Just Curious: Christmas trees and shows!

It's time to lighten things up once again, with a new Just Curious! Feel free to answer one or both!

1) Is your Christmas tree fake or real?

2) What was/is your favorite childhood TV Christmas special?

My answers:

1) Well, this year and last year we've had one fake tree and one real tree.

Growing up, my family always had a real tree. Dean and I always got a real tree as well, until a few years back when we decided that it was sort of a pain and a mess to deal with. So, we got one of those fiberoptic fakies, and we were mesmerized!! It lasted a couple of years, then we tossed it because it got ugly.

So, back to real trees it was, for a couple more years. However, we are not good at aesthetics here in the Miller home, so our real trees were truly.... sad looking. Small, thin, sorta Charlie Brownish, which is not good with a high ceiling. After successive years of hearing complaints (now there's the Christmas spirit!), Dean surprised us with a brand new fake tree last year, and it was... not impressive. We all demanded humbly requested that the poor man get us a real tree. After much defensive annoyance thoughtful reflection, Dean agreed. We decided to move the fake tree to the dining room, and I bought a bunch of cheap, pretty Target ornaments to gussy it up! With the lower ceiling, it looked great! The new, real tree went up in the living room and also looked good! So, now we have a brand new tradition of having two trees -- one fake and one real.


2) When I grew up, it was ABC, NBC and CBS -- and that was pretty much it. But back then, programming was still okay for families, and so it was enough. I loved, loved, loved the Christmas specials! I loved Rudolph, The Little Drummer Boy, Frosty the Snowman, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (cartoon version, of course!), and the one with Mr. Heatmiser and his icy brother. But the one that really got me in the heart was Nestor The Long-Eared Donkey. It seemed to disappear over the past couple of decades, and although I almost forgot about it, I still had a vague memory of Nestor now and again. To my delight, I found it again last year! Even though it is a tear-jerker, I have to give it top prize!

Sorry, those were long answers.

Okay, how about you?

I rarely do this...

... but I am doing it now. I am writing a post that is really just a link to something else. I cannot get past what I have read.

This is Adam, and he was three years old when he was martyred last month in a Baghdad church, during Holy Mass:

His parents were murdered before him, along with many other Christian worshippers. 

It's what little Adam did during the killings that will live forever in my memory. 

My friend Lisa Graas wrote a piece on the incident over at NewsRealBlog.  Please go here and read it now. It's short. Be sure to read it to the very last sentence (on page 2) which says it all. 

May little Adam of Baghdad pray for us, and may God have mercy on us all.

Sterilization: Is it getting "fixed" or getting broken?

I've promised a contraception post for a long time.

For the moment, let's forget about condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, birth control pills, birth control patches, birth control rings, birth control sponges, birth control implants, birth control injections, IUDs... and whatever other contraceptives I am forgetting (I am sure the scientists are working on more ways to thwart fertility as we speak!).

Let's start with an easy one: Surgical sterilization.

Specifically, vasectomies and tubal ligations.

First, some background. When my husband and I were first married, we wanted approximately two children. Maybe three, but that was pushing it. We liked the first two so much that I talked him into number three (and quickly at that, so that we could be free to "have fun and travel in our forties" -- ha ha ha!).

After number three, it was time to get serious about getting sterile. My husband and I had agreed that he would get a vasectomy. I joked to friends that I surely wouldn't be the one getting sterilized because "it was against my religion [Catholic] but not his [agnostic Jew]!" As a lapsed Catholic at the time, I guess I thought that was pretty clever.

But a funny thing happened on the way to our "planned barrenhood": We both had profound conversions of heart. And one of the easiest things to see when we took the secular blinders off was the immorality of surgical sterilization. What once seemed responsible now seemed perverse.

Think about what surgical sterilization is: It's the deliberate mutilation of healthy organs.

Even from a secular standpoint, the very concept should be repellent: Paying a doctor (a healer!) to cut up, burn, disconnect, or otherwise destroy healthy organs, for the express purpose of destroying their normal, healthy functioning. In other words, there is nothing wrong with Jane's reproductive organs; in fact, they are working as designed (this is called "health"). But Jane will pay someone to go in to surgically mutilate her organs so that they don't work as they are intended to work. From a Natural Law standpoint, this is clearly disordered.

What an irony that we call this getting "fixed" when we're literally getting broken.

Now, this is a bit more painful, but let's look at it from a Christian standpoint: We know that our bodies are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by the Lord, and that we are temples of the Holy Spirit. The gift and blessing of fertility is mind-boggling in its goodness. In giving us the gift and blessing of our fertility, God has designed us to bring forth His children. What an unspeakable honor, of which we are not and could never be worthy! And yet instead of being awestruck with gratitude or even trembling in reverence for the gift and blessing of fertility, most Christians see no problem with taking this most precious gift and destroying it without a thought. (As one now-regretful Christian  friend told me, "I tied my tubes without batting an eye." She is much older now, and it's one of her two biggest regrets in life -- the second being not throwing out her TV.)

Please understand.... I don't think that most Christians intend to throw the gift of fertility back in God's face when they sterilize themselves, and I could never weigh in on the culpability of any individual. Our culture long ago replaced the Judeo-Christian view of sexuality with the Planned Parenthood view, so the confusion is understandable, if tragic.

But if we step back and give it a moment's thought, the truth should hit each Christian like a ton of bricks. God did not make a mistake when He designed our bodies. His design for our bodies, and for bringing His children to life, was perfect and deliberate. To reject it, to take a healthy body and willfully destroy its most incredible function, should be unthinkable.




Related: The Day the Air Conditioner Tech Told Me He Got "Fixed"






.

Why is the God of the Old Testament so mean?

I am very excited! In a post last week, I asked for topic suggestions, and got some great questions about Scripture. 

Now, I'm not a Scripture scholar... far from it! But I do have a dear friend who teaches Scripture, and I always run to her like a little child when I have a question that's too much for me! She is the same dear friend that I shoved out of the way to get to Fr. Tad last month! She graciously forgave me, because she is a super-classy broad!!

Anyway, I'm doing a dance, because this dear friend, Gayle Somers, has kindly agreed to be the honorary Bubble Scripture lady!! She will help us when we need answers regarding a question of Scripture!! I am giddy, aren't you???

Here's a small peek at her many credentials: Gayle was an evangelical Christian for nearly thirty years of her adult life. She has her Masters in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, taught Scripture and lectured for decades as a Protestant, and was a contributor to The Women's Study Bible. She was received into the Catholic Church in 1995, and she's been leading parish Bible studies since 1996. Gayle is the author of three published Bible studies, she blogs on the Book of Romans at Catholic Exchange, and is a research fellow with the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, which promotes biblical literacy for laymen. She also has her own website, Cor Ardens Catholic Scripture Study.

Whew! And that's just for starters!! So, she's got the killer credentials, and now she has...................... 

her own Bubble icon!!!!!

What more could a woman achieve in one lifetime?!


So, let's get to it. 


Our first question comes from God Alone Suffices, who asks about the harshness we see from God in the Old Testament, a harshness we don't find in the New Testament, "almost like there are two different Gods": 

Why would God give the Jews such a harsh Law? The stoning and burning people just disturbs me. I had a history professor tell me that God created the Law and it was impossible to follow, and that's why they needed Jesus. Well, why would God give them a Law that was impossible to follow in the first place? I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense! I've just never really received a satisfying answer to this question, and it keeps bugging me! :) 

Gayle's answer:


There seem to be two questions here:  (1) Why were OT punishments harsh?  (2) Why did God give the Jews a law they couldn't keep?


(1) First, we want to remind ourselves that punishment from God is a sign of His love, not His hate. Parents know that punishment is an important part of taming a child's natural self-serving (and often destructive) impulses. A parent is willing to inflict temporary suffering on his beloved child (a spanking, a time-out, a grounding, etc.) in the hope of sparing him a greater suffering should his impulsive behavior continue and become a habit. We should be happy to see God punish His people in the OT, for it proves they are His children and not chattel. 


Second, it helps to know that God had to give His people a "second law" (Deuteronomy) in the wilderness because they proved, by their infidelity to the covenant He made with them, that they were not ready to live as a kingdom of priests as He intended (read Ex. 19:4-6), spreading the knowledge of Him throughout the world.  


The Mosaic (deuteronomic) Law was given after the 10 Commandments (God's unchangeable moral law) in recognition that Israel could only live like the other nations at that time in their development, and not in fulfillment of their original vocation.  


Their civil law looked much like the civil laws of the surrounding nations. Whatever harshness it contained was a taste of what life is like outside covenant life with God, although it should be noted that Israel's civil law was far more just and humane than the laws of its neighbors. It was going to take time for Israel to be ready to live by the law of love -- they had to live their history to reach the place of humility and longing for God to be in their midst. Jesus was born in the "fullness of time." They were ready.  


Thirdly, before we lay any charge against God for His punishments in the OT, we need to read the entire OT with a yellow marker, noting all the places of His forgiveness, mercy, provision, protection, and guidance. When we get the final tally sheet of punishment/kindness, we can figure out if the God of the OT is the same God of the NT. My prediction: We won't get beyond Genesis 3 before we realize that God's love for us is "crazy love," as St. Catherine of Sienna said, the self-same Love we see on the Cross.  


Lastly, we must recognize that there is always a tension in the OT between God's justice and His mercy. We are supposed to feel it when we read it. Harsh punishment tells us that sin is serious; God's forbearance tells us He is merciful.  Only in Jesus does the tension get resolved: Sin is serious and is punished (justice), but Jesus takes it for us (mercy).


(2)  The problem with the 10 Commandments wasn't in the Law -- it was in the heart of man. When parents make rules for a household, do they expect children to always perfectly keep them? When a society writes laws for its citizens, does it expect them to be perfectly kept? We could ask, "Why bother?"  Yet we know why we bother -- we all need a standard of behavior that is explicit and preserves the idea of both moral and civil order.  


God's law for Israel was simply a codification of what is inscribed on all our hearts: We should love God and man. If we are not able to keep the law (as Israel wasn't), we find out something very important about ourselves.  Something is wrong with us! Humility replaces pride. We are ready to ask for help. We need forgiveness and can freely accept the help of a Savior. The law was a "tutor" until grace arrived, as St. Paul tells us. Never underestimate the importance of self-knowledge in life with God.


I don't know about you, but I learned a lot from this answer!! If any of you have a Scripture question you'd like Gayle to address, either email me or put it in the comments, and I will pick one to give her for the next installment of "Ask Gayle Somers"! (a.k.a., "Gayle in the Bubble"!)


Thanks so much, Gayle!!

Indulgences... No need to freak out.

When I finally became a faithful Catholic in my late 20s, I had no real idea what indulgences were. I had some vague notion that they were something complicated, controversial and even corrupt. The very word seemed scandalous and sinful! And the word "indulgences" was usually preceded by "the sale of" -- and that can't be good when we're talking about souls!

What I finally figured out was not so complicated. An indulgence is just a certain prescribed prayer, good work, or practice of piety which remits the temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven.

Um, Leila, what in the heck is temporal punishment??


I'm glad you asked!


When we sin, there are two parts to reconciling with the Lord:

1) We must ask for and receive forgiveness for our sins (at which point our guilt is removed)
2) We must make amends for our sins (that's how we repair the spiritual damage we have caused)

Making up for our sins is only just, right? We know it in our hearts, and we apply it in real life.

Think about it:

A boy recklessly throws a baseball near his neighbor's home. It shatters a window. What does the boy need to do? He needs to approach the neighbor with contrition and apologize for the transgression. A good neighbor then forgives the boy.

But can the boy now just walk home happily and never think about it again? No, of course not. We all know that the boy needs to make it right, and the neighbor expects it. Pick up the glass pieces, replace the window, pay for the damage, whatever. But the window must be restored. Even with forgiveness, an apology is incomplete until the offender has made things right again. That's justice, and it makes sense.

Divine forgiveness and justice make sense, too.

So, an indulgence is a special way of making up for the damage of our sins, in the form of a specific prayer, good work, holy act, pilgrimage, etc.

I think of an indulgence as similar to a penance after a sacramental confession. In confession, our sins are forgiven when the priest absolves us, but we must still go and perform the given penance or our "apology" is not complete. That penance helps remit our temporal punishment. Indulgences are an extra-sacramental way to remit the temporal punishment for our sins, and this time not through our own personal merits, but by availing ourselves of the treasury of grace won by Christ and the saints.

A plenary indulgence removes all of one's temporal punishment.
A partial indulgence removes part of one's temporal punishment.

By the way, if all of our temporal punishment due is not paid here on earth, we'll be payin' up in Purgatory! (And Purgatory is a whole 'nother post!)

Um, Leila, what exactly gives the Church the right to set indulgences for the faithful?

I am glad you asked!

Remember back in this post, when we talked about disciplines vs. doctrines? Well, the specifics of an indulgence are an exercise of Church discipline:

A discipline is a rule or regulation which can and often does change. This is the "binding and loosing" authority that the Church received when Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18).... Why do they exist? To help the faithful in each era become holy. Depending on times and cultures and circumstances, Popes and bishops will bind or loose the faithful according to the needs of the people of God at that time.

Now, the thing about indulgences is, they are not obligatory. They are an amazing, voluntary opportunity for increased holiness and grace. A beautiful gift!

Um... but, Leila, what about the "selling of indulgences"? You know, the thing that caused so much scandal and made Martin Luther leave the Church?

I'm glad you asked!

At the time of Martin Luther, some of the clergy had fallen into great sin and corruption. Yes, it's true... the Church is full of sinners (for anyone who is human, this should not come as a shock). Martin Luther was right to call out the corruption in the Church, including the sale of indulgences. We don't have a problem with Luther for that! In fact, many Catholics were rightly horrified by the sin and corruption in the Church at the time. (Our issue with Martin Luther was an issue of doctrine, and that's a whole 'nother post.)

Was the sale of indulgences shameful when it occurred? Yes! But remember: The abuse of a thing does not negate its proper and legitimate use. I hope we can all agree on that principle.

And, I hope this post made you a *teensy-weensy* bit less confused about indulgences.  :)

For much more information, go here and here.

Mental fatigue and a change of direction...

So after 300+ comments (who knew that comments went to a second page past a certain point?), I am ready to switch gears for a bit and go into what I think I do best: Teaching the basics of the Catholic Faith with simplicity and clarity.

I certainly plan to write the contraception post I've been promising (and there will likely be more than one, since the topic has so many facets). Also, I will be posting some very basic stuff which begins at the beginning (Adam and Eve) and spells out the Faith from there, in small bursts. That will be a whole series of its own.

Meantime, please let me know if there is any particular topic which you are interested in learning about. I am taking requests!

PS: Congrats to Beth on her beautiful boy, Leo Michael, born on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception!! And thanks to everyone for the interesting information on the last "Just Curious" post! Great to see some new names!

A few items and a "Just Curious"!

I'm just full of awe about so many things these days. (Advent is a good time for that, I guess!)

First, I am simply awestruck that Sew Infertile has given birth to the most beautiful baby girl, Hannah Grace! This amazing family has pretty much consumed my thoughts since I heard that Sew was at the hospital! Sometimes the human heart fills up to overflowing with gratitude to God for His gifts, and for life itself. There really are no words. Welcome, Hannah! (My future daughter-in-law?)

Second, I cannot believe that my last post ("My imaginary dialogues with abortion rights advocates") has resulted in over 200 comments so far! (Yeah, so what if most of them are mine??) If you have missed any of the discussion (and if you have a couple of hours, ha ha), then go and read. I am learning a lot, and I suspect others are, too. With one exception, I believe everyone has been civil, even gracious.

Third, I am honored that a recent Bubble post has been featured at Catholic Exchange, here. It's a post I can't take much credit for; however, it's incredibly important for Catholics to read. I am grateful that CE thought so, too, and I'm grateful for the chance to bring it to others' attention again.

Finally, today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception! On this holy day (of obligation, by the way!), we honor our Mother Mary, the most perfect creature ever made, conceived without sin! She is such a gift to us and to this world! How on earth can anyone speak of the Catholic Church as sexist when we hold a woman to be the most perfect human in all of creation, reigning as Queen above all the angels and saints?

St. Mary Immaculate, pray for us!

Now, because I am curious....

Into what religion were you born, if any? And your spouse?
And, what religion, if any, do you practice now?

I am a Cradle Catholic (born and baptized Catholic), but I didn't know my faith very well till my late 20's. I am still Catholic today (I hope that is obvious, ha ha!).

My husband was raised as an agnostic Jew. He had his own conversion right around the time I had my "reversion" (after six years of marriage and three kids), and now he is a practicing Catholic. I am still trying to get him to sit down and write his faith story!

How about you?

My imaginary dialogues with abortion rights advocates

I talk to myself, so why not talk to imaginary people? Here are some of my internal dialogues with abortion rights advocates ("AA"):


Dialogue, Thread A:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: And you still think that a mother should be able to abort that baby, who is as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: So, some humans have rights and others don't have any?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Doesn't that mean that one set of humans (the born) get to determine whether or not other humans have the right to live or not?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Do you think that's moral in other situations, or only with born vs. unborn humans?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, because I haven't yet gotten an answer.}


Dialogue, Thread B:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: No, I don't.

Me: What do you think they are?

AA: They are potential humans.

Me: At what moment do they become fully human?

AA: At viability. {Other answers may include: At brainwaves, at heartbeat, at the beginning of the second trimester, at birth, three months after birth, etc., etc.}

Me: Is that objectively true, or is that simply your opinion?

AA:  I have thought about it at length, and that's my conclusion.


Me: So, it's an opinion?


AA: {silence.}

Me: How do you pinpoint the exact second that humanity begins, so that we don't accidentally kill any innocent people?

AA: We can't pinpoint an exact second, but it's a good estimate. 

Me: Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Well, we have to draw the line somewhere.

Me: Why do we have to draw the line anywhere? Shouldn't we always err on the side of life in something this important and irrevocable?

AA: {Actually, I am not sure how this thread ends, either, because I've never heard this question answered.}

Dialogue, Thread C:

Me: Do you believe that the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Well, they are human, but they are not "persons."

Me: What is the difference? 

AA: "Personhood" of a fetus is something to be determined by each pregnant woman. Only she can decide when her fetus becomes a "person" to her. It's a woman's right.


Me: Is there any objective standard for "personhood"?


AA: Well, some say that "personhood" is determined by conscious thought and memory.


Me: So, an Alzheimer's patient in the final stages, or a severely brain-injured adult may no longer be considered a "person"?

AA: Well, some people argue that that's the case, but I don't subscribe to that. It's extreme.

Me: What is the essential difference between a post-conscious Alzheimer's patient and a pre-conscious fetus?

AA: The the fetus has never lived a real life.

Me: How do you define what is "real" life? Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Yes, maybe, but remember, it's a woman's right to choose to assign meaning to the life within her.

Me: So, the woman gets to decide the "personhood" of another?

AA: Yes.

Me: But it still seems so arbitrary and subjective.

AA: Wait, there is an objective standard, if that's what you are looking for. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1973 that "personhood" begins at birth, and that's when the fetus gets legal protection.

Me: So the government can legitimately decide when someone is a "person" and thus entitled to the full spectrum of human rights?

AA: Yes.

Me: Are you okay with that?

AA: Yes, of course. I fully support Roe v. Wade.

Me: Would you support the government defining the "personhood" of other groups as well, like when the Supreme Court declared that black slaves were property, and not fully human (Dred Scott decision)?

AA: No! Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Me: Can you tell me the salient difference?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, either, since I have never heard the answer to that one.}



Okay, there you have it. Yep, that actually is what I do in my spare time, ha ha! I've got other imaginary dialogues, too, but I will save those for later. If anyone wants to complete any of the threads or tell me where I went wrong, that would be great!

Answer to DQS and Grand Prize Winner!!

I'm back with the answer to the Doctrinal Quiz Show, Church History Edition! Once again, I am quite impressed with the answers!

Here was the question I posed:

Over the past 2,000+ years, the Church has held many councils (i.e., gatherings of the world's bishops, often called "ecumenical councils"). These councils have been convened to combat heresy and define doctrine, among other things. Can you name the first two Church councils and the last two Church councils? For an extra edge toward the Grand Prize, please state the approximate date of each council and one major issue that was on the table.

And, here's how I would have answered it (keeping in mind that answers could vary and still get points):

The first Church council (some of you smarty-pants noticed that I gave a little leeway... not all were "ecumenical" councils) was the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). It occurred in the First Century (probably around the year 50 A.D.) The major issue was whether much of the Mosaic Law (such as circumcision) would be required of Gentile converts. In other words, would Gentile converts to Christianity have to become Jewish first? Peter and the other bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the answer was no.

The second Church council (and the first "ecumenical" council) was the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The Church was combating the Arian heresy and needed to make very clear the nature of Christ's divinity and His relationship to the Father. From this council we received the Nicene Creed, which is still recited every Sunday at Mass after the homily.

The second most recent ecumenical council was the First Vatican Council ("Vatican I"), in 1869-1870. One major issue was the definition of Papal Infallibility.

The most recent ecumenical council was the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II"), from 1962-1965. One major issue addressed was the liturgy. Another was the Church's relationship to the modern world.

Now, as for the scoring.... There was a maximum possible score of 12 points (three points for each council: one for naming the council, one for giving the approximate date, one for naming a major issue). Mrs. Blondies, Lisa Graas, JoAnna, R.J. Grigaitis, A Martha Trying to Be Mary, and Ruby -- you all did a great job and were in the running! But someone smoked you all, and we'll get to that in a minute.

In the meantime, here are the rest of the Bubble Awards!

The Not Only Were You in the Running, But You Might Have Won If You Weren't Such a Bundle of Nerves, Because I *Think* Your Date for Nicea Was a Typo Award goes to.... Ruby!!

The Expressed Incredulity With a Tinge of Smart-Mouth But it Totally Cracked Me Up Because I Know You Meant it in Love Award goes to.... Sew!! (Sew, just because you are you, you must have about ten Bubble Awards by now. I hope you have a big shelf for them all!)

The I Am Shocked But Consoled That an RCIA Class Actually Taught Such Things Award goes to.... Allie!!

The Okay, Fine, I Will Give You an Award For Answering First Award goes to.... Mary!!

(For those of you who are recent additions to the Bubble and haven't heard my awards disclaimer: I would love to continue handing out awards to everyone, but we do not use the liberal model here, and so not everyone will get an award, even if you are a good person and had a clever answer. Not getting an award will not harm you permanently, and it will help build your character.)

Now, finally, the GRAND PRIZE WINNER and winner of Jay Groft's newly released, beautiful Christmas CD goes to....

K!!!!

Not only does K win the CD (email me and I'll have it sent out to you!), but also the coveted Bubble Award Icon which can be used to win friends and influence people: 

Great, great job, K!!!!!

Good-night everyone, and be sure to join us next time for.... DOCTRINAL QUIZ SHOW!!!!

Doctrinal Quiz Show! (Well, more like Church History Quiz!) And, another fabulous Grand Prize!

Welcome back to Doctrinal Quiz Show!  I thought I would make this question a little bit broader than the others, giving people a chance to offer a wide range of answers. I want to see how well you know your Church history, while touching on doctrinal issues as well. 

Think carefully:

Over the past 2,000+ years, the Church has held many councils (i.e., gatherings of the world's bishops, often called "ecumenical councils"). These councils have been convened to combat heresy and define doctrine, among other things. Can you name the first two Church councils and the last two Church councils? For an extra edge toward the Grand Prize, please state the approximate date of each council and one major issue that was on the table.

If you cheat, you die. Can I be any more clear than that? Whoops, sorry. That's not very Christian of me. But let's just say that I have ways to detect whether or not you are cheating.... Uh-huh. It's true. I have a sixth sense. 

Now, the GRAND PRIZE is very special to me. Jay Groft is a Catholic singer here in Phoenix, and he and his wife Jenni (Catholic blogger!) are family friends of ours. Tomorrow is the release of his brand new Christmas CD, with a release concert at our diocesan cathedral! I am so pleased to offer his brand new Christmas CD as the Grand Prize!! To hear a sample of Jay's prayerful songs, click here, here or here. 

To order this wonderful CD, click the image.

Speaking of Grand Prizes, it just gives me chills to tell you this story. The last quiz show (Bible in the Bubble) featured a rosary giveaway from Melanie at Trendy Traditions. Melanie recently lost her fifth child, Jude, due to his premature birth. I was stunned to find out yesterday that the verse which I chose for the quiz had special meaning to Melanie: It was the same verse that she and her husband had chosen for Jude's funeral cards! Praise God for His gentle consolations.  

Okay, now.... on your mark, get set, GO!!!!