on Lonergan's proof.

  5. Maggie, for the first two questions, I would say.... "How would you know what does or does not correspond to 'reality'? How do you trust your senses? [They come through the brain, too.] How do you know that you are getting truth with your sensory input?"

    I'd like to hear his response to that, if you can get it. Invite him on the blog! :)

    Nubby, good answers!

  6. 2. How are 'sensory organs' essentially different from a jug of milk, by the way? (Assuming an atheist world, where everything is atoms and chemical reactions.)

  7. This newbie sends blessings to both for your insightful responses; I've forwarded your
    responses and encouraged him to reply here, so we'll see.(Oh, and a typo, he's 24)

  8. "Truth" is the correspondence of thoughts with reality.

    This may be a bit nitpicky, but can't a truth exist even if nobody knows it? His whole definition of truth seems to depend on his and others' thoughts.

    Also, the whole "Who created God?" thing is annoying because it's basically a refusal to allow Christians to define God on our own terms. The universe began, and had have a beginning. But there's no reason that God must share that property. When we talk about God we're talking about someone eternal. That might sound implausible to some, but if they are willing to listen to Christians talk about God they should be willing to let Christians define God. Many atheists will argue against their own conception of God rather than that of whoever they're talking to.

  9. Chris, excellent point, and it's not nitpicky, it's actually foundational. Truth has to have some sort of objective source, an objective measuring stick, or it's subjective and ever-changing, and then it's not, by definition, truth.

    And yes, there is a difference between God and creation in their very natures. If an atheist wants to claim that the universe is eternal, and that it had no beginning, then let's have that argument. But otherwise, atheists need to understand that for Christians, creation and the Creator are not the same, and they have entirely different natures. I think C.S. Lewis was simply talking about things from an atheist's perspective, with the assumption that there is no God. If there is no God, then why trust one's brain to find or know the "truth"? That was the point of the quote; it was not to prove the existence of God.

  10. "it's basically a refusal to allow Christians to define God on our own terms. "

    First of all "atheists" is such a general term; there are millions of atheist and I don't think it's possible to ascribe any particular motivations to "atheists." I know plenty of atheists who are perfectly happy for Christians or Jews or Muslims or whomever to define God on whatever terms they want. They just don't believe themselves.

    Someone might question who created God for their own intellectual curiosity rather than having an agenda towards Christians (who are not the only people who believe in God, by the way)

    'otherwise thoughts (any thoughts!) are non believable because they otherwise wouldn't be geared toward the purpose of thinking," (Hi Nubby!)

    This doesn't make sense to me because thoughts by definition are "geared toward" thinking. How could they not be?

    I'm not an atheist but CS Lewis's argument: "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” makes no sense to me at all.

    God is so much bigger than the limitations of the human mind that I don't know how one could make a solid argument one way or the other.

    And I'm very happy you're back, Leila, and that you are doing okay!

  11. Hi Johanne!!

    Regarding thought.... I guess he's trying to say that thought is completely meaningless if it's based in nothing ultimately, and if there is no truth to find (because we are just chemicals firing, and atoms). We cannot in any way trust our thoughts if that is the case, and so thought itself is unreliable, leading to.... nothing true, nothing that can be verified, ever. So to "think" oneself into atheism is sort of a contradiction, as it assumes a truth can be known via this brain -- a brain that cannot be trusted since it's just chemicals firing. How can one trust that chemicals firing (for no ultimate reason and with no ultimate source) are trustworthy in making such a decision about God?

    Hope that makes sense. Off to bed with me!

  12. 'otherwise thoughts (any thoughts!) are non believable because they otherwise wouldn't be geared toward the purpose of thinking," (Hi Nubby!)

    This doesn't make sense to me because thoughts by definition are "geared toward" thinking. How could they not be?

    Hello, Johanne- Yes, you inherently understand that there is a presupposition to the idea of there being an objective (foundational) truth that is larger than the scattered ideas of people.

    You're right in your reasoning, because you're presupposing the foundational order to thought. Maggie's son was trying to do away with this presupposition which doesn't work (logically); because in order to know that we're operating in truth, we have to presuppose that there is an unmoving truth to compare against.

    We can't live according to contradictions. We live our lives according to this presupposition, otherwise we'd be completely at a loss in every conversation about anything.

    It's like he's going through this massive effort via the "ideas = truth route" only to come up against major contradictions in logic and reality. Hopefully he'll start to see cracks in that philosophy.

  13. Hi Lelia,

    I don't think I've ever commented on your blog but, if it will encourage you to keep it up, I'll do so now. I really enjoy the blog. ;)

    My two cents...

    Everyone involved here seems to believe in "Truth as Correspondence" and that our sensory and cognitive faculties are generally reliable in delivering truth to us. If that's true then the sensory and cognitive faculties are both 1) aimed at truth and 2) adequate to our environment.

    By "1) aimed at truth" I mean that they do this regularly and when we suspect that there is a malfunction (for one reason or another) we try to compensate for it some way. I would also note that replacing "1) aimed at truth" with "1) aimed at survival" doesn't work because our cognitive faculties grasp truths FAR beyond our survival needs. Also, there is good reason to believe that these faculties wouldn't need to be aimed at Truth (in the robust sense that we typically use the word) for our reproductive success (Alvin Plantinga explores this idea in his paper "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism").

    The question is "How did our sensory and cognitive faculties come to deliver truth in a reliably way"? This link between between our faculties and our environment came about either by 'chance (unguided evolution)' or by 'design/purpose (personal or impersonal)' (is there a 3rd option?)

    If we say "by chance" then the question "do these faculties actually tell me something about the real world?" becomes a reasonable question to many thoughtful people. It doesn't really help to check the cognitive faculties with the sensory ones and vice-versa because they both come from the same source. And it doesn't help simply to say "if they didn't work this way I wouldn't survive" because it's not hard to imagine counter-scenarios (see the Plantinga paper previously referenced for examples). Many thoughtful people couldn't help but doubt the ability of our faculties to give us objective truth if there isn't an external, influential force somehow doing the aiming (Hume and Kant come immediately to mind).

    If we say "by design/purpose" then the harmony between the source of our faculties and our understanding of their operation is explained. This might simply "push the question back" in some people's eyes but the problem has, indeed, been moved. Also, the road towards an answer now reaches outside the subject in a self-coherent way.

    But, if the "by design/purpose" road appears to lead towards a reality that looks very much like the Christian God, many people would rather not go there. It's easier for them to intellectually accept, as brute, unexplained facts, realities that appear contingent (the general reliability of the mind and senses to provide objective truth, the effectiveness of mathematics, the existence of "universals" that ground correspondence, the harmonious interrelationship between these realities, etc.) than to accept the existence of an absoulte, personal being behind it all. Lewis was not one of these people.

    See, Leila. This is why I don't comment. I feel like saying more and I'm suppossed to be working... ;)

  14. Yes, but picking on the Germans is too easy, it's obvious that there is an immorality there. But avoiding all straw men, how bout a more uncomfortable subject, what about those who live by the gun die by the gun, or sword have you,if you lived in the time of Christ. It's easy to tell someone how moral they should be, but what really interests me is how moral you think you have to be. Unless Christianity is just a means to an end, it matters more where you end up and less how you get there. You know pageantry and circumstance, but no real substance.

  15. Nubby, excellent response! Thank you!!! And Archie, I sure do hope that you comment more often. You are more well read and thoughtful than I. Very well laid out.

    Dellentie, obviously it's not "obvious" to the German Ethics Committee that there is "an immorality there". How about you stick to the subject at hand? Or better yet, you need to stop commenting here, as I believe you are one of only a single-digit number of people that I have asked to stop commenting. This is due to your inability to keep on topic, your rambling thoughts that no one can follow and that are non-productive, and your unkindness and insults which we've had enough of over the months and years. Take care and God bless.

  16. Congrats on those gorgeous grandkids, Leila! It won't be long before you'll need so much space for grandkids that you won't have room for a blog anymore!

    Maggie, on this part of your son's response:

    3. Who designed God's mind? Who designed the mind that designed God's mind? Etc. If trustworthy intelligence requires a designer, then why do we stop asking that question at God's mind and simply accept that God can trust his own thinking to be true?

    My response would be, first of all, God does not have a "mind" because a mind is material and He is immaterial. Second, if there is truth, which he recognizes as reality, then where does that truth come from? I think he would agree that we don't get to make up truth, we can only try to discover it. Where does reality come from? What is its source? I wonder what his answer to that question is.

  17. 1 & 2. So glad to hear you guys had some vacation time and some TRIGGER time. Giddy-up! Visiting newlyweds and blasting guns. Obviously Dirk is a good guy to take care of his in-laws so thoughtfully. No, I’m serious.
    3. Slippery Slope. The most laughed at, dismissed, mocked and ridiculed position/argument ever. And how do you know there is no answer to the argument? By the fact that it is mocked and ridiculed and not answered. If it’s all about Love, then what’s the difference between any two (or more) people, places and things? How do you possibly restrict anything? (and why would you want to?)
    4. Lewis. You guys always have these ones covered. The only thing I can add regarding Milk jugs, is the fact that I have to buy about 22 gallons a week! There are cows in the Midwest on the verge of walking out in protest because of our consumption levels. They would probably try to stampede our entire family if they had the chance. Thanks God for the second amendment!
    5. Leila, that baby is something else. Super Cute and what a serious look. It looks like she has the Miller “no bs” gene. Your daughters and SIL’s are awesome for being open to life. They can come shooting with us in San Diego anytime. Maybe take out some charging, wild eyed cows.
    6. Sweet little Perpetua. Just perfect.
    7. Lord help someone make a little room in their house for her.
    Welcome back sister

  18. I doubt if my son will be posting, as his overly anxious mom forgot to ask his permission to post his thoughts, didn't think he would mind as I didn't identify him. But I appreciate all the helpful points, and will use them will discussing at Christmas when he's home from grad school.being home bound for the past couple years and on meds has diminished my capacity for logical discourse. He might peek at this unbeknownst; he still recites by memory, when I ask him over the phone to say the Aquinas Pange Lingua prayer and reads out loud for me from Maria Vadia's books on the Holy Spirit. And yes, I'm offering (mostly peacefully), it all up for the obvious.
    So even though I won't comment frequently on here, I'm so thankful I came across
    this blog and all the thought provoking posts.

  19. Maggie, totally understood! May I ask when/why he fell away? I am sure when the world gives its best to him (we don't get out without some major sufferings and "come to Jesus" moments), he will be back to his foundations. Even if it takes decades. So many have run that road. I strongly recommend the book by Dr. Kevin Vost (Mensa member) that I wrote about here (atheist to Catholic):

    He's quite funny as well, so it's a great read!

    Sharon, excellent point about pressing to find the source. Truth must have a source, no? If not, it's not truth, it's something subjective, which is "opinion".

    One note, because I have learned a lot from Dr. Stacy, the brain is material, but the "mind" is something immaterial, that transcends the body (which is why God does have a mind, and why after we die, and before we are resurrected, our minds still work). A great mystery, but a thrilling one! I recommend Stacy Trasanco's blog for all things scientific/theological like that, because it's way over my head, but she is good at addressing it!

    Chris! You are so awesome, ha ha! We will shoot with you any day. And you are right about my granddaughter... she is a "no bs" type of girl. She doesn't put up with nonsense. ;)

  20. Just wanted to add re: mind of God-

    God has a mind, and we mirror that, as we are made in His image. We have a mind and a will. Ours reflect His.

    He communicates His mind through His spoken Word which is His Son. And the Son has revealed the will of the Father, and has given us His active presence by His Spirit (at baptism) and aids us with grace to perfect our nature.

    A theological perspective is that we were all a thought in God's mind before he set the foundations of the world. And He spoke us into existence because of His love. His power is made manifest in His thought and speech. They are always active and always carrying out His will. And apparently He woke me up at 3am to share this. ;) Superlative! Might as well make coffee now ...

  21. Thanks, Leila and Nubby for the correction! I was thinking of brain, not mind - my mistake! I think Maggie's son's question, though, sounded to me like one where people are thinking that God has to be similar to humans, in that He will have the limitations that humans have.

  22. Just when I'm ready to dive into conversations, my internet has been down all day, arggghh! Sharon, yes, it's like Fr. Barron likes to say, it's not as if God is "the biggest guy in the room" (or universe), which is how non-believers like to perceive Him. He is unlike us in His nature, but many atheists cannot grasp Him other than "an old man with a beard in the sky"... which is not the Christian concept of God, so it's such a boring and tired straw man!

  23. I would like you to know that I am having complimentary thoughts about that picture of your husband.

    Maybe the residents of the White House should carry their own firearms since the Secret Services seems to be a little lax these days.

  24. Lena, lol on the first! :)

    And yes.... hmmmm.... things are a little bit nuts all over, no? Sigh....

  25. Kudos, Nubby for answering the Lord's call to evangelize in the wee hrs! I shall include your and all these posters' special intentions when I am awakened in the 3 am h,(which seems to be occurring more often lately), to say the Divine Mercy.I'm ashamed to say I hadn't heard of Lonergan's proof, but am printing it out for myself and to send to him to read on a upcoming long train ride. Leila, thanks for the Vost and Dr. Stacy mentions, their books might find their way into someone's Ch. stockings. Your hubby's photo reminded me of my DH comment of needing to get my eyesight checked after I tried a few rounds a while back,(country acreage). Our20 something daughters only tried once in honor of St. Joan of Arc. Now I must start reading your older columns, they are quite informative and entertaining. You are gifted along with the commentators which is like icing on the cake.

  26. I'm not an atheist but CS Lewis's argument: "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” makes no sense to me at all.

    God is so much bigger than the limitations of the human mind that I don't know how one could make a solid argument one way or the other.

    For Johanne,
    Lewis means that we must have a knowledge that is superior to our mere sense and thoughts. This knowledge is of God, is from God, is God, Himself.
    If there is no reality that is superior to mere sensations and experiences of our own minds, then nothing can really be "true" or known. We could only suggest or assume, never really grasp the fullness of an axiom.

    This extrapolates out to mean that things are true only as far as they're useful; they could change tomorrow, and they would still only be able to suggest a truth, not really be Truth. This philosophy says, "As much as I can manipulate something, then it's true".
    It's all sensory-based, which is flawed from the get-go, because everyone experiences things differently. That's why the arguments given by Maggie's son are not firm at all.

    To your second comment, yes, God is bigger than our limited minds, but that doesn't mean He is unknowable or that His Truth is hidden. He's knowable strictly because He is inter-personal, relational.

    Thanks for the prayers, Maggie. That's very kind.

  27. Aw, thank you, Maggie!! And Nubby, yes! That is really good stuff. And that last part is so important. God is bigger than what we can understand, but that doesn't mean we cannot know anything about Him! It's a common misunderstanding. And does anyone doubt that if God is God He can reveal about Himself exactly what He wants? Christians believe He did just that. But that does not mean that we can know everything about Someone Who is Infinite. However, we can know the Truths that He wants us to know.

  28. "However, we can know the Truths that He wants us to know. "

    I'm not sure if this addresses what you're saying here, but I think of Science as something that we can know as well as anything because it is constant and cannot be changed (e.g. gravity)--so perhaps it's something God "wants us to know".

    I consider scientific truths to be evidence of God; it is "miracle" enough for me. Which is one of the reasons that I find evangelical's suspicions of science--their attitude that science is a threat to religion---so bemusing. How can science contradict God? That is impossible.

  29. I'm not sure if this addresses what you're saying here, but I think of Science as something that we can know as well as anything because it is constant and cannot be changed (e.g. gravity)--so perhaps it's something God "wants us to know".

    I think you've put two concepts together here, but I get what you mean. ("Science" or scientific knowledge, does change, as it is open to new discoveries. But I gather that you're talking about the particular constants that govern our physical world - including mostly the ones that govern the math of our physics).

    I agree with you that God gave us an intellect to know a lot about the wonders of creation. I'd just add that He ultimately uses our faculties (intellect, memory, emotions, etc.) to point to Himself, because He is the God of relationship.

  30. Johanne, agreed, and Nubby said it well in her response. You are absolutely right that the objective truth of science (not necessarily what we perceive or believe, but what is actually true) cannot contradict God. That is why the wonders and order and goodness of nature and Creation all around us have led countless souls to know God. I love that Catholicism teaches that science and faith are compatible. Dr. Stacy does a lot on this topic on her blog.

  31. The Mind/Body split: "Is the human being a unity, or is the human being a dualism?" Bishop Morlino says this is at the core of the Synod on the Family, and he is right. I respectfully ask you with my heart to listen to this full speech by Bishop Morlino...which is at the heart of my disagreement with you.

  32. Lisa, I am a staunch defender of the family (and I take a lot of flak for it), a staunch defender of the Church, and a staunch defender of the dignity of the human person. My record (and life) speaks for itself, my bishop and priest support me, and I am content. God bless.


PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!