Posted By Christina M on October 21, 2005

Or Why I Use the Word “Skanky.”

I admit, I’ve slipped into the uglier side of popular, trendy, teenage vocabulary. I’ve adopted the use of the word “skanky.” I don’t feel particularly good about it, but it’s a decision I’ve come to terms with, and now that the shocked looks on our children’s faces have faded, I’ll tell you why.

One of our daughters befriended a skank. Now, I know we’re not supposed to use that kind of language about our children’s friends, but if the leather hip boot fits, … Well, what other choice is there? I can lecture till I’m blue in the face about how marrying a man and two weeks later sending him off to war, moving in days later with a different man, is wrong. When you see the soap opera up too-close, it becomes too real, and one forgets to be shocked. Especially if the skank in question is someone you adore.

This all happened nearly two years ago, and in the intervening time the young “lady” in question has given birth to sugar daddy’s baby, while receiving military family benefits on beloved hubbie. The sugar daddy in question has, meanwhile, fathered another child with one of the best friends of Skankmom. In the intervening time, too, I’ve become increasingly aware of teens who go to church in pants so low-cut that not only their “do-me” thongs are visible, but the flesh below them. I’ve become increasingly aware of the girls at the high school who sport the “teen pregnancy is so in!” look. I’ve become increasingly aware of “look at my nipples” high school and middle school attire. And the only word that can do justice to these fads, and get the kids in our family to pay any attention, is skank.

When a teen is tempted to “groupthink” (a concept you no doubt recognize, where one teen adopts another teen’s attitude, because youth makes right), they actually seem to have greater respect for people who use such trashy language. They like a good dishing as well as the next babe. And when a teen is not tempted to groupthink, they have proper disdain for the current behaviors to recognize the inherent truth in the thought behind the word. Either way, it reinforces the idea that trashy behavior is ugly.

Meanwhile, I found Dale at Dyspeptic Mutterings using the word himself. Now, this is a blogger I respect, and have found him to have worthwhile things to say pretty consistently. I feel a little better that I’m in good company. (This, by the way, was the post that I was responding to in the comment field above referenced.) He discusses things from trolloping Halloween costumes to “skankdolls” and how merchandisers are selling gutter sexuality to children as young as preschoolers.

I’m not proud of my little foray into the gutter. I try to eliminate ugly phrases from the rest of my vocabulary. But for now, a very trendy word for a very trendy descent seems appropriate. I would rather have my children disdain skankiness than admire it.

I apologize to the world for adding to the ugliness in it, but I defend my motives to the end.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on October 16, 2005

Jim Clarke, a divorced man, doesn’t find anything funny about divorce. “I find the whole experience rather tragic,” he says. He is responding to a growing trend, the divorce party. Celebrants play games like “Pin the Blame on the Ex,” and drink a cocktail called “Marriage on the Rocks.”

I’m with Jim. The whole idea of a divorce party with fun and games trivializes both divorce and marriage. Even where divorce is sometimes necessary, though, it is not fun. It hurts, and hurts bad. Anyone who says otherwise is either hard-hearted or in denial. Because every divorce, every divorce, is rather like the removal of a limb.

When a married couple splits because one or both of them acted frivolously, and the divorce wasn’t necessary, it is like the removal of a healthy limb; but even when there is no other answer but divorce, it is still like the removal of an injured limb, beyond recovery. It still hurts. A certain emptiness will remain forever.

I’ve been through it. I wasn’t always fortunate enough to be with someone so well-suited to me as my Charming and Patient Husband. There was a time, when I was younger and not so close to God, that I made some serious mistakes with my life. One of them was marrying someone not available for marriage. I knew I was sinning, but like many immature people, I figured it would somehow work itself out eventually.

It did. Eventually, I came to terms with my sin, and set out to make things right. In the end, it involved divorce, homelessness, the loss of all possessions, and an extremely intense reevaluation of my priorities. It was a healing process, a purgative, penitential process. And the pain was like nothing I’ve ever experienced before or since.

That pain wasn’t because I’d done the wrong thing, and it wasn’t because of the hardships I went through. No, it was because I’d lost the person I’d given ten years of myself to. The person who had been the other half of my life for so long, who had given me children and shared a home with me. And I don’t care how much two people might grow to resent each other, losing someone who is that much a part of you is a widowhood of sorts. Mourning is a necessary part of coming to terms with the new reality. It is a requirement for healing.

Some people would rather say they don’t need to heal. “Why do I have to heal? I am not the one who was wrong!” The irony is that the other spouse is thinking that he or she is not the one who was wrong. The truth is that both are wrong. I have never once seen a completely blameless divorce. I have known divorced people who were the wronged party, but I have never known one who didn’t share any blame at all.

If we can’t find our own blame, instead of the other person’s, how can we avoid making the same mistakes again? Is it really supposed to hurt less if we serially say “it was the other person’s fault”?

If we took divorce more seriously, maybe we would take marriage more seriously. Anyone playing “Pin the blame on the ex” should stop to remember this: “I am an ex, too.”

The article says: “With nearly half of all marriages ending before ’til death do is part, divorce has gone from a private shame to a peculiar rite of passage.”

A rite of passage? I think that way of looking at it is a real shame.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on October 14, 2005

My charming and patient husband not only created a meme, but tagged me with it. Duff, the songs that tempt you to press the “skip” button on your CD player, is something you’ll find on most CDs (or albums or tapes, if only they had skip buttons). So few are duff-free, but there are some. The task here is “See if you can come up with ten, with extra points if they’re all different artists. (No “best-of” collections, if you please.)”

My list:
1. Loggins & Messina, The Best of Friends
2. Susan Ashton, Susan Ashton
3. Kenny Loggins, Return to Pooh Corner (I don’t count it as same artist, since it’s Loggins, not Loggins & Messina.)
4. Carly Simon, Coming Around Again
5. Renee Bondi, Inner Voice
6. Soundtrack to Fiddler on the Roof
7. Soundtrack to The Sound of Music
8. Soundtrack to Cocktail
9. Weird Al, Dare to Be Stupid
10. Miami Sound Machine, Primitive Love

Tag, WeirdMisty and YamiPegasus, you’re it!

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on October 13, 2005

You are Romans.

Which book of the Bible are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on October 12, 2005

Padre, over at Not So Quiet Catholic Corner, has a worthwhile question about the idea of married priests:

Who will financially support the married priest’s family (not happening on current weekly collections!)?

Well, maybe the plan is for them to put their services up for sale to the highest bidder, like most non-Catholic pastors do?

Maybe the next idea is that they should contracept to keep the financial burden light.

I guess they could always sell Amway, or auction off cheese sandwiches on eBay.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on October 11, 2005

After reading through some of the accounts at Feminists for Life of women who have died from abortions, I could imagine defenders of abortion looking at the list of twelve names and shrugging. Twelve deaths are hardly an apocalypse, I can hear some voice saying.

So a doctor made a mistake. It’s sad, yes; but that is the price we pay for freedom, right? And really, can you hold just one mistake against a person? Anyone can make a mistake, and we all do.

On many other subjects, I’ve been one of the voices defending against crucifying people for a single mistake. From president to housewife, we really do all make mistakes. But I can’t manage to adopt that aproach when it comes to a death from abortion. You see, each one of these women who died at the hands of a man committed to killing someone on that table was not “one mistake.” They were women. Human beings. Unfortunately, we frequently count deaths with numbers; but the reality is that no human being is a mere statistic. Each of these victims was loved, and left behind someone whose world partly crumbled away in devastation because their dear daughter, sister, mother, wife, or lover died needlessly and violently.

If you asked the four year old son of Jane Doe whether Mommy’s death was easier to take, knowing that many others come out of the procedure physically fine, do you think he would have stopped crying, stopped hurting, and said “oh, well in that case, I guess it’s ok,”? Do you think he now, at sixteen, realizes he was selfish to feel like his world caved in when his mother died, because a bigger principle, of freedom of choice, is at stake? Does it make him less deserving, somehow, of the hug and the beaming of pride on his mother’s face when he graduates from high school?

She was just one woman. It’s a bigger issue than that, isn’t it?

Or is it?

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: pro life

Posted By Christina M on October 10, 2005

I have Housewife in Flip-Flops to doublethank. First, for mentioning Feminists for Life, which reminded me I wanted to look into that, and second for meme-tagging me. I feel so flattered!

So to release you all from the edges of your seats, here goes. Like HiF-F, I present these in no particular order. I am sure I’m leaving some worthies out, too.

7 people I admire:
1. My mom, the Mother-Lion. She has always loved and protected her cubs fiercely.
2. Our children, who despite having very strong (read: occasionally overbearing) parents are very unique, gifted individuals, and never mere clones of either “all the other kids” or of their parents.
3. Debbie, the lady who leads children’s liturgy of the word at my church.
4. My sister Marilyn, who has always been my role model.
5. My Charming and Patient Husband, who ever-lives up to the moniker.
6. Fr. Morse, whose sense of humor frequently goes unnoticed, but for the twinkle in his eyes.
7. My parents-in-law, who always have love to give and never let on when they are worn out.

7 things I plan to do within the next year
1. Graduate from college on December 2. WAHOO!!
2. Give birth to Peanut in the spring.
3. Make final OCDS promises.
4. Begin learning Basque.
5. Write a book.
6. Clean my house.
7. Do something nice for the next door neighbor.

7 books I love
1. A Horse and His Boy (my favorite of the Chronicles of Narnia).
2. Jane Eyre
3. List Yourself
4. Gone with the Wind
5. The “Mark of the Lion” books, by Francine Rivers.
6. Enchantment, by Orson Scott Card
7. Rilla of Ingleside

7 movies I have to own:
1. Yours Mine and Ours
2. The Sound of Music
3. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
4. Brigadoon
5. The Quiet Man — I didn’t like it at first, but it grew on me.
6. How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days
7. The Trouble with Angels (still looking for a copy)

7 places I want to visit
1. Prince Edward Island (Anne of Green Gables landmarks)
2. Austria (Sound of Music landmarks)
3. France (great cathedrals)
4. Spain (Santiago de Compostela pilgrimage)
5. Rome
6. Cancun (with my husband)
7. Someplace accessible by cruise ship

7 places I’ve already been
1. Cancun (without my husband. I went with a school group at 18.)
2. South Texas
3. Northern California
4. Southern California
5. Washington state
6. Vegas and Reno
7. brief stopovers in Oregon, New Mexico, and Arizona. Not very well-travelled, am I?

7 websites I love
1. Stumbleupon
2. Christian Forums
3. Gmail
4. Popcap games
5. EWTN (Particularly their document library)
6. About.com (writing and breadmaking)
7. Dalnet… you can access IRC chat right from the webpage, if you don’t have an IRC program. My favorite channel (chatroom) is #catholic.

Now, whom shall I tag…
YOU!

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on September 30, 2005

As many have no doubt noticed, I tend to talk a lot about large families. I have one, and I love it, so naturally it is a factor in what I write. Every aspect of my life is in some way colored by the size and shape of my family. Some people admire me for “managing” such a large household, and some respect me for the obviousness of the fact that I do not use birth control; and I’m just insecure enough to accept any kudos I can get. It is hard work managing the needs of teenagers, the activities of an adolescent, and the challenges (O, the challenges!) of a hyperactive toddler.

But none of that will get me into heaven. God isn’t counting on fingers and toes to see who gets in and who doesn’t, based on uterine occupancy rate. He is looking our faith, rather, and how faithful we have been to it. I believe I will get to heaven, not because I’ve raised lots of children, but because I love my Lord and try to show it. I believe that God will want me there because we are, as St. Teresa put it, friends, and He hasn’t got very many.

The fact is that sanctity is found among His friends in all walks of life. Very holy men and women; very holy singles and marrieds, young and old, fertile and infertile. Abraham only had two offspring, and Sarah one; yet they were holy. They were friends of God. One might note, too, that they did not contracept.

Small families aren’t proof of contraception or sin, any more than large families are proof of holiness. Young Karol Wojtyla grew up with just his father after the deaths of his two siblings and his mother. Small family indeed, yet of his life in a family of two he said:

And some of you will recall the man who had so many children with his child brides that he could not remember all of their names.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: I am glad that more Catholics are starting to realize and really understand that contraception is wrong; but we must not fall into the trap of assuming that those who have small families are contracepting. We must avoid, too, the mistake of allowing ourselves to accept the stereotype that large families are somehow “holier” or “more Catholic” than small families.

If we really feel the need to gauge our neighbor’s fidelity and holiness, we should be aware that we are mere humans, prone to mistakes. But if we still need to gauge, let us at least gauge by such things as evidence of love for God and neighbor.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on September 25, 2005

My daughter just finished watching “Yours Mine and Ours” in the next room, just as I was giving thought to the culture that contraception has spawned, and the damage it has done to the Catholic Church. It seems an irony that this was the movie she happened to plug in today, because it is about two widowed Catholics, Frank Beardsley and Helen North (Played by Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball), who fall in love. The challenge begins when they reveal to each other how many children they have. He has 10, and she has 8. Yes, you guessed it, they marry.

One of the highlights of the movie is a touching speech Henry Fonda gives one of the teenagers as his character is heading toward the car to drive his wife to the hospital to deliver yet another child. The daughter has been struggling with having a boyfriend who is upset that she won’t “put out,” and who claims that if she loved him she would.

Frank begins, “I’ve got a message for Larry. You tell him that this is what it’s all about. This is the real happening. If you wanna know what love really is, take a look around you. Take a good look at your mother.”

The mother, who has just entered the scene, says “Not now!”

“Yes, now,” he continues. “It’s giving life that counts. Until you’re ready for it, all the rest is just a big fraud. All the crazy haircuts in the world won’t keep it turning. Life isn’t a love-in, it’s the dishes, and the orthodontist, and the shoe repairman, and ground round instead of roast beef.

“And I’ll tell you something else. It isn’t going to bed with a man that proves you’re in love with him, it’s waking up in the morning and facing the drab, miserable, wonderful, everyday world with him that counts.”

After an interruption or two, he gets Helen into the car, and before sliding in himself, concludes his speech. “I suppose having nineteen kids is carrying it a bit too far, but if we had it to do over, who would we skip… you?”

The exciting thing, upon reflection, is that the North-Beardsley family is real. I’ve heard from people who have met members of the family that several of the children, after they grew to adulthood, became nuns. I don’t know if any priests came out of the brood, but I do know that the Helen and Frank ended up with at least 60 grandchildren. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if more nuns or priests came out of the next generation. At the very least, we can say that this couple contributed considerably to the Catholic population.

The point that got me started on all of this was a conversation my husband and I had this morning, before we even realized what our youngster was watching. Our 1 1/2 year old sat on my lap and clasped his hands together, his signal to request us to pray the Our Father with him. He attempts to make a sign of the cross, alternately hitting one side of his chest and then the other several times, and finally clapping his hands. Joel asked (probably only half in jest) if we were priming him to be a priest, and I said he should at least grow up knowing it’s an option, but it’s God who calls men to the priesthood. However, I noted, it isn’t surprising that we have a priest shortage in the United States, when so many families are limiting their size. When a couple has only one or two children, they are not likely to encourage them to become priests, because they want grandchildren.

I think most Catholics hunger for the fellowship that smaller parishes can bring. I believe most Catholics realize that we have a real need for more priests in the United States. And I suspect, alas, that most Catholics feel that “someone” should fill that need. Someone being someone else. Not our children. Studies have shown that most Catholics contracept.

Isn’t the connection clear? It is up to “someone” to provide us with priests, and it is up to “someone” to keep the Church going. “But as for me and my household,” seems to be the modern creed, “we will serve the Lord in comfort.” Comfort meaning fewer sacrifices, more material goods. Comfort meaning having only as many children as we feel like having. Comfort meaning roast beef, not ground round.

This is the legacy of contraception. Catholics continue to be, for the most part, pro-life in the sense of being anti-abortion. But how can we be pro-life and not be pro-family, pro-child?

I know very devout Catholics who cannot, for various reasons, have big families. I know families who hurt over that fact. But meanwhile, a vast number of families who can simply refuse because it will jeopardize their level of material comfort. They would never consider abortion, but they would also never consider letting God play any part in deciding what their blessings might be.

I know parishes that welcome families and children of every age; but meanwhile, I also know parishes that are very anti-abortion yet never welcome children into their worship circles until they are old enough not to be an inconvenience. The quality of the sound system is more important than giving welcome to infants and their mothers. I have heard pastors and congregation members suggest that mothers with small children have no business attending Mass. I have witnessed parishes shuffle all pre-communion children off to childcare, under the impression that they don’t need any exposure to their faith until then, and that the adults are really better off without children around to cause distraction and inconvenience.

If we claim to welcome children in the womb but then reject them from our faith community once born, can we really claim to be pro-life? If we refuse to consider abortion, but we contracept to avoid having children, can we really claim that our pro-life beliefs make any difference in our lives?

And if our beliefs make no difference in our lives, what is their worth?

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: pro life

Posted By Christina M on September 23, 2005

Churches — and people — like this almost put the question of faith vs. works to rest. Certainly they put it into perspective.

“Plains Presbyterian Church’s 450 members have welcomed refugees into their homes and into their church. More than 40 evacuees are living in the church’s brand-new Christian life center. The mix of residents requires round-the-clock volunteers, doing everything from assisting the elderly to providing programs for children. “It’s vacation Bible school every day here,” said Richard Bailey, associate pastor of Plains PCA.”

When I read this, I can’t help but think that regardless of the semantics of the theological debates that occur on the subject, this is what both sides of the debate really mean, or at least are supposed to. The Protestant can say we aren’t saved by works, but will agree that the people of Plains Presbyterian Church are doing God’s will by giving of themselves to people hurt by tragedy. The Catholic can say works are necessary, but will agree that it was grace born of faith that led these people do give of themselves. Both, I think, will agree that God looks down and smiles upon people who love their neighbors as themselves, and put that love into action.

The debates have their place, and the people on both sides of them are defending genuine faith. But for now I want to put debate aside, even if only for a moment, and thank God that He has put into the hearts of these people to treat hurting strangers with the same kind of love they would give to their own family members. Because whichever side you take on the theological question, I think most of us agree that this is the kind of response God wants of all Christians.

(Hat tip to Pilgrim of Slaves of Righteousness.)

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: