Little Teaching: We serve the good, not effect the good

[I have not left my Grammar Nazi card at the door. Please see footnote for my shocking use of "effect" rather than "affect".]

People are complex, emotions are complex, and situations are complex.

But principles based in Truth are simple.

There is a bedrock Christian principle that has burned itself into my mind and heart since the first time I read this pithy phrase, 17 years ago:

We serve the good, not effect* the good.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Bells went off. This was the formula for living the Christian moral life, and it streamlined everything for me.

Let's go through it:

We serve the good always. To be a servant of the good means that at every step, in every thought, and with every action, we choose virtue over sin. In fact, we are never, ever permitted to sin. We do sin, of course, but not because it's allowed! Nope, sorry, God never gives us permission to do evil, whether big or little (mortal or venial). As children of God, we are to choose only the good.**

We don't effect [i.e., bring about] the good. That means we don't look to force or manipulate a good outcome in a given situation. In fact, to be concerned primarily with outcome puts us in dangerous moral and spiritual territory, namely falling into an "ends justify the means" mentality. That's the mentality that leads a well-meaning politician to lie in order to win an election. It leads a good student to cheat on an important exam to assure her acceptance into a top university. It leads an employee to steal from his boss so that he can take his wife out for a lovely anniversary dinner. And it leads to the belief that one may directly kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of hundreds.

In each of those examples (and a million more), the person has ceased to 'serve the good' and decided to 'effect the good'. But when we are willing to do wrong, even in the hopes of a good result, we transgress the moral law and offend God, who is Goodness.

Serving the good requires humility and trust, as it obligates us to mind our own actions only, while entrusting outcomes, good or bad, to God.

That's kind of a relief, isn't it? None of us is needed to be the Savior of the world, and we are not required to set all things right at any cost. We are only required to serve the good -- which means serving God -- in each moment.

*The use of "effect" here, though seemingly wrong (most would think it should be "affect" since it's a verb), is correct. In this case, to effect = to bring about or complete. "Effect" and "affect" can both be used either as a noun or a verb. "Effect" is usually the one used as a noun, but not in this rare case. As verbs, "to affect" means to produce a change in, and "to effect" means to bring about or make happen.

**For the scrupulous among us, you'll want to go here, next!




.

The shockingly offensive statement that got my facebook account shut down for "violating community standards"

So there I was, having a run-of-the-mill facebook debate last Thursday evening on Stacy's facebook page. The young liberal woman whom we were debating, Marti, is actually a sweet girl. There was no acrimony involved in the conversation, and in fact, I remember thinking how remarkably civil the discussion was.

The young liberal was arguing for gay "marriage" and claiming that, even with all things being equal, it was not a societal ideal that a child be raised by a married mother and father.

In fact, single parenting, gay parenting, "married sibling" parenting, even orphanages and foster homes are no less desirable or beneficial for a child than having a married mom and dad. As long as there is "love" in whatever unconventional situation a child is thrown into, and as long as one or more adults in the child's life are somehow performing the "roles" of mother and father (mothers and fathers being interchangeable, by the way), then all is well for the children of America, in her view.

Marti also asserted several times that the purpose of sex was clearly not procreation, but (almost exclusively) recreation.

As you can imagine, Stacy and I had a lot to say, and we challenged her philosophy.

(I did notice that some other liberals came on and were a bit nasty, but I was almost exclusively focused on the interesting exchange with Marti.*)

The next morning, I could not sign onto my facebook. I assumed there was a glitch, and tried several more times. Still no luck, and a message said to try again later, that there was a security issue. Finally, I was prompted to identify some photos from my friends' facebook albums, for security reasons, I was told. I had three attempts to identify correctly. I did so, but was told that I still could not sign on. I tried again later. Same drill, identified friends' pictures, still no luck.

Meanwhile, I began to receive private emails from my friends.

"So did you leave facebook?"


"What happened to your Facebook page?"


"Your whole page is gone."


"did you get rid of your facebook account?! did I miss something?!"

"What happened to your Facebook? I can't find you on there anymore! I think you may have been deleted or something! The reason I noticed is because in our messages to each other, your picture is gone and it doesn't say your name anymore...it just says "Facebook user". The only time I have ever seen this is when someone deleted their Facebook or I have someone blocked."

Hmmmm….

After about the fourth attempt at identifying friends' photos, I was taken to a series of pages informing me that I had had my account suspended for violating facebook's "community standards". One of my comments from the previous night's debate was displayed as the specific offending statement. 

Are you ready to read the statement that got me locked out of the facebook community? Clear the room of all children. It's shocking, depraved, and ugly. No decent community could stand such a horror on display. Measures had to be taken by the authorities, and now you will see why. Brace yourself. Here is it:

Oh, Marti. Think of biology. Sex is pleasurable and good… because nature wants people to have children! It's why food is good, too… so that we have life! But to separate the unitive part of sex from the procreative is just plain wrong. They go together. They are meant to be together. The baby making act (which is pleasurable and which is meant to bond the spouses) actually creates babies! That's the point of it, biologically. And, if a man and woman cannot create a baby, it's still *ordered* toward procreation; something has simply gone wrong, or the spouses bodies have gotten too old. But the act is still *ordered* rightly. You keep saying that homosexuals can make babies. Not with each other!! Obviously. Obviously. You know this. Marti, when things are seen and used according to their right order, human beings flourish. When we use things against their purpose and order, things tend NOT to flourish. The idea that anyone could be at the point of saying, "I'm not sure if in a perfect world a child should be raised by his mom and dad" makes me very sad. I think we can see why so many kids are so messed up and don't understand what it means to be a mother or a father, a husband or a wife. :(

I am sorry you all had to see that wickedness. I hope your eyeballs are not burning.

Seriously though, I was stunned. What the heck? That statement was innocuous, and it presented a view of things that was, until about five minutes ago, non-controversial and universally understood.

I scratched my head and read their "standards", trying to figure out which of them had been violated by my words. I still can't figure it out, can you? Have a look:

The statement below, which is tacked directly beneath the standards, only confirms for me that my account was suspended by a deliberate decision of the facebook police, and was not something reflexive or automatic. In fact, this statement only speaks of removing questionable content, not suspending entire accounts, so my horrible offense must have been among the worst of the worst:

After I clicked through my warning, my account was reactivated, and, being the rebel that I am, I immediately reposted the "offensive" statement on my facebook page, not once, not twice, but three times. heh heh heh. So far, no one's caught on, and I'm still allowed to roam the streets of social media -- though I must have been on probation for a day or so, as my comments were being blocked as spam on several friends' pages as recently as yesterday.

I'd ask facebook for an explanation of why the comment was censored and what rule it violated, but there's almost no way to get in touch with this shadowy panel of enforcers. Anyone out there who can get answers, I'm open to hearing it!

Meanwhile, beware, Catholics! Facebook doesn't seem to care for your Faith and your freedom any more than the Obama administration does. We aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto. It's a brave new world out there, and getting eerier every day.







*Marti was not the one who turned me in; she agrees that what happened to me was nuts. It must have been one of the other liberals, a "tolerant, open-minded" liberal, no doubt. ;)






PLEASE NOTE: If you are following the very interesting comments, there is more than one page. Click on the "load more" or "loading" link at the bottom of the comments to get to the subsequent page(s).


.

UPDATE!! Quick Takes: The fight to come, and more

1) Game on, Catholics! Here is the latest from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which will be included in a nationwide bulletin insert:

"When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties." (emphasis mine)

I say, Hell to the yes!

Remember, we didn't pick this fight, but we will not lie down.

2) Which brings me to this video, to inspire us on to battle...



2a) UPDATE: How could I forget???? Go see For Greater Glory this weekend (it's got some big name actors)! Is 1920s Mexico a preview of what is to come to Catholics here in America? My priest and many others have mentioned its relevance to Catholics in this country today. Kind of leaves me freaked out, but yet with God's grace I won't crumble in the face of any such tyranny:







3) So, New York City has the highest abortion rate in the nation, killing 41% of its unborn children (and nearly 60% (!!!) of all unborn black babies) but thankfully the good Mayor Bloomberg has his priorities straight:

Bloomberg plans a ban on large sugared drinks

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you can rest easy that while the unfettered slaughter of innocents continues in the Big Apple, the government crack down on sugary drinks is well underway. Whew!

For some reason, all of this liberal do-gooding reminds me of a funny post from the early days of the Bubble:

Why I am not "green". Illustrated.

4) This one's tough, but it's important:

The most heartrending abortion testimony you'll ever hear, from a former abortionist

I was going to put an excerpt of his Congressional testimony here, but I think I'll let you all decide if you want to read it. I will suggest that you at least read the last three paragraphs of the transcript, which addresses the "abortion to save the life of the mother" question. Puts the lie to that whole argument.

5) I just loved this article by a young Catholic seminarian, who talks about embracing celibacy. He begins:

I think most people would be surprised to know how many men in the seminary are in love. And, I don’t mean with Jesus; I mean with a woman. 

Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Seminarians are men, too. Men with emotions, passions, and desires—they fall in love. Being a seminarian and training for the priesthood, or even being an ordained priest, doesn’t change these natural human conditions.

He relates his call to celibacy to those who struggle with same-sex attraction. It's a beautiful reflection, and you can read it all, here.

6) Until I read Jen Fulwiler's piece, "Five Questions Before You Leave the Catholic Church", I had no idea that liberal writer (and longtime dissenting Catholic) Anna Quindlen has officially left the Church. I say it's about time, and I am thankful that her integrity finally kicked in. One of the most horrifying things I ever read was Quindlen's assertion that one of her proudest accomplishments was convincing her devoutly Catholic, pro-life father to become pro-abortion. I think I almost vomited. Can you imagine the evil of such a thing? And the account on Judgement Day? Shiver.

Oh, and check out Jen's fifth reason. It's a point she has made before, and it is sobering.


7) Orphan Stuff!!

Tee hee, so I have a little guest post on Sew's blog today… Check it out!

Also, it's finally here! Kara's been working on, and we've been talking up, the "Bidding Malcolm Home" silent auction for weeks, and tomorrow (Saturday) it begins it has already begun!

Hurry, go see all the wonderful, quality items on which you may bid:

Bidding Malcolm Home

Click through the photo album on the page and you'll see all the offerings! I put in a couple of items myself, and I also plan to bid on a few!

I love all the items, but regarding the Seraphym rosary… oh my gosh. You guys, I have seen this rosary in person. It is about a hundred times more beautiful than the picture shows. Also, it is made by the same woman who made one of Mother Angelica's rosaries. Truly a classic.

The auction runs from Saturday morning right now to Sunday evening, so get those bidding fingers ready! This is better than ebay!

A disappointing event leads me to today's orphan profile. Malcolm's new parents are homestudy approved to adopt two children. They learned of little Marena who is in Malcolm's region. She is about the same age as Malcolm, with a very mind (almost unnoticeable) case of CP, and with strabismus (i.e., "lazy eye") that is easily corrected with surgery.

Marena's last carefree days at the baby house?

She is a doll! The Smiths were prepared to take her home as their own child, along with Malcolm. Unfortunately, the rules in this region of Russia do not allow two unrelated children to be adopted together! Unthinkably, even though she has a family who would save her, she is about to be transferred to the adult mental institution. Seriously, the injustice of it makes me want to spit or scream or cry or something. Don't even get me started.

The only hope for Marena, then, is to find another family willing to take her as their daughter. Please, please, let's find her family before they take her off, shave her head, and place her with adult mental patients for the rest of her life, where she will surely decline, and possibly die.

Learn more about Marena, here, and please, please, spread the word.

God bless you, and thanks to Jen for hosting!


PS: Facebook is not letting me sign in today, for "security" reasons… ??? No, I did not leave facebook, but I'm a little bit concerned that others have asked if I've deleted my facebook. Anyone else have this problem?

PPS: Well, I found out why I was kicked off facebook. I "violated their community standards" by speaking well of natural marriage and procreation. Big Brother will not tolerate such an offense! I will blog about it later and you can be the judge.

.

The sheer idiocy of "Every child a wanted child"

A little stream of consciousness from me today….

…or off with their heads!

"Every child a wanted child" has to be one of the more insidious pro-abortion slogans.

Think about this silly little euphemism for a second.

There are only two ways to ensure a child's "wantedness":

1) We start wanting the children we create.

or

2) We kill all the unwanted children.


The first option is the choice to love.

The second option is the choice to kill.

Voilà! Both options will leave us with only "wanted" children!

Since the unborn child is helpless and has no way of remedying his "unwanted"/"wanted" status, the "unwantedness" or "wantedness" of a child falls, 100% of the time, on the adults around him, including the adults who made him in the first place (the parents), the adults around those parents, and the adults in society at large.

The Culture of Life's solution is love, and the Culture of Death's solution is, of course, death.

But let's go with the fun little slogan for a moment, and expand it. How about, "Every woman a wanted woman"? The rest of you will be shot at dawn! Too bad for you -- you should have been wanted, heh heh heh. Maybe "every Jew a wanted Jew"? Wait, someone in the 1940s already thought of that one. Oh, sorry, I'm sooooo out of line there.

Back to the original: "Every child a wanted child."

Let's revisit the premise. So what if a child is unwanted (i.e., unloved) by others? Since when do we have the right to kill those who are unloved and unwanted? Isn't our own humanity measured by how we treat those who are the least popular, the biggest outcasts, the most despised? What the hell kind of culture kills its unwanted?

And what does it say to the children of a culture when they hear slogans proclaiming that they must be "wanted" or else they are not even worthy of life itself?

Thank God that Catholicism teaches the polar opposite of the evil pro-"choice" slogan above. "Wantedness" has never been the measure of a human being's worth, nor a requirement for being allowed to stay alive.

Blech, I can't even think of a more sickening way to measure someone's value than if other people "want" him. If we don't want a piece of clothing or furniture anymore, we get rid of it. But we don't do that with human beings. At least not in my world.

I'm going to challenge the ghoulish slogan above with the following antidotes:

Every child is a wanted child.
Every child is intrinsically valuable.
Every child is infinitely lovable.
Every child is made in the image and likeness of God.

Imagine a world where we live and teach those truths!

"Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? And if she should forget, yet will not I forget you." -- God

And as for these idiocies…

...don't even get me started!!

My Quick Takes are getting quicker...

…because the college kids have been home for a couple of weeks and we have ten people in this house! Crazy times, fun times, but it leaves me much less time to blog. I have to be succinct. Here goes.

1) Two of my favorite men. Different races, different cultures, different dimensions (one long dead), both princes of the Church, both smart as whips, both sharing the same faith that transcends all time and space. Man, I love being Catholic!!

If your eyes are old like mine, it says: "I am not amused by your amateur theology", ha ha!

2) Okay, so aside from the 47 other things that are just-so-wrong and depraved about this story itself and the existence of the website in the first place (which promotes bowl-a-thons to fund human abortions), does anyone notice something glaringly, obviously missing from this atrocious, heartbreaking piece about a 14-year-old girl?

Getting an abortion means getting a second chance

I'm not going to mention what it is. I want to see if anyone else notices.

3) I find myself asking (even shouting) the following question out loud lately: 

WHERE HAVE ALL THE GROWN-UPS GONE???

4) Saw this a few days back, from the brilliant Robert P. George, of Princeton, whose common sense, logic, and straight talk is so refreshing:

At a forum at Princeton a few evenings back, I predicted --- it hardly took much prescience --- that the race between Obama and Romney would be brutal and nasty. I see that the Obama supporters have already taken the gloves off. The consistently and strongly liberal Washington Post is running a story today reporting that 47 years ago, while at prep school, the adolescent Mitt Romney tackled another boy whose long hair and hairstyle he didn't like, and cut off some of his hair. 47 years ago. That would be 1965. Gosh, how can we get a sense of just when that was? Hmmm . . . Let's think. Well, it was after the Kennedy assassination and before Barack Obama used cocaine. Yes, it was definitely before Obama used cocaine. I mean, Obama was only four years old in 1965, so he couldn't yet have used cocaine. No, he only used cocaine later. Of course, the President doesn't use cocaine now. He hasn't used cocaine for a long time. Well, it's true that it has been less than 47 years since he used cocaine. So, I suppose if it's OK to bring up bad conduct that occurred 47 years ago, then it's perfectly OK to bring up bad conduct that happened less than 47 years ago, right? Or should both sides observe a rule against bringing up bad conduct from decades (and even half-centuries) ago that tells us nothing about what the candidates are like as people today? Obviously, the answer to that last question is yes. But the point of this comment, for anybody who hasn't gotten it already, is that there must be --- we must insist on --- a single standard to be applied to both campaigns and their supporters. Double standards are simply intolerable. What's fair for one side is fair for the other. What's foul for one side must be treated as foul for the other.

We all get that, right? Please say we do.


5) Had a son's kindergarten graduation on Wednesday night, a son's eighth grade graduation last night, and a bunch of year-end activities for everyone these past couple of weeks. May is a busy month! It is also Mary's month, and a time for countless worldwide May Crownings of Our Blessed Mother:

I am fairly certain I had never seen a May Crowning or procession in the first 27 years of my life as a Catholic. So grateful it's a yearly occurrence in my own children's lives!

6) I'm reviving the…

… with the following quote from LJP to Johanne (who, as a non-Catholic, finds the rules of Catholicism confusing):


Johanne,


I'd like to second Leila's appreciation for your answer. I understand where you are coming from...it can be confusing to see all the Tradition, Liturgy, dogma, etc.. and try to make sense of it all individually. I think this may be a case of missing the forest for the trees. If you are truly interested in coming to a better understanding of the Church, may I suggest a different route?


Let's say you are interested in learning about baseball; you know nothing about it but you do know several people who are quite passionate about the game. Would you want to start by reading up on the infield-fly rule, defensive strategy, or what factors are involved in determining batting lineups? Of course not! You would start by going to a few games, just enjoying the stadium, the roar of the crowd, the hot dogs, the beauty of the game itself. Are the rules of the game complex? Absolutely. Can a child enjoy and appreciate the play of the game without understanding the rules? Absolutely.


Think of Catholicism in the same way. If you are truly interested, look at the great Cathedrals, look at the abundance of art, music, philosophy, and science that has been created and forwarded by the Church faithful. Go to a Mass and just watch.


Would you judge the legacy, foundations, and beauty of the sport of baseball solely upon a reading of the Mitchell Report (report on the investigation into the use of steroids in the MLB)? No, you would read stories of the the greatest players, the greatest games, the greatest stadiums.


Read a biography of a saint. Visit a Cathedral. Find a local monastery and spend an afternoon there.


I would suggest taking a look at Fr. Robert Barron's website, wordonfire.org. He has many, many interesting videos that explain many aspects of the faith. He's the one who puts forth the baseball analogy I used earlier (although much more profoundly than I did).


Start by seeking the Beautiful. This will lead you to the Good. Eventually you'll end up at the Truth. Then you can dive into all the rules you want.


Just thought I would share that.


I'm so glad he did!


7) Finally, orphan stuff. I've decided that Quick Takes #7 will always be about orphan stuff. You can always skip #7 if you'd like, but I hope you will read this post from my other blog before you do. There is so much hope, and when you read this story, you will understand the happy side of all this!

How 'bout some GOOD orphan news??? :)

See? So simple to feel better about things, and even get excited!

Oh, and look at Stella:

Mommy and Daddy, are you out there?

Do you want Stella? Go and get Stella. She's available for adoption, and she needs you. Get more information, here.

Yes, I believe that each #7 is going to feature the photo of a waiting child from now on, too. :)

One last thing: Malcolm is still waiting in that darned orphanage, but the rusty wheels of bureaucracy are slowly moving ahead, and the Smiths hope to have him home by the end of the year. They hope to take their first flight to his country before he is sent to the adult mental institution (transfer apparently scheduled for September, sigh), so that he will be "held" at the baby house instead. The family is so close to being fully funded, but we are still trying to close that gap. Kara has put together an online silent auction (too fun!) for Malcolm and the Smiths. You can go look at the great items here (or search "Bidding Malcolm Home" on facebook) and start anticipating! The bidding begins on Saturday, June 2, and I think there could be a feeding frenzy on some of those items. :)

I lied. There is still one more thing. The iPad giveaway to bring Ava home to America -- to be reunited with her orphanage crib-mate and be real sisters at last! -- is now running, here. My son just donated (he really wants an iPad to help orphans), and I will be donating too, once June begins (my husband can attest that I've gone over my orphan donation quota for the month of May).



Have a great weekend everyone, and thanks to Jen for hosting!





.

"Fifteen years later and silent no more…"

This is a painful and powerful piece from a Catholic blogger that many of you know and love, The Crescat. With her permission, I'm reposting it here, in its entirety:

… The bumper sticker read, “Having an abortion does not make you un-pregnant, it makes you the mother of a dead baby”. The word “mother” struck me because “mother” is such a powerful word. It conjures many meanings, and when a woman becomes one she is fundamentally changed. “Mother” as a verb means to nurture, care for and protect. “Mother” as a noun means a female person who is pregnant with or gives birth to a child; or a female person whose egg unites with sperm, resulting in the conception of a child.

By this definition if you’ve ever been pregnant you are a Mother. Even if you’ve had an abortion you are still a Mother… a grieving Mother.

“A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more.” Matthew 2:18

There is no consolation to be had for the mother that loses a child. She will grieve in her heart for the rest of her life. Abortion, however, not only robs a child of its life and a mother of its child, it also robs the mother of her grieving. She is not allowed to grieve because she cannot publicly claim the title Mother.

Abortion advocates will never admit a post-abortive woman is a Mother because to admit that would acknowledge the existence that there was once a child. Not a clump of cells, but a very real living child. When girls begin menstruating they are not called mothers to a clump of cells, yet so many people really believe an abortion is just like having a heavy period or passing a large menstrual clot. This was how it was described to me when I found myself in their clinic fifteen years ago. Two years later when I returned to have a second abortion the lie had not changed.

For fifteen long years I’ve lived with the pain, shame and guilt associated with my past. In that time I’ve experienced denial, anger, and depression. It wasn't till my conversion to Catholicism that I finally sought the reconciliation my soul needed. Once I received the grace of forgiveness I was charged with the next most important task of my life… to tell as many women as I can how horrible, evil and despicable abortion is.

However, it has taken me another six years to find my courage. In order to honestly talk about the truth I needed to admit to my past and in this one area my words failed me. Today I write this post so that I may finally own up to what it is I have done and make the necessary reparations for my crimes so that others will know just how fundamentally soul-destroying abortion is.

I am choosing this day to find my voice.

Here is the truth I spent so many years denying and keeping from the public – I killed two of my children, robbed my parents of grand-children, and murdered my son’s siblings. These abortions directly caused a medical condition known as incompetent cervix which resulted in the premature birth of another son who died after a week long struggle in the NICU in 2001. The suffering I’ve endured and caused others is immeasurable and the guilt almost drove me suicidal. I am a coward in every way.

I was a coward in my youth, unable to take responsibility for my sexual actions and I am a coward today because I’ve failed to honestly speak out against abortion for so many years. I failed to shout from the highest building all the ugly truths for every ear to hear. I tried to help a friend once who was considering abortion but there only so much I could say without giving away my own horrible, awful secret. In the end, withholding that information was not enough to convict her otherwise and she had an abortion. I failed her with my silence.

I refuse to be a coward anymore. In these times, no one can afford to be a coward. The price of our silence is paid in the blood of millions of innocent aborted babies. This is a deplorable evil and it must end now.

Women, post-abortive American women, will be the ones who will make the greatest strides against abortion and change the nation’s heart. Now, on this election year, is the time to stand up and honestly share, in heartrending and uncensored detail, what happens to women when they have an abortion and how they are forever changed in hopes that no one will suffer the same pain. I’ve been silent for far too long.

Please forgive my silence and I apologize for the scandal these words may cause. Please know that what ever deplorable opinion you hold of me pales in comparison to the opinions I have had of myself.

+++++++

For the original post from The Crescat, click here.
For help, hope, and healing after an abortion, click here.
To be silent no more, click here.


Related post: Silent No More: A Friend's Abortion Story












.

I don't bring my babies to mass

I don't bring my babies to mass.

Yes, there, I said it!

Before I explain, here is the necessary disclaimer:

For all of the wonderful moms and dads who bring their babies and toddlers to mass every week, I salute you. No, I applaud you. No, I pretty much worship you! (Okay, I don't worship you, but only because that would be a sin.) You are amazing and incredible, and I mean that with full sincerity and from the bottom of my heart. In no way is this post meant to suggest that you should leave your children at home, because I truly love seeing little ones at mass, and it's a joy to watch them grow through the seasons. Keep bringing them!

But, I can't do what you do.

I used to think I should, and I used to wonder if I was wrong not to, but about a decade ago, I made peace with the way we do things in the Miller family.

I am not able to deal with fussy babies and active toddlers at mass. We've already clearly established that I am not supermom, and that my having eight kids is only possible through a tidal wave of God's grace combined with a delicate logistical balancing act that I keep recalibrating. For my personal sanity, I must keep things as easy as possible in order to make the "Leila has a ton of kids" thing work. There might be a few other moms out there who are like me, and to them I simply want to say that you are not alone, and it's really okay.

On and off over the years (the last two years being "on"), my husband and I have done split shifts for mass, which amounts to Dean taking two or three kids to an early morning mass nearby, while I take the rest to our regular parish later in the day. Any babies or toddlers simply stay home. As a result, mass is peaceful, calm, and prayerful. Since my life is not that way otherwise, I need it for an hour or so on Sundays. I mean, I reeeaaaallllly neeeeeeeed it!

Some questions might spring to mind:

Do you miss being at mass with Dean and all the kids together? Sure, but not enough to make me want to take the two-year-old. And, I know from 20+ years of parenting that "this too shall pass", and there will come a time when we'll go to mass together as a family again. But now is not that time, and we're all okay with that.

Why not use the cry room? Well, we do -- but only when absolutely necessary. For example, recently, Dean took some of the kids out of town, and I had to bring the littlest guy, Benevolent Destruction, to mass. No way that kid can sit in a pew without putting on the baby equivalent of a Broadway show, so while my older kids stayed with the congregation, I traipsed off to the cry room with the little man. That experience reminded me why I love the split shift.

We are blessed to have oodles of big families and many young children at my parish, and the cry room is just like my house a mad house. Frankly, Miller boys make it worse. There has been many a child o' mine who could not be contained even in the cry room, including the one son who had to be carried out of there by Daddy all the way into the far parking lot, where mortified Mommy (and the rest of the worshipers, including the priest) could hear his unrelenting shrieks and wails.

So, we've never seen the cry room as a good regular option.

Why not church child care then? Actually, I am a huge fan of church child care! We have used that wonderful option over the years, and we will undoubtedly use it in the future. Not every parish is blessed to have such a ministry, and our parish's child care (we call it "church school") is fabulous. The kids are kept busy with good stuff: They learn their Faith, pray the Rosary, sing Bible songs, talk about Jesus, celebrate feast days and the liturgical year, do arts and crafts, have snacks, watch videos, etc. But at this moment, my youngest is not ready to be foisted upon the lovely ladies who run the child care; I wouldn't do that to them. Also, I know that if I did leave him there, I would be sitting at mass just worrying. So for now, split shift is our norm.

The biggest question is probably this: What about teaching your kids to behave at mass by taking them consistently from their infancy? My answer is simply that it's never been a problem for us. When my children reach a certain age -- or rather, a certain level of self-control -- we start bringing them to mass regularly. And for child after child, they've adapted just fine. They sit through mass quietly (as quietly as little kids can), and we all have a peaceful hour of worship. So for me, the whole thing is just a wait-it-out-till-they-are-mature-enough situation. At about age four or five, they suddenly become mass-goable. It's like a dream, and it works for us.

And to put another worry to rest, I have living proof -- in the form of tweens, teens, and even a couple of adults now -- that children do not grow up and leave the Church because they missed mass as babies.

Parenting little children is hard, and much of that difficulty cannot be avoided. But if a split shift eases the difficulty, if it helps keep you sane for the rest of the week, if it affords you that bit of tranquility you need, if it works for you, then do it, and be at peace.

That's what I do.

+++++++

Hello to those on Karen Pullano’s scavenger hunt (which started here)! You have arrived at the article that Stacy recommended Karen read, and it was Karen’s first introduction to Little Catholic Bubble. Click HERE for the next stop on your scavenger hunt!

_________________________________________________________

These Quick Takes are really quick!

1) And so it begins:

Franciscan University of Steubenville drops student health plan over HHS mandate

2) ‎"Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans." -- U.S. Bishops


3) “Every evil screams out only one message: 'I am good!' And not only does it scream, but it demands that the people cry out tirelessly in response: 'You are good, you are freedom, you are happiness!'”  — Fr. Alexander Schmemann, former Dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary


4) "The Uninvited House Guest"

5)

6) Women! You simply must watch this video from the (seemingly not so fictitious) Bureau of Womanhood Conformity:





7) And as my seventh takes seem to be about orphans lately, I will make it a permanent tradition.

About a year and a half ago, Sylvia and her husband adopted a beautiful little girl with Down Syndrome, Gabby, from Eastern Europe. After they returned home, they discovered that Gabby had had a little roommate at the orphanage, Ava, who had also been her crib mate. They showed Gabby a photo of Ava, and she reacted with recognition and sadness. Sylvia and her husband determined at that moment to go back across the ocean and adopt Ava as well, thus reuniting two "sisters", who will soon be sisters for real. If you love this story and if you also love iPads, you can enter their iPad giveaway here, and help to reunite these two angels. No donation is necessary to enter, but it sure is appreciated.

By the way, you guys who have been following and supporting my new "orphan passion" really have no idea how many lives you have changed in the past few months, and how many orphans have found homes directly because of you. I can't thank you enough, and maybe one day I will write a post about the individual stories. It's just that every day there is more good news, so I can't keep up right now.

And although it's not orphan-related, I want to throw out one more PSA from wonderful Kaitlin at More Like Mary, More Like Me. Her friend Colleen Nixon is a Catholic missionary (with her husband) and also a fabulous "pop/jazz/indie/quirky" singer who is working on her new CD, but needs your help to spread the word and get 'er done! Check out her music video here, featuring Kaitlin's gorgeous baby girl, and learn about the great giveaway. Or, go straight to Colleen's kickstart page here. She has only seven days to reach her goal and she is soooo close she can taste it!


Okay, guys, have a fantastic weekend!! And thanks to Jen for hosting!






.

Is Christian love "gibberish"?

Busy week here with little time to write! This post originally ran on January 24, 2011, comparing the atheist view of love with the Christian view.

+++++++

It's clear from comments on this blog that there are two very different views of love: The Christian view and the secular/atheist view.

The cultural shift from the Christian view to the secular view has been steady -- and troubling. In past posts, I've asked atheists "What is love?" and the answers and discussions have been fascinating. Here are some thoughts on love from our atheist readers:


To me, love is a human emotion and doesn't have a 'meaning', any more than other human emotions like euphoria or anger or curiosity or whatever. 

Just as I painted the walls of my master bedroom blue because it is my favorite color and makes me happy, I am married to my husband because he makes me happy as well. 

I think that the feeling of "love" is what sets marriage apart from any sort of close friendship you might have with someone else, so once it is gone, there is no longer any point in staying with that person.

I absolutely would equate love to "chemical reactions in a brain that was randomly created and has the basic effect of making us feel good." 

I don't think that I chose to love [my husband]. I think my love for him is one of those crazy chemical reactions, and not something that I picked for myself. I would say that love is something you "have" for someone, not something you "do" or "choose."

[Love is] a very special emotion. 

[Love for a child is] due to a biological desire to care for your young [and] has no higher meaning than that.

Love is an emotion...associated with hormonal changes, physiologic changes, rapid heart rate, deep emotion, glad feelings, sad feelings, satisfaction, anxiety. Not under voluntary control necessarily.

I appreciate and respect the honesty of my atheist readers. This is how I would sum up their position, and they should correct me if I have it wrong:

Secular view of love = involuntary emotion; random chemical reaction; biological response; transitory; a feeling you "get", not something you "do".

Let's switch gears and look at the Christian understanding of love:

Christian love is an act of the will. 

Love is a choice.
Love is a deliberate decision.
Love is willing the good of the other.
Love is an outpouring of self ("self-donation") to the other.
Love is an offering; in other words, a sacrifice.

Love is not a feeling, although feelings do accompany love. Sometimes those feelings are ecstatic, blissful and peaceful, and sometimes they are excruciating, agonizing and raw. At other times, there are no feelings at all.

What a relief and a freedom that true love is dependent on the will alone! Imagine the possibilities: While our emotions are not always within our control, our decision to love always is. This makes us capable of loving our enemies (or a cranky spouse, a defiant child, a nasty neighbor). It made the saints capable of loving their executioners. (Think about that for a minute!!)

Christian love is not transitory, self-interested and fleeting, but rather transcendent, transformative, and eternal.

We are told (and shown) by Christ that the greatest love is to lay down one's life for another. This is no "good feeling" or "chemical reaction" -- it is a choice and an act, a willful offering of one's whole self.

When I recently wrote about the sacrificial nature of love, one atheist reader responded with a single word: "gibberish"

Gibberish? Really? 

But which view of love do we all yearn for? Is it the view that says "My love for you is based on an involuntary good feeling I get from you, and once the feeling is gone, so am I"? Or is the one that says "My love for you is based on an irrevocable decision to put your good ahead of my own, even at the cost of my own life"?

Which love do you want? 

I don't really have to ask. We were all made to love and be loved, not to use and be used. In the depths of our souls, we know this. Every one of us knows this. 

And it's not gibberish -- it's a clear, understandable, harmonious love song, straight to the heart.

Quick Takes: Gay "marriage" plus some good stuff, too!

Let's get right to it, even publishing before midnight (is that allowed??)…

1) I asked a pro-"choice" lady on facebook when she thought that human life begins, and she responded uber-emotionally and repeatedly that she would not allow herself be "intimidated" by me. Well, thank goodness she did not cave to my mob-like tactics.


2) With the "big news" of the week, the wonderful Dr. Gerard Nadal said what a lot of us were thinking:

Thank God, Obama finally endorsed same-sex "marriage"

Truly, it's about time he 'fessed up! My gosh, as if we didn't know to where this man was "evolving" on the subject? Seriously, was anyone confused about where his thoughtful analysis would land him? It makes me laugh, the pretense has been just so ludicrous!

Anyhoo, Dr. Nadal analyzes the sad road we are on, and here's a powerful excerpt:

Part of the pathology of gay/lesbian marriages (and most divorces in heterosexuals) is the belief that a child can do just fine without a mother or a father. At least in divorce the reality of one-parental involvement is a tragic consequence. In gay and lesbian unions it is a principled and celebrated world-view. 

Worse still is the implicit validation of what some in the homosexual community call heterosexuals aloud: breeders. Gay men who donate sperm for IVF and surrogate motherhood merely use women as barnyard livestock. (So do the heterosexuals who pioneered and grew this beastly industry.) 

Breeders. 

Lesbian couples seeking sperm donations for either insemination or IVF do as much with men: Stud animals. 

The entire affair signals the collapse of Western/Christian Civilization. We have lost sight of who we are, what our children require, and have subordinated their needs to our narcissistic and hedonistic obsessions. 

There is nothing sweet and benign about two men determining that they are just as good as a mother. Such belief betrays their hostility toward women at the biological and metaphysical core of womanhood. The same for lesbians with men.

Read the rest, here.


3) What is particularly bizarre about Obama's "evolved" position is that he dared to use Jesus Christ as the basis for his decision. You see, there have been 20 centuries (try to imagine, slowly, 2,000 years of human history) of unbroken Christian moral teaching about the grave sinfulness of homosexual acts. In the last two minutes, historically speaking, a small percentage of Protestant Christianity has, following the trajectory of the sexual revolution, decided to remove Christian teaching and replace it with the heretofore unheard of idea that gay sex is good and holy. (By the way, these are largely the same Christian sects that have also endorsed human abortion.)

I say to Barack Obama: Your wife and children may have informed your brand new beliefs about gay "marriage", but in no way was Christianity your influence -- unless Christian sexual morality has been kidnapped, bound, chloroformed, dumped in a roadside ditch and then replaced by its very opposite.

See, we Christians don't just get to make up Christian doctrine as we go along. Sorry. Revealed religion doesn't work that way.


4) Speaking of "evolving" on the issue of gay "marriage", I know quite a few folks who have "evolved" the other way, including our own Stacy Trasancos, who describes her change of heart:

My evolution against "gay marriage"

Praise God, the Church Christ founded still stands to give us back our dignity when we cannot even find it in ourselves. 

I love Peter Kreeft's words on the subject:

‎"The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God's image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be saints, and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes. So when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves sexually, but when others sin against them she says NO also. No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals."

If you liked that, you need to read what Dr. Kreeft said just prior! Right here.


5)
Do you want to cleanse yourself from all the bad news out there and refresh your psyche with an easy but profound read, which is also a darned good story? Read Michael Oher's book about his life from abandoned child of a crack addict to hardworking, honorable millionaire.

Michael Oher, if you recall, is the main character in The Blind Side (loved that movie!), and hearing him tell his life story was balm for my soul. It's called I Beat the Odds: From Homelessness, to The Blind Side, and Beyond, and I've been meaning to tell you about it for months. What a hopeful book, with no annoying blame-shifting or class- and race-war rhetoric.

(Sorry for the bad formatting and the weird comma that won't go in place! What the heck, Amazon Associates? Why can't you go back to the way you used to be? Sigh.)

6) For the best online feel-good story of the week, go here:

I am a survivor: Born into poverty and addiction, but grateful to be alive

The best part was the unexpected reveal near the end! I was so shocked, and completely blown away! You will love this beautiful young girl's story. Especially if you have been following all the stuff I do on my other blog, which leads us to...


7) Attention! You have about 24 hours (or, until midnight Friday) to enter the iPad giveaway to help the Smiths bring Malcolm home! Even my adult kids have entered, donating as a tithe but secretly hoping to walk away with a brand new iPad!! Their odds are good, but I'm asking you to make their odds a little worse. (Sorry, kids.) Go here for details.

And, if you live in the Phoenix area and are somehow NOT planning to attend the "Baking Malcolm Home" event in just one short day (on Saturday!), then you are nuts, and you will regret it for the rest of your life. You cannot believe the lineup of guests! And the baked goods, egads! I cannot wait to see you. Go here for details.

Also, there is a chance for you wonderful people to make a real difference in the life of an orphan with Down Syndrome named Sheridan, by busting him out of the mental institution to which he's been transferred. A loving family wants to commit to him now, but they cannot yet do so. Please, to find out why, click this photo link to my other blog to read the story:

Sheridan, waiting for years now for a family.

I get emails from readers telling me that they love the Bubble. If you love the Bubble, could I ask you to throw that love to a child in need? It would mean the world to me, and today it also could mean Sheridan's very life.

(And there has to be at least one multi-millionaire who reads the Bubble, right? If not, can we find one?!)

Finally, congratulations to one of our own blogger sisters, Meg from True, Good, and Beautiful, who is the process of adopting one of the Reece's Rainbow cuties, Justin! Check out her new adoption blog which will chronicle the journey!




Prayers for Jen this week as she works through something terrible. God bless you, Jen. We love you lots.





.