I am hot...

it just comes in flashes.

When a picture screams a thousand words

Posted By on January 27, 2006

Like my charming and patient husband, I had a look at pictures taken last week at the Walk for Life West Coast, which included a number of photos of counter protesters. True to form, Joel and I agree on the subject, but had somewhat different reactions to the pictures. He is pithier, but I tend to want to respond to every photo, sign, and allegation. For your benefit, I’ve resisted giving response to each and every image, but a few cried out for answers.


These are the same people who say men should not be allowed a say in abortion because they aren’t the ones who have to carry the babies. Does anyone else see the illogic, even hypocrisy, then, of lesbians fighting for abortion?

And then there’s the perpetual message of all liberals:


The very clear and lucid message here being “If they don’t agree with me, they’re fascists and want to kill Jews. There, that’ll show ’em.” Yeah. It shows me that they don’t have any real argument, so they resort to the ever-present assertion that only Hitler would disagree with them. And we know it’s true, because they say so.


This one demonstrates the obvious truth that liberals are kinder, gentler, and more compassionate than pro-lifers. Doesn’t it?

And then, to prove that they are really advocating choice, this fellow holds up a telling sign:

I wonder what this one means by free? The abortionist is, in “pro choice” rhetoric, presented like a women’s rights hero, selflessly offering a service that allows women to live in freedom. But whom are they asking for free abortion on demand from? If these heroic champions of abortion were really in it to ensure women’s rights, how about if they offered the service for free, instead of demanding that those who do not favor abortion pay for abortions with their taxes?

But the whole counter protest, and in fact the entire pro-abortion movement, seems to redeem itself here, with the message that it’s really for the sake of the poor children. No child deserves to be unwanted, right? So why do they fight so hard to make the public see children as unwanted diseases, parasites to be removed?

It amazes me that in the name of helping children, they fight to kill them, in the name of “choice” so many want to impose their choice of abortion on everyone else, and in advocating a business that makes a huge profit each year, it is the government and those who choose not to support abortion who are blamed for the cost, not the abortion facilities and practitioners who actually collect the money.

I didn’t even go to page two of this photo journal. I couldn’t help thinking that the pro-abortion protesters had already made their views abundantly heard; but if you want to see the rest, the link is at the top of this post.

April brings showers, May brings flowers, and January brings memes.

Posted By on January 13, 2006

New Year memes, to be specific.

Thanks to Enbrethiliel of Sancta Sanctus for the tag.

What was your favourite movie in 2005?

I’m not sure there’s even any question here. December’s trip to Narnia was just what I hoped for. Excellent casting, nice effects, and true to the story. Sure, they made the occasional small change for flow purposes, but they kept the story, and even the themes, pretty accurate. I’m attached to Narnia… it would have hurt if they’d done a lousy job.

What was your favourite book in 2005?

Favorite book read, I presume, not necessarily published in 05? It’s hard to remember what all I read last year, but Rilla of Ingleside comes to mind. It’s the final book in the Anne of Green Gables series, and it focuses on her daughter Rilla and her actions during World War I. It had all the charm of Anne, but Rilla’s character was well-developed, and most definitely not a clone.

What was your favourite music album in 2005?

The Carly Simon CD Andy gave me for Mother’s Day.

Richer or poorer?

Richer than what? Poorer than whom? We qualified for reduced lunches, not free, so I guess things have picked up.

Thinner or fatter?

At 6 months pregnant, I’ve gained a whopping total of 2 pounds.

What kept you sane this past year?

Paxil. I’ll keep my rant here short, about Glaxo’s pernicious advertising campaign in which they are sucking in new customers when they aren’t making enough to keep those already using the medication in stock.

Which personal accomplishment of 2005 are you most pleased with?

Enbrethiliel said “I finally graduated from uni! Yay!” to which I add a joyful “me too.”

What resolutions have you made for ’06?

Show Joel more appreciation, get Shannon caught up in school, write a book, and get the house clean.

Which bad habit are you most motivated to break?

Getting distracted for too long at a stretch. (Read not accomplishing much.)

Which resolutions do you expect to keep?

I don’t dare hazard a guess. I’ve been known to jinx myself.

What are you most looking forward to in 2006?

Holding sweet Mona and being done with Braxton Hicks.

Tags: naturally, the Charming and Patient Joel, and Julie D. of Happy Catholic.

And he IS blond!

Posted By on January 13, 2006

I don’t usually duplicate Joel’s content, but this one was too good not to pass along. My apologies to Siena, Davy, and all the other blondes I know!

I’m not sure what to make of this…

Posted By on January 12, 2006


Is this meant to send a PC message, or is it satirical?

Pragmatism and the Evolution Debate

Posted By on January 4, 2006

I usually stay out of the evolution debate entirely. The fact is that I don’t consider it very important to know how God created the world. I know Who created the world, and that’s what matters. If He chose to make it in a literal seven days, or in seven evolutionary eras, it really doesn’t affect either my faith in the Creator or my scientific curiosity.

But recently I have heard and witnessed arguments either for or against evolution that I felt at least deserved response. The newest phrase that has popped into the news lately is “intelligent design,” but it seems to me just a new spin on an old question. At times, I have even felt that many people do not believe we can remain neutral on the subject. When the debate reaches this point, I feel I must step in and offer an alternative, more pragmatic viewpoint.

My assertion that it does not matter begins with a scientific basic that most of us learned in elementary school: scientific knowledge begins with a hypothesis, which is tested. The test offers evidential data either in favor of or against the hypothesis, and if the data are sufficient to demonstrate the truth or falsity of the hypothesis, with repeatable results, then we have “proof.” This assumes, of course, that we have correctly interpreted the data. In the absence of such testing all we have is a theory, which may or may not be true.

Since the theory of evolution has not been and cannot be tested, we are consigned to leaving it at the point of theoretical discussion. In other words, we simply cannot know from a scientific perspective.

This assertion may anger some people, who believe that the Bible should guide us in this question. I would simply ask this: should it guide us in this scientific question as it guides our scientific knowledge in other things? If so, must we accept that pi = 3, or that Galileo was wrong? If we look to the Bible for instruction in science, we are stuck accepting a number of premises that modern information has disproved, even to the satisfaction of most of the staunchest 7-day creationists.

Perhaps more disturbing, though, is the theological implication of insisting on a Biblical interpretation of science. The Bible itself tells us not to attempt personal interpretation of scripture; yet to insist upon a literal interpretation of this particular aspect of scripture where no constant teaching of the Church gives us definite answer, requires a belief in personal infallibility. It requires a conviction that your own interpretation of the meaning of the scriptures involved is inerrant. For those who are Catholic, I would ask this: to whom do you attribute infallibility, to yourself or to the Church? For those who are not Catholic, I would ask, if you do not believe in the infallibility of another person or entity, how can you attribute it to yourself?

So we are left with the big unanswered question. If science is not capable of testing a hypothesis about evolution, and if the Bible is a book of faith and religion, not science, then where do we look for an answer? I’m afraid the only possible conclusion is to acknowledge that it is a theory. An untested, untestable theory, which may or may not be true. And in the absence of proof, we are welcome to hold opinions one way or the other, but we should not be dogmatic about these opinions. My neighbor is as welcome to hold his opinion as I am to hold mine.

Do I hold an opinion on the subject? Yes, I do. But I will not at this point share what it is, because the point holds equally true whether I believe evolution to be a true theory or a false one. This point is simple: we do not know, either on a scientific or on a theological level. We may suspect either way, and in fact I believe it is healthy to suspect and to do our best to back up our suspicions. In the long run, though, if we are looking for dogmatic scientific positions, we are better off putting our energies into questions which can be tested, and which can truly benefit the world; and if we are looking for dogmatic religious positions, we are better off putting our energies into the important moral questions of how to live a life that will please our Savior. Or better yet, as intelligent believers, we could put our energies into both. Faith and science do not have to be at odds.

My Letter to Santa

Posted By on December 23, 2005

Dear Santa,

I know it’s kind of last minute, but I thought I ought to contact you before Christmas, just to make sure there are no misunderstandings between us. I haven’t been perfect, but I’ve been a pretty good girl, and I thought we should clear some things up just to be certain.

As you probably realize, one of my biggest difficulties has been gluttony. I fudged on my new year’s resolutions, but I’m sure you don’t care much about that, since it’s a different holiday. Please tell the reindeer that I didn’t really enjoy the venison, and send my condolences to Prancer.

As for that jewelry, I think I need to clear the air. I honestly thought, before I bought it, that my mother had agreed to loan me the money. How was I to know she was being sarcastic? And you have to admit, I do look good in diamonds.

The incident in the grocery store parking lot would probably have been better avoided, but surely you understand that it wasn’t foreplanned. She’s healing nicely, anyway, and her insurance covered most of it. You know, good parking spots are awfully hard to find. I know it doesn’t really excuse me, but she didn’t qualify for a handicapped space, either, at least not then. Let’s be fair about it!

At least there’s one thing I know you can be proud of. That really cute outfit I saw my neighbor wearing, I resisted the urge to take it for myself and wear it. I can’t tell you how difficult it was to resist the urge, because that blob doesn’t do it justice. It would look so much better on me; I have the right coloring for it, and I never get anything really nice to wear (besides the jewelry, of course). Besides, I have larger bones than she has, so I guess it wouldn’t have fit anyway. But please, Santa, don’t you listen to a word of the rumors that I was the one who made a bonfire out of her closet’s contents. It’s all dirty slander, I tell you!

All in all, I’ve done pretty doggone good. I’m popular, beautiful, well-spoken, and modest. I’ve kept my teasing of the elderly to a minimum, and in fact, maybe I should get extra presents this year.

I didn’t get to the store, so I’m afraid there are no cookies and milk. I hope you like Sour Cream and Onion Pringles, and beer. I won’t tattle on you for driving a sleigh under the influence.

I can’t wait to see what you leave under the tree, and I’ll try next year to get to the store for some instant cookie mix before Christmas Eve.

Your good buddy,
Christina

That’s it, I’m buying a pair of suspenders.

Posted By on December 15, 2005


My computer geek score is greater than 65% of all people in the world! How do you compare? Click here to find out!

Can You Imagine?

Posted By on December 9, 2005

Yesterday at Mass, our Communion song was “I can only imagine.” Now, I have to admit that at times I’ve found this song less than inspiring as a liturgical offering. The word “I” is repeated so much, I sometimes find myself wondering who the song is about: Jesus, or me. Joel glanced at me as the song began, his face reflecting similar feelings.

As I walked toward the front of the Church, though, I found my thoughts and feelings suddenly changing. I started singing along with this song about what it might be like to meet Jesus in person. As we walked the short distance from pew to priest, I paid attention to the lyrics of the refrain:

Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
Will I sing Hallelujah? Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine! I can only imagine!

As I reached the third place in line, I heard the words “Will I be able to speak at all?” and my voice cracked. Suddenly the reality flashed into my mind and heart: I am in Jesus’ presence, right now! How can I ever forget that I am in the presence of divine glory when I am in the Presence of the Eucharist?

The song transformed itself, in that moment, from a speculation to a self-examination. How is it that I am able to look upon our Lord, come to us at every Mass, and not fall to my knees and lose my voice?

The only answer is that my faith, real as it is, is still yet far too small. So few humans have ever walked the earth with the tremendous faith it takes to be filled with total, consuming, glorious awe at the mere sight of the Holy Eucharist. Yet how very, very much our Lord deserves such faith and glory from us.

Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief.

"Meme Virus"

Posted By on December 7, 2005

I liked Write Wing Nut‘s choice of words so much I decided to repeat it. At the bottom of her post, she tagged me (infected, as she put it). So here I am, ready to bare all. Or bare ten. Ten random things about myself, that is.

1. I homeschooled for six years, but had to stop due to complicated circumstances. I miss it sometimes.

2. I’ve never had a white Christmas.

3. I really enjoy cheese that smells like Satan’s gym socks. (Joel stuck that in when I wasn’t looking. Teach me to “save as draft,” eh?)

4. I met my charming and sneaky husband online. Specifically, I was moderating in a Catholic chat room when he came in. He had the misfortune of happening in at the same time as a group of trolling teenagers, and he had a nickname that I thought sounded obscene; to this day he accuses me of having a dirty mind. We might never have met if I hadn’t kicked him out of the chat room.

5. Jane Eyre has been my favorite book since fifth grade. By the time I graduated high school I’d read it six times. In college (first time around) I used a monologue from that novel for oral interp on the speech team.

6. I almost attended the Air Force Academy. I got a nomination from an extremely liberal congressman by giving very politically neutral answers to my interview questions. Three years later, I ran the campaign of one of his opponents.

7. I finally graduated from college five days ago.

8. I collect pretty coffee mugs, but only if they’re under a buck fifty.

9. My daydream is to get a Licentiate in Sacred Theology. It isn’t likely, since we have a good-sized family and don’t live anywhere near a school that offers them; but I still keep daydreaming.

10. I have a weakness for wasabi peas.

Out of the Medicine Cabinet

Posted By on December 7, 2005

Today I come before you to make a confession. It is not a confession of guit, but of something that many Christians hesitate to acknowledge. It is something that should not, but sometimes does, carry a stigma: I suffer from clinical depression. I take medication for my depression, and in small doses it helps me make it through the day. In proper doses, it helps me to experience the emotions that “normal people” experience.

The reason that I approach this so tentatively is that depression, and chemical assistance to overcome it, are truly very little understood. Some say a Christian “should not” experience depression. “If you had a stronger walk with the Lord, He would heal you,” or even “depression is not a real condition; it is only a manifestation of God being absent from your life.” Most, I think with gratitude, do not believe that way. Enough, though, to add to the burdens of people who are already suffering. I speak here not for myself, but for those who might fall into the trap of believing these things when they hear them.

Far more common than thinking that depression is a sign of moral sloth is the widespread belief that depression is attitudinal sloth. This perspective frequently comes with some sympathy, but little patience. “I know you’re hurting, but you need to snap out of it.” Sometimes this is accompanied by “you need to smile and just decide to be happy. Eventually your mood will follow your decision.” While this well-intentioned advice may work for many who suffer from wallowing or gloomy moods, it does not help nearly so much for those who suffer from depression caused by a chemical imbalance.

We are a self-motivated society. We are taught, at least in the United States, to decide our destiny and make it happen. This is the land of opportunity! You can choose to pursue wealth, or family, or self-fulfillment, or love, or any combination of the above, and with enough perseverance, we learn, it can happen. If we can’t make all of our goals come to life, it is because we have changed our priorities somewhere along the way. Maybe all of this rhetoric is true, and maybe it isn’t. Probably, it is true to a degree. So most of us, even the uncontrollaby depressed, have a nagging temptation to fall into this line of thinking when we consider the “decision” to be happy. Surely, we’ve all known someone who chooses to be happy or chooses to be unhappy; isn’t this evidence enough that all of us are able to take control of our emotions?

Well, no. The truth is that chemical depression changes a lot. A person whose brain chemistry works “right” may well choose to be happy or unhappy. The person who is chemically depressed, though, doesn’t find it so easy. Even with the “evidence” we’ve seen of people being able to choose their feelings, we must remember that this evidence does not apply to everyone. Some people need assistance on a physical level, to balance out whatever imbalance of chemicals it is that causes the emotions to swing and sway. Some people need a “happy pill.”

Did I just say that? Did I actually say “happy pill”? I tell you now that I didn’t mean it. In fact, I only used that choice of words to bring up the next point I wanted to make. I cannot count on two hands how many people I’ve heard use the phrase “happy pill” to describe antidepressants. The implication is that these tablets cheer us up and make us happy, like alcohol might make us unrestrained. It’s a lamentable choice of words, though, because that really isn’t how antidepressants work. They don’t make people happy. They merely tidy up the workings inside the brain so that the patient is able to be happy. They increase coping skills, slow down the triggers that cause things like brooding, anger, and paranoia. To put it more simply, Paxil doesn’t make me “happy.” It makes me normal.

Several years ago, I heard a talk by Fr. Benedict Groeschel on the subject of depression. In addition to being a spiritually and theologically well-grounded priest and spiritual director, Fr. Groeschel has another qualification: he is a psychologist. In his talk, he discussed chemical depression, and the sort of people who refuse to take medication because they believe it is shameful, and it admits to a defeat of faith. No, he explained. If you have a physical ailment and you refuse to get it treated, you are refusing to be a good steward to the gift God has given you of your body. God heals through many avenues: sometimes through faith healings, sometimes through sheer will, and sometimes by the hands of a competent professional, such as a doctor or pharmacist. Faith should not prevent us from taking care of our gifts, but should rather motivate us to do so.

Right now, I am carrying another gift from God: a 5-month old baby in my womb. For the first half of my pregnancy, working with my doctor, I reduced my medication to the lowest possible helpful dose in order to minimize risk to Peanut. It was a very rough time for both me and my family. Recently, with the first trimester well behind me, my doctor and I decided that it was time to return to a full therapeutic dose. The other day, while my charming and very patient husband and I were shopping together, we shared banter and smiles. Yes, the realization hit me in a very startling way: I was smiling.

I don’t want to see anyone unable to smile, and least of all in the name of faith. If you think that God would rather have you incomplete than see you taking medicine, perhaps it is time to reevaluate your ideas about Who God is. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, in the image and likeness of God. When we get damaged, if it takes a cast, a bandage, cough syrup, or antidepressants to return our bodies to good health, then that is what it takes to be a steward of one of the most personal gifts He has given us.