Posted By Christina M on January 5, 2004

I’m in the middle of reading Anne of the Island, the third book in the L. M. Montgomery series, and came across a meaningful passage, about the afterlife. It reminded me of C. S. Lewis, who said in The Great Divorce that if you go to heaven, in hindsight your time on earth will have been a beginning of your heaven, and if you go to hell, your time on earth a beginning of your hell. That makes sense, if you consider that heaven or hell is truly about grace, and living in the presence or absence of God.

In the book I’m reading now, a 19 year old girl is dying, who has lived a decent but frivolous life, and is now afraid of death because it will be a separation from all that is familiar. Anne has listened to her friend and is walking home thinking about their conversation:

“Anne walked home very slowly in the moonlight. The evening had changed something for her. Life held a different meaning, a deeper purpose. On the surface it would go on just the same; but the deeps had been stirred. It must not be with her as with the poor butterfly Ruby. When she came to the end of one life it must not be to face the next with the shrinking terror of something wholly different — something for which accustomed thought and ideal and aspiration had unfitted her. The little things of life, sweet and excellent in their place, must not be the things lived for; the highest must be sought and followed; the life of heaven must be begun here on earth.”

With a new year opening, it seems like a good time to ponder that thought. May your new year be grace-filled, a beginning of your heaven.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on December 30, 2003

Today my husband and I celebrate our first anniversary. As I think back on the span of our relationship, I remember a conversation I had before Joel and I married. This friend (who is very much in love with his wife) could not understand how I could be contemplating marrying someone I had not slept with. “How can you marry someone you’ve never slept with?” he kept asking. “How do you know you’ll even be compatible?”

I’ve thought about this comment over the past couple of years and every time I consider it, one thought keeps recurring: is premarital sex just a test drive?

The reason I can’t seem to let go of this thought is precisely because this friend is so clearly in love with his own spouse. When he speaks of her, his entire demeanor changes, becomes more tender. He respects her enormously. I wonder if it has ever occurred to her how his questions regarding chastity might sound when applied to his own relationship. I doubt that he would ever consider it this way toward the woman he loves, but it sounds as though premarital sex is, to him, a way of testing a potential mate to see if she measures up.

“I love you… so much that I think I want to spend my life with you. Now lie down so I can see if you’re good enough for me.”

I know he couldn’t possibly mean it the way it sounds.

Regardless, perhaps his questions deserve an answer. How can two people know they are compatible, if they have not slept together? How can one person know if the other will please?

The truth is that none of us knows what marriage is like, until we are in it. When a man is courting a woman, no matter how sincere they are, their behavior will evolve as their relationship evolves. Heaven help the relationship that never grows or evolves. Sex is, in that sense, no different from other elements of marital intimacy. The only way to know what a committed relationship is like with a person is to commit to that person.

Does this mean that it is impossible to have an inkling what to expect? Not at all. I knew, long before I married my husband, what he would be like in intimate situations. At least, I knew the important parts. I knew that he was generous, and made a priority of pleasing me. I knew that he physically desired me and I physically desired him. I knew that he always treated me with respect and passion… an important combination. I had no reason to believe that his personality would suddenly change when we were permitted to share a new level of intimacy.

The truth is, if we look carefully, it is not difficult to know what a potential spouse will be like sexually. A callous person will likely be a callous lover, and a patient person a patient lover. Aloof, generous, self-conscious, or silly, you probably know your potential spouse’s character long before you walk down the aisle. If you don’t, then premarital sex certainly isn’t going to bridge the gap between you. Sexual intimacy doesn’t cure a lack of emotional intimacy, but it can make such a lack more painful.

What it all boils down to is this: chastity is much more than mere abstinence. Chastity for people who are not in committed relationships is a protection from the sort who want to “test drive” them, using them as objects. For people who are in committed but premarital relationships, chastity is an opportunity to see one another in an honest light. It is a chance to evaluate just what kind of character this person has, before making the decision either to marry them blindly or objectify either yourself or the other person by subjecting yourselves to a test drive. It is a tremendous opportunity to grow in the kind of emotional intimacy that will only make physical intimacy, at the right time, better.

I cannot express how much joy it gives me to wake up in the morning, look at this person with whom I share total intimacy, and know that he is here for me, permanently. Chastity doesn’t deprive our relationship of something; rather, it gives us the assurance that what love we give we also receive back… with no fear of losing it.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: love

Posted By Christina M on December 26, 2003

To most of us, Advent (or the “Christmas Season” as it’s commonly known to those who don’t celebrate liturgical seasons) is a time of giving. As we fly around town buying gifts to give and foods to prepare, we can’t miss the Salvation Army bell ringers, or the donation drop off spots for winter coats. Then, there are the food drives.

Ah, the food drives. The grocery store has ’em. The discount store has ’em. Even the schools and the religious ed classes have ’em. It’s a good thing, teaching children to be generous, no?

It started with my son’s class. The high school was having a food drive contest, and the first period class that brought the most cans, boxes, and sundry packages would win a pizza party.

Nothing like generous motives, eh?

My son, enthusiastic to do his share, spent a weekend asking me to take him to Wal-Mart so he could spend an allowance on generic ramen to bring to school. Yes, ramen. The one food that the hungry probably can afford. And if I couldn’t bring him, could I at least let him bring something to school from our pantry? Anyone who didn’t bring something would not be allowed to participate in the pizza party, should his class win.

Again, nothing like generous motives.

But it got me to thinking: how many poor families are there who can’t afford to give allowances to the kids. You know, the very kinds of families these food drives are created to help. They tend to go to public schools, like my kids. They tend to be pressured into participating in these food drives, giving away food from their own pantries, so that they won’t be excluded from the rewards of giving. It seems a bit counterproductive to demand participation instead of merely requesting it, and to make those who are unable to spare any food feel ostracized.

Well, my son was fortunate, and had his allowance to spend. He brought his share of non-nutritive food to help the class effort, and although his class did not win, he felt good for having contributed.

The next day, another child was rooting through the pantry for food to bring to an elementary school food drive. It didn’t much matter that my check was two weeks late, and I was wondering how I was going to make ends meet myself: the pressure to give generously was intense. How could I say no, and deny my youngest a good example? Sensing a teaching opportunity, I took out one of the more expensive cans from the pantry and suggested it, since it was something that the needy might not be able to afford for themselves. I tossed in a few cans of soup for good measure.

Heaving a sigh of relief, I relaxed. My check would arrive any day, and we still had enough food to keep our rather sizeable family running till it did. That was when a third child came asking for food for another school food drive. That evening, the youngest came back for more, explaining that her religious education class was having a drive. Then, another child came for more for her religious ed class. Each head of each drive had explained the importance of generosity and the stinginess of not sharing. We were down to giving spinach.

Needless to say, I agree with the motive of generosity, but I was less than pleased with how this motive was pursued by each institution as though it were the only institution seeking it. Much more, though, I was bothered as another more saddening thought occurred to me. I thought about all the Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners that churches and other benefactors offer the homeless and other hungry. The food drives, the free coats, and the holiday dinners are good, and very important… but we seem to forget that the hungry need food all year long. Poverty does not mean getting hungry just once a year.

And that’s when it hit me, my own fault in the whole flurry of forced generosity. We — I — need to be generous all year long, not just when we are smitten with the self-warmth of feeling generous. If we gave in the Biblical spirit of secret alms, and did so all year long, perhaps the schools wouldn’t need to offer pizza parties to collect enough ramen noodles to feed the hungry for a month. It seems rather pathetic that they have to offer “good” food as a reward for bringing paltry food for those in genuine need.

Christmas may be over, but New Years is right around the corner. My friends, as we make our New Years resolutions, let us keep in mind the spirit of giving that kept us going for the past month. Now that we’ve given to our loved ones, and ourselves, let us remember all year long to be generous to those we do not know.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on December 10, 2003

It’s a cold winter day, and tiny snowflakes dust through the air. My children stand at the door trying to decide whether or not to wear coats. It isn’t that they like being cold, but they are victims of unreasonable academic responses to school violence. We live in the small town of Moses Lake, where the first of the school shootings took place. Some say that school violence is on the decrease and some say it is increasing. To the local school district, though, it doesn’t make much difference what the trends are; what’s done is done, and local officials remain on guard against any possibility of potential violence.

The ridiculous part is that none of the measures the local schools are taking would have prevented the tragedy that triggered these measures in the first place. The schools must do something, though, so they they enthusiastically do something. Anything. Regardless of its effectiveness, and regardless of the cost to innocent students.

Our junior high daughter is not allowed to wear a coat to class. Eight years ago Barry Loukaitis hid guns in a trenchcoat, so by jove the kids will not wear coats. They must stow them in lockers, and shiver in classrooms and passageways. The other option is to wear sweatshirts, which are allowed, and shiver to and from school.

Our highschoolers, on the other hand, have the opposite problem. To prevent school violence, their school has eliminated lockers. So while the junior highschoolers may not wear their coats to class, the highschoolers are required to wear them. But to compensate, they’ve outlawed trenchcoats. Evidently even the most violent sort of student, if he cannot wear the trenchcoat, will suddenly be peaceful. Students, I suppose, wouldn’t be smart enough to figure out other places to hide weapons, if they were so inclined.

The other middle school, across town, is where the shooting took place. They consequently feel a stronger need to take an active role in preventing future occurrances. Rumor has it that, to prevent registered students from shooting one another in the future, they have adopted name tags to keep non-students off campus.

I’m feeling kind of stupid for not following the logic here.

In all of these useless knee-jerk reactions, the one thing I haven’t seen is an increased effort at preventing bullying of the sort that set off Barry Loukaitis almost 8 years ago. They try, but they still miss the point. Our third grader came home with a handout about bullying, and what it is. It said emphatically that nobody has the right to bully you. Well, Barry knew that, too. But he didn’t know how to control his anger when it happened anyway. Telling children that they have a right not to be bullied doesn’t prevent bullying; teacher interference does. Better supervision, not name tags or shivering arms, is what makes the difference.

Extreme reactions like eliminating coats or lockers are usually too little — or too much — too late. Preventing non-students from being on campus does nothing to prevent registered students from doing what Barry did. If a kid is determined enough to do harm, he will find a way, with or without a trenchcoat. The key is to help kids not to reach that point of desolation in the first place.

And the only way to do that is with human involvement and concern.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on December 4, 2003

What has the politically correct “right to die” movement to do with sexual predation? Nothing, one might think; one would be wrong. Now that society has increasingly accepted the idea that murder is right as long as the victim wanted to be murdered, killing is being not merely tolerated but sanctioned for a whole lot of motives that don’t necessarily involve mercy.

We’ve been watching the drama play out in the Terri Schiavo case. We know that her husband, Michael, stands to inherit the rest of her million or so dollars supposedly earmarked for her rehabilitation, if he can only convince the courts to starve her to death. What once was promoted as a humanitarian movement now often bears little resemblence to any effort to improve the lot of the suffering. Society has come to accept when motives of mercy for the victim cross over into motives of selfishness on the part of others.

You might think that one case hardly constitutes a “slippery slope.” Think again. Now the humanitarian argument is being used as a defense in a German case involving a cannibal who videotaped himself mutilating, killing, and eating a willing victim. (Warning: the full story may give you nightmares. Do not let your kids see this.)

It seems this man of (ahem) unusual appetites placed a personals ad on the internet seeking “young, well-built men aged 18 to 30 for slaughter.” Since the victim answered the ad of his own volition, and declined opportunities to back out, the defense is arguing that this was killing, but not murder. “Killing on demand” is what Germany calls it. I think it obvious that the phrase was coined to encompass euthanasia, not sexual deviancy, but even so it is a crime. It carries a much lower penalty than murder, however, because Germany has bought into (or continued to buy into?) the idea that some lives are worth less than others.

I hate to put it so bluntly, when referring to a nation that has struggled to overcome the history of the past century; but the legal system bears out that in today’s Germany, it is still possible to take some lives without it being called murder.

What we have to remember, though, is that as a nation we are in no position to cast stones. Our (United States) courts have allowed Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube to removed before, and may yet again. Our courts have ruled that the lives of the elderly, disabled, and unborn are less valuable than those of healthy members of the workforce. And our courts have repeatedly ruled that those whose lives pose an inconvenience to others may be disposed of.

And most of us sit by quietly, lamenting but doing little.

The only way we can ease our collective conscience is if we speak up for the value of every person’s life.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: pro life

Posted By Christina M on November 30, 2003

It’s official… Advent is here, Thanksgiving is past, and we’re allowed now to listen to Christmas music in the open. Deck the Halls!

I’ve heard occasional criticisms of the way that American Christians celebrate the coming of Christmas. Many faithful Catholics I know are quick to remind me that this season is Advent, not Christmas… liturgically, a “purple” season. For those of you who are blinking at this information, purple signifies penitence. My thought is that it is precisely because Advent is a season set aside, it is appropriate to get into the “spirit” of the season. Advent is penitent, yes, but not in the same sense that Lent is. It is a penitence not of sorrow but of expectancy.

Being with child myself reminds me all the more of the difference. I, too, am in a condition of “denial” as I wait and prepare for my little one. The little denials of pregnancy include things like alcohol and too much sugar. I have to be dependent on others to lift heavy objects for me. But in these little sacrifices, I celebrate. Expectant mothers wait for their newborns with both sacrifice and celebration, at the same time. I can’t help thinking that this is how we can view the Advent (coming) of Jesus, also. I don’t want to forego celebrating the coming of Jesus any more than I intend to pass on baby showers or enjoying the fun of talking about baby names. Part of the season of expectancy is preparation; and spending too much time on dourness and too little on celebration tends to make it harder, not easier, to remember whom we are awaiting.

But what about secular Christmas songs? Yes, it’s true, we do have a lot of traditions that have little to do directly with Christ’s coming. We sing songs about sleigh bells and shopping and snowmen; How does this remind us that we’re preparing for Christ’s coming?

My mother made a good point on that subject. She reminded me of my childhood, when at family birthday parties we would sing Ring Around the Rosies, and play games like Pin the Tail on the Donkey. What did these, indeed, have to do with the child whose birth was being celebrated? Yet songs and games that became tradition, even if they had nothing overt to do with the birthday girl or boy, were part of the celebration. They were not so much a sign of that person, or even of birth, as they were simply elements of our idea of celebrating. They were things set apart, things we reserved for birthdays. That made them special and relevant.

Celebrating that Christ is coming is appropriate, and it is likewise appropriate to celebrate this coming using feast elements that we reserve for Him, and for this time of year. If they serve to remind us to make ready for Him, then they have served their purpose.

My husband and I already have a cradle set up for the baby, and we already have decorations set up for Christmas. They both prepare us and add to our sense of anticipation.

O come, o come, Emmanuel! We’ll keep the lights on for You.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on November 25, 2003

The good news is that a new Planned Parenthood clinic has been effectively blocked from being built. Through the process of choice. One by one, contractors have chosen to drop out of the project, after urging by pro life groups and the threat of a boycott by Austin and San Antonio area churches. Alexander Sanger, grandson of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, says “It’s profoundly threatening to American values.”

American values? I wonder how many Americans with values of any sort would agree with the values espoused by Margaret Sanger and the organization she founded. We already know that the majority of Americans are pro-life. Poll after poll has demonstrated it, including a very recent Gallup poll showing that teens are even more pro-life than adults.

But even fewer would agree with the Sangers if they knew Margaret’s motivation for promoting abortion. Sanger was, to put it bluntly, a racist and a believer in eugenics. She toured internationally espousing Nazi views and promoting abortion as a way of eliminating black and other non-aryan populations. If you don’t want to believe this on the strength of web articles, I urge you to get hold of original publications written by Ms. Sanger herself. I found her writings in a university library, and discovered for myself her racist views.

Today is a time when racism is far less tolerated than it was in Margaret Sanger’s day. Her grandson, Alexander, must therefore be far more cautious in being upfront about the racist goals of Planned Parenthood, even as Planned Parenthood continues to build the vast majority of their clinics in ethnic neighborhoods, among people who favor the complete illegalization of abortion even more strongly than the general American population. Yet Alexander, on his way into office, said “With all her success, my grandmother left some unfinished business, and I intend to finish it.” And we know what her unfinished business was: minority people have not been eliminated.

Perhaps I am just not cynical enough. I do not, cannot, believe that the Sangers represent American values. Americans value equality, and the rights of all people. The contractors who are refusing to participate in the war against minorities… they are representing, far more surely, American values.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: pro life

Posted By Christina M on November 24, 2003

If you listened to the squeakiest wheels, you would get the impression that most people, and all reasonable people, are pro-choice. Pro-choice, these same squeaky wheels would further claim, means in favor of abortion rights, whether or not they would personally have an abortion. The implication is that even if you don’t believe in abortion, if you are reasonable, you will support complete availability of abortion on demand with no restrictions.

There’s just one problem with that line of thought: it isn’t true. A recent Gallup Poll contradicts it. Teens, we learn, the group most available for indoctrination on the subject, oppose abortion on demand; at least, the majority of them do. What makes this information even more interesting is the realization that this is the group most likely to benefit socially from the availability of abortion.

Think about it: this is a group of people who, if they become pregnant, have the most to fear. They have social ostracization to worry about, not to mention family censure and the destruction of many of their plans for the future; yet this group — 72% of them — believes that abortion is morally wrong. And not just for them personally, but for society… in fact, an even higher percentage of the teens polled, 79%, believe that abortion should be either banned completely or legally restricted.

The percentages, in fact, are even higher than those of their adult counterparts who have far less to worry about in the event of unexpected pregnancy. Yet even among adults, the same opinions prevail: 72% of adults polled favor the illegalization or restriction of abortion.

So, when we hear that most people favor “choice,” we should ask just who those people are. When Gallup, a neutral and objective pollster finds that the majority of Americans, both adult and youth, disapprove of abortion and want the law to do something about it, the American people have spoken. Those who say otherwise are not speaking for the majority, and should not be permitted to dictate public policy. They are merely squeaky wheels.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: pro life

Posted By Christina M on November 22, 2003

No matter how hard you try to avoid it, you simply cannot, lately, escape the media blitz surrounding the Michael Jackson pedophilia case. Our nation is just beginning to wind down from the Catholic Church scandal, and it seems as though the American people are hungry for more sensationalism and rumors of pedophilia.

But with one difference: the information mills seem to be scouring the horizon for evidence that Poor Michael Jackson is a victim of unfair allegations and attacks on his reputation and career. No such evidence was sought or supplied in most of the Church scandal stories.

Stories like this week’s from the Sunday Herald highlight comments made by Jackson’s family members stating that he couldn’t possibly be guilty. Even while they relay Jackson’s own defensive comments with tongue-in-cheek cynicism, they further his defense and imply that Michael Jackson’s oddity points to instability, not malice.

Where were the interviews with family members when priests stood accused?

The news stories and gossip-on-the-street also frequently imply that the Jackson case is more about an attack on his status than it is a rightful accusation. The prosecutor might be, just possibly, acting on a grudge, the article mentioned above hints. It points out the possibility, then quickly pulls away… just presenting it long enough to leave a doubt in the mind of the reader. Other people, both journalists and gossips alike, have stirred the same rumors. Other rumors include that this is nothing more than a career opportunity for all lawyers involved, or even that poor Michael Jackson is being accused for financial gain, or even solely because of his race.

How often do you recall seeing mainstream media imply, over the past two years, that many of the priest accusations might have stemmed from bigotry or the wish for financial gain?

Finally, I haven’t seen any broad, categorical denunciations yet based on Michael Jackson’s alleged behavior. I have yet to see any pedophile jokes beginning with “How many singers does it take…” You see, when it is a popular figure who is implicated, the natural instinct is to want to limit accusations, offer “other sides” to the story, and most certainly to prevent the accusations from being spread more widely against others who share a career or religion with him. No such protection has been offered the Catholic Church, or priests in general. We’ve all been subjected to the priest jokes.

Am I bitter? Maybe a little. But mostly, I am hurt for the people who are hurt in both scandals. The innocent victims of molestation, whether by a rich man or by a poor man who represents a rich institution, deserve our compassion. But those accused also deserve a fair hearing. Perhaps because Jackson has both more to lose financially and more resources personally available to him, he will get the fair trial that many accused priests have not gotten. Even in cases where charges were rejected by law enforcement for complete lack of evidence, many priests have suffered punishment merely for having been accused.

And I hurt for the priests who have never been implicated at all. Many good men who have diligently served God, Church, and parish have suffered from the categorical judgment of all priests. I hurt for them, too.

The “media” must bear some responsibility for imbalance in reporting the two scandals. Yet they cannot bear all the responsibility for leading us as a nation in judging the accused in a very imbalanced way: for they could not lead us if we would not follow. If we must be hungry enough to feed the frenzy for sensationalistic stories of high-profile pedophilia, shouldn’t we at least demand consistency in how they are presented?

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Christina M on November 18, 2003

Today I am scheduled for a prenatal sonogram, and I am filled with excitement. I get to learn, I hope, whether my baby is a boy or a girl. This is an occasion of joy, and the opportunity to decide whether to keep the blue hand-me-downs or the pink. Getting a peek into the window of the womb should be a moment of wonder and joy.

Sadly, prenatal testing isn’t always either so joyful or so optimistic. It has become routine in the United States for obstetricians to ask pregnosaurs if they want amniocentisis and other screenings for birth defects. The purpose is heavily implied, if not stated outright. “Defective” babies, many in our society believe, ought to be eliminated. UK’s Daily Telegraph refers to it as “weed[ing] out those with serious chromosome disorders.”

Weeding out?

Are less than perfect babies weeds to be removed like stray thistles? What does this say of our view toward disabled, and for that matter, even minority people? Eugenics have rarely been used to remove the ill or “damaged” from society without eventually progressing to the removal of social outcasts and minorities.

And by “removal” I mean genocide.

Look at what happened when the Nazi party decided to rid Germany of “defective” people. They started with the ill and disabled. They moved on to welfare recipients, retirees, criminals, and social undesireables. Before long, they’d moved from social undesireables to racial undesireables.

Is this really the direction we want to go?

I’m having this sonogram to make sure that the pregnancy is progressing properly, and to prepare myself and my doctor for any potential delivery problems, not to “weed out” my child should he or she be discovered “defective.” I already declined genetic testing for my baby.

Does that mean it makes no difference if it turns out that my baby has health problems? Of course not. It simply means that my baby’s life is of value for its own sake, and that this value is not dependent on being physically perfect. I dearly hope that my baby will not have any health problems; but I could never stop loving this child, enough to “weed” him or her out, if my hope for a healthy baby were disappointed.

For that matter, I look at my husband. He is one of the most gifted, kind, generous, hard-working people I have ever known. He is a blessing not only to our family, but to each person who has the pleasure of knowing him. I thank God that my mother in law would never have aborted him, had she known that he would be born with asthma, allergies, ADHD, and Tourette’s syndrome. I am likewise very grateful for the blessing of my son who has Tourette’s.

Anyone who thinks that a child with problems is “defective” must first overlook his own defects; for don’t we all suffer from various challenges and shortcomings?

I wish the phrase “birth defect” had never been coined. No human life should ever be considered defective.

Category: Uncategorized
No Comments »
Tags: pro life