I am celebrating Labor Day (and my upcoming 40th birthday) by taking a week off blogging. Grad school is absolutely wonderful and requires quite a bit more effort than the "real world," especially as I work to get my health back to 100%. While I reserve the right to break my own embargo, I hope to refrain from posting again until next weekend.
Many thanks again, as always, to those of you who have prayed for me. The experience I had the day I began this new stage of my life, with its sense of certainty that I was where I was supposed to be at that moment, gave me great joy. As a commenter wrote, it truly is the best feeling.
I am also beginning to feel inspired to do in-depth writing (as opposed to blogging or simple news reporting) for the first time since composing "Eve of Deconstruction: Feminism and John Paul II" some months ago. If the inspiration continues, I may extend the blogging hiatus to see how far it takes me—whether it leads to another magazine article, a book, or a paper for school. And if it only does lead to a school paper and nothing "saleable," something inside me feels that—as much as this newly full-time student could use some extra writing income—it will be more than worth it.
* * *
The most fascinating piece of writing I have read during the past month, other than assigned reading (Father Aidan Nichols O.P. rocks my world), is the "Freedom from Adam's Sin" chapter of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Daughter Zion. It made me revisit a piece I had previously read, St. Maximilian Kolbe's final essay, "The Immaculate Conception—Who Are You?" (available in The Kolbe Reader), and find it alive with new meaning.
Together, those works, as well as the Pius X encyclical I read earlier (and now need to reread) answered many questions I had about the Immaculate Conception, opening up exciting vistas. One day, I hope to have the theological grounding to explore those vistas in my own writings. But first, I need to buy the Blackfriars Summa ...
* * *
Commenters, your civility during my absence is greatly appreciated, as always. While I will try to resist commenting myself, I will spy in from time to time to keep the peace.
Please pray for a dear friend of mine who just contracted Lyme disease while on an out-of-town trip to attend his father's funeral.
The disease was diagnosed early, thankfully, and he is receiving antibiotics, but he does have symptoms. I know he would appreciate your prayers. Thank you.
Jill Stanek, who will certainly have something to say about McCain veep pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, on her blog, wrote earlier today in an e-mail (links are my addition):
Obama relegated these babies to death despite testimony that at least one aborted-alive Down's baby had been abandoned to die in a hospital soiled-utility room.
As a friend of mine says, the choice between good and evil could not be more obvious this election. May the best man and woman win.
Utterly exhausted after a wonderful and intense first day of grad school as one of the few lay students at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies, but have a Q. to pose to readers in the know, especially priests and seminarians:
Today, I contacted a Catholic priest I know—a particularly inspiring one who has helped me to grow in the Faith—to tell him of my delight at being where I was and thank him for his prayers. I added that sometime I would like to talk with him about the joy I experienced upon realizing that learning Thomism would enable me to gain a deeper understanding of the movements of God in my soul that had sparked my conversion.
The priest interrupted me to say he wasn't a Thomist.
I started to say that was fine, thinking I couldn't expect everyone to be as awed by the Angelic Doctor as I was. But then Father explained that by the time he reached seminary—which I know was during the 1990s—Thomism had been "denounced" at that particular school, which has a reputation as one of the best (if not the best) in the country. They didn't teach Thomism there "at all," he said.
I had been aware there was a backlash against Aquinas sometime during the mid-20th century, one that began before Vatican II, but I did not realize it had lasted at at least one top U.S. seminary into the 1990s. It was a surprise to learn the Angelic Doctor's teachings could have been denounced at so late a date, to the point where the "best and brightest" were not being taught his work at all.
Is that still the case at many, or even most, U.S. seminaries? Or has the tide finally turned back to at least a grudging acknowlegment that St. Thomas deserves Summa respect?
I wrote yesterday (Sunday) that there was so much I would like to write to you on the eve of my orientation day as a theology student (M.A. track) at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at Dominican House of Studies, where I have landed following a somewhat atypical trajectory.
Well, there is ten times as much that I would like to write to you now. For me, it was "orientation day" in more ways than one.
For now, I would like to share a thought that emerged this evening:
I believe I understand one reason God allowed me to suffer the operations and (so far) successful treatment I have endured since this past December for thyroid cancer. In fact, it would not surprise me if it were the reason.
It is so that you would pray for me. Because I so needed the help of the prayers of the Communion of Saints—that is, you and, through you, Christ's Mystical Body on Earth and in Heaven—as well as those of my friends and family not in communion with the Church.
Because it was with those prayers that, for the first time since the day I entered the Church, I felt today the certain knowledge, grounded in the understanding that comes from faith, that I was exactly where He wanted me to be at that moment.
More soon. Need sleep for the first day of class. I wanted so badly to shake hands with my new classmates at the opening Mass of the Holy Spirit today, and my body's leftover radiation was by then low enough that I could have—but I played it safe because my hands were wet, or should I say contaminated, with tears. After all, the Dominicans' motto, as I learned in this month's Magnificat, is contemplata aliis tradere—handing on to others the fruit of our contemplation—not contaminata allis tradere. (Forgive me if I am mangling the language of the Church; my first Elementary Latin I class is not until Wednesday.)
"It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes."—Psalm 119:71 (KJV)
RELATED: If you are seeking guidance in your life, I recommend an essay I noted in June by Father Peter F. Ryan S.J., professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary Seminary: "How to Discern the Elements of Your Personal Vocation." It is not only for those discerning a religious vocation. In fact, it had particular meaning for me as a laywoman, helping me become more receptive to God's will for me.
I must get some sleep now, as tomorrow is orientation day at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at Dominican House of Studies, where I will begin full-time graduate studies in the M.A. theology program on Tuesday.
There is so much I have been wanting to write to you these past couple of weeks related to this new phase of my life, including one last grateful musing on my Sydney tour. However, I have mostly confined myself to subjects that are easier to write about (e.g. politics and lighter things) due to last week's radioactive-iodine treatment and the exhausting preparation it entailed.
Please know that I am very, very thankful to have the gift of good health and good spirits as I enter DHS, and remain grateful to those of you whose prayers have carried me through this time of transition. Until I learn the Dominican order's favorite phrase of praise, I will just keep saying ad majorem Dei gloriam!
Last night, I dreamed I saw a pair of adorable little ducklings walking across a lawn, panhandling. One of them carried a clear plastic cup that had bits of food in it.
They asked me for food for the hungry—hungry ducklings, I presumed. I was finishing a roll and had stuffed an indelicately large bite of bread in my mouth—a reflection of my usual manners when I think no one is watching, sorry to say. Since I didn't have any other food on me—and recalled that it was not unheard of for mama birds to chew chicks' food for them—I removed the doughy lump from inside my cheek and placed it in the cup.
There was a pause. "Thanks for the, uh, charitable donation," one of them commented in a heavily ironic tone laced with disgust.
I walked away embarrassed, then checked myself, baffled at their ingratitude. "Why do they need to ask for food anyway?" I said to myself. "They're ducks. God feeds them."
If you have ever loved Sixties British psychedelia and wished you could stroll down London's legendary Denmark Street around the autumn of 1968, the answer would have to be the high-quality video of the British group Nirvana, shot for Danish TV, which can be seen large-screen on the group's new Web site.
I'm only sorry the clip doesn't include audio for the songwriting session that begins it. Instead, there are snippets of their mordant 1969 tune "Black Flower" and their 1967 classic "Rainbow Chaser." Overlaying the Denmark Street footage at the end is the sparkling "Orange and Blue," a tune the duo recorded circa mid-1990s that does an impressive job of recapturing their old charm.
About four minutes into the clip is an interview that gives a hint of Patrick Campbell-Lyons' and Alex Spyropoulos's depth and honesty, which was still very present when I interviewed them more than 25 years later. While they wore the Carnaby Street clothes and stoned appearance of their contemporaries, they would have been creative artists even if there had never been a Beatle bandwagon.
But I admit Alex's story of their pregnant cellist did make me think that Christopher Guest is going to steal that one, should he ever make a prequel to "This Is Spinal Tap."
MORE:Nirvana's site also features press clippings and contact forms for Patrick and Alex. But stay away from the press clippings if you are practicing custody of the eyes, as there is at least one "artistic" photo (though its inclusion is within a historical context, documenting the band's appearance on French TV with Salvador Dali).
National Review Online's Andrew McCarthy sums it up:
When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.
McCarthy's op-ed includes a link to the Illinois State Senate's official transcript of Obama's speaking in opposition of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protectiion Act. Jill Stanek's blog has audio of the part of Obama's speech in which he argued against placing the "burden" on abortion doctors to get a second opinion on whether a still-moving infant survived an abortion. There is no question of the authenticity of the audio, which was found on the Chicago Tribune Web site.
As McCarthy adds,
This is staggering. As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.
Through Obama’s radical prism, everything “is about abortion and not live births.” But in reality, this had nothing to do with “burden[ing] the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” It was about the legal and moral responsibilities of doctors and nurses in circumstances where, despite that decision, a living human being was delivered.
Obama, who vehemently accused National Right to Life of "lying" about his Born Alive vote, has yet to display the leadership and accountability to at least admit that he himself has repeatedly lied about both his vote and his reasons for voting as he did. (That link will show you his "top ten"; he's up to about twelve different excuses by now.)
It’s too burdensome, Obama argues, to have a second doctor check on the infant. But why was this “burden” of a second examination added? Because the doctors who aborted the children were the ones ordering the staff to discard them after they were born alive. [Christ Hospital nurse Jill] Stanek made that extremely and explicitly clear in her testimony, which Obama attended. He acts as if she had never spoken, and that the subsequent investigation hadn’t shown evidence that Christ Hospital wasn’t alone in this practice. ...
Obama wanted to protect the abortion industry from acknowledging this disgusting practice, and so he just pretended in his speech that the issue was purely academic. He refused to stop infanticide in order to shield the multi-billion-dollar abortion lobby.
RELATED: A visual reminder on why Sen. John McCain consistently earns a "zero percent" rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America—meaning he has never voted in favor of the abortion lobby's bills—while Obama consistently enjoys a "100 percent" NARAL rating:
In fact, Obama's opposing to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act even with a clause that "protected Roe" actually makes him more pro-abortion than NARAL. As NRO's McCarthy wrote, that is truly staggering.
"While admittedly a somewhat simplistic or even reductionist argument, I have always had a slight dislike for Elizabeth Bennett, in that she only really begins to fall in love with Mr. Darcy once she sees what a grand house he lives in."
In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law.
He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.
In an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the legislation's sponsor, Obama's concern was about second guessing the abortionist.
Here is what he said:
[STATE SEN. OBAMA:] As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.
SHORTER BARACK OBAMA: Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion.
Read the full post on RedState, which links to the transcript of Obama's statements on the State Senate floor.
As I've mentioned, Stanek is really doing yeoman's work exposing Obama's extremism on this issue. The man who would be President went out of his way to take a position that was not only pro-abortion but even pro-infanticide. As a result, Stanek is receiving the full force of attacks from Team Obama. Please keep her and everyone who is working to expose the truth on this issue in your prayers.
UPDATE, 8/21/08: Home and doing well! Much thanks for prayers. Will be taking it easy for the next few days. A good time to e-mail me a guest post if you've got a good one up your sleeve.
Original post:
This morning, I enter the hospital one more time, for the radioactive-iodine therapy that will, God willing, ensure my body contains no more thyroid tissue in the wake of the completion of my thyroidectomy last May.
As you may recall, that operation and the partial thyroidectomy that preceded it in January both found cancer, which the doctors said had not spread, thank God. The radioactive-iodine therapy is a targeted search-and-destroy procedure designed to kill any leftover, potentially cancerous thyroid cells.
Your prayers during this time have helped me more than I can say. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please keep storming the gates of Heaven, particularly over the next two days. To aid your petitions and also perhaps ease your worries (in case you might imagine this procedure is worse than it is), following is a rundown of what exactly is going on, including what I am expected to undergo and what I pray will not occur.
HOW AM I DOING RIGHT NOW? Great—when I'm on my thyroid hormone, as I was during my World Youth Day appearances last month. But my doctor had me go off the hormone upon returning home, so that my body could be ready for treatment—and being without it makes me sluggish and tired. So, right now, I feel like forty miles of bad road.
Once I am released from the hospital this Thursday, I will be put back on thyroid hormone. That should lead to a complete restoration of my usual good health and energy—again, God willing.
WHAT WILL I UNDERGO? After arriving at the hospital at 10:30 a.m. Eastern today, I will first be put through the proverbial, unspecified "tests."
Afterward, I will be led to my hospital room, which, as I understand from the reading I have done on the subject, will look rather creepy, as everything in it will be encased in plastic. Once my treatment begins, everyone who deals with me in the hospital will likewise be under heavy physical protection to prevent contamination. (At least I can take comfort that the nature of the procedure guarantees me a single room.)
I have been told I can bring my laptop and books if I wear double gloves while handling them. However, a reader adds that I must absolutely not sneeze, drool, or sweat on my possessions, as anything that is contaminated will be kept in the hospital—perhaps for weeks—until it is no longer radiation.
So, I will buy some dust masks before heading over to the hospital, just to be on the safe side. Yes, I know I could just make a "retreat" and leave my computer at home, but I am afraid I would be too lonely being sans practically all human contact, including e-mail, plus unable to leave my room.
Visitors can basically stop by and wave. There will be a line on the floor that they cannot cross. (That reminds me; I need to let my parish's priests know the rules. Perhaps canon law would allow them to place Communion on a table that could be rolled in my direction.)
OK—SO WHAT EXACTLY WILL I UNDERGO? Oh, yeah, the actual treatment: First, I will be given some sort of shot—in my shoulder, I think—to ward off nausea. Then I will take one pill containing radioactive iodine. And then I will "glow" for two days while the tainted iodine kills off my remaining thyroid tissue, until the doctors agree it is safe to re-inflict me on the outside world.
WHEN DO I EXPECT TO BE HOME? Sometime Thursday afternoon, but, as I said, it's the doctors' call.
WILL IT BE SAFE TO SIT NEXT TO ME IN A PEW THIS SUNDAY? Yes. The book my doctor lent me advises that, upon coming home, I "sleep alone for three nights" and "avoid kissing and sexual intercourse for three days." So, I can't attend Mass at Georgetown.
Cue rimshot.
HOW ABOUT AT MY OWN PARISH? The book also advises I not be next to anyone for more than an hour for three days. Assuming Monsignor Filardi keeps his homily to the usual length, everyone should get out of Sunday Mass alive. But, just to be on the safe side, I may use the radiation excuse to avoid the Greeting of Peace for the next 47 years.
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS? The worst risk would be not to have the treatment at all. My Feast of the Assumption scan showed I do have some leftover thyroid tissue, which the doctors have to assume is cancerous, even though it may not be. If it is cancerous, it would go straight to my lungs. So, [to the tune of "Louie Louie":] "Marie Curie, oh no, it's gotta go, ay-yi-yi-yi-yi ..."
So, then, what are the potential complications? The hospital's nuclear-medicine chief outlined them for me after Friday's scan:
Nausea—Hence the shot that I will receive before treatment. The doctor didn't say this directly, but I'm sure nobody there wants to do a hazardous-waste cleanup. Plus it would mean having to start the treatment again from square one, with my having to receive a second dose of radiation. They want to get it all done without my body's having to receive any more nuclear medicine. So, please pray the treatment doesn't sicken me.
Damage to my salivary glands—This can be prevented if I suck on sour lemon drops or lemon slices following treatment, and also if I am hydrating a lot. I have stocked up on the drops, lemons, and mineral water, all of which I am allowed to bring with me. Worst-case scenario, according to the doctor: having to use "fake saliva" for the rest of my life. Yikes! Please pray that doesn't happen.
And, of course, the doctor had to warn me about ...
... really bad, horrible stuff I don't even want to think about— There are a host of other potential complications from radiation, all of which are thankfully very rare, but which include other forms of cancer. She pointed out the "1 in 10,000" risk of leukemia, for example. I have since read that the risk of such cancers is even more unlikely, at least if this treatment "takes" so that I do not need to have it done over again.
So, please pray that the treatment does take, and that, just this once, I am not a "1 in 10,000" kind of gal. Heck, I don't even want to be one in a million right now. I just want to be completely free of my wayward thyroid tissue so I can be back at or near 100% next week—just in time to begin a new life as a full-time student in Dominican House of Studies' theology master's program. Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt to address some prayers to St. Thomas and St. Dominic.
Many thanks! Know that, as one of my readers, you are in my intentions as I "offer it up." And, speaking of St. Thomas, in the words of one of my favorite Thomists, God love you!
In case I'm up for blogging from the hospital, please feel free to suggest witty, radiation-related headlines in the comments. Extra points for variations on my book's title.
"All of Obama's misrepresentations and contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure the position he actually articulated and acted on in 2001 through 2003. Obama explained in 2001 that he opposed the state bill to protect born-alive infants because it would apply before the point of long-term survivability -- so-called 'viability.' This is the same objection that NARAL originally voiced to the federal bill, in 2000. But that was exactly the point of the bill -- to make it clear that a live-born baby was a legally protected person for as long as he or she lived, whether for a day, an hour, or a minute.
"Neither the original version of the legislation, nor the final state version that Obama killed in 2003, contained any language to protect babies before the point of live birth. On the 2001 and 2002 state bills, Obama took to a position that already had been rejected by the U.S. House 380-15 (in 2000). In 2003, Obama took a position on the abortion-survivor legislation that was more extreme than any member of Congress of either party. ...
"The Obama of 2001-2003 really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, 'A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."
RELATED: An Israeli baby revives after doctors declared it dead and put it in a hospital's freezer. Her parents demand answers while hospital staff, egg on their faces, sniff that "even if she lives, she will have significant brain damage."
Is the baby, born at 26 weeks, a human being, however "damaged" it may be? Does it deserve a shot a life, however long it may live—as Johnson says, "whether for a day, an hour, a minute"?
After the candidates' Rick Warren interviews Saturday night, Barack Obama gave an exclusive one-on-one to Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, calling National Right to Life "lying" and "ridiculous" for claiming he opposed an Illinois bill to protect babies who survived abortion even when the bill explicitly protected Roe vs. Wade.
Obama: ... They [at NRLC] have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.
So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.
Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available. [See them here.—Ed.]
And that's why, less than a day after calling NRLC liars, Obama denied his own denial, as today's Sun reports:
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
Obama's promise of "CHANGE" becomes more ironic with each passing day. This new twist marks at least the eleventh time he has changed his excuse for casting a vote that effectively supported infanticide.
Little did Obama know his own words would so quickly condemn him. He admitted what he did "defies common sense and it defies imagination." In fact, it was heinous.
While the Obama campaign tonight finally admitted Obama has misrepresented his Born Alive vote all these years, it had the audacity to offer a ludicrous excuse, an excuse Obama himself contradicted only 24 hours ago, as he has for years, that "I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported."
Earlier yesterday, before the Obama campaign's admission, TownHall.com columnist Guy Benson offered a good rundown of the possible reasons "why Barack Obama really opposed this legislation," leading with this one:
It’s already been established that his standard explanation isn’t the truth, so what’s the genuine reason? One possible answer is that Obama’s commitment to legalized abortion runs so deep that he believes the Constitution guarantees that “right,” even if the initial abortion procedure fails. Put crudely, once a woman chooses to abort, she’s entitled to a dead baby. That position is so far out of the mainstream, it’s no wonder Obama may have decided to use misdirection and deception to explain away his vote.
Indeed.
MORE:American Papist's Thomas Peters writes to me that he is going to comment on this today. Also, keep an eye on Jill Stanek's blog, as she has been doing yeoman's work keeping up with this fast-developing story.
My alarm went off yesterday at 7:45 a.m. At 7:52, after one "snooze," I was out of bed and offering up whatever I was about to endure for special intentions that I asked Our Lady to place in her Immaculate Heart.
Thirty-five minutes later, I was lying on a slab inside a silent, sarcophagus-like cylinder, swaddled mummy-like from neck to toe in a white flannel sheet, unable to move. The cylinder was open on one side—like a slick modern take on a first-century tomb. The only image I could see, painted in brown on the grayish interior that curved two inches above my face, was two perpendicular lines that overlapped one another directly above the bridge of my nose. A perfect cross, the kind seeming to "extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape," as G.K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy.
In case you haven't guessed, I was getting a radiological test in advance of my hospitalization next Tuesday through Thursday. With me all "meanly swaddled" (as Peter Cook would say), it looked something like this photo I later found online, only the scanner was designed with an opening of a few inches on the left-hand side, so I wasn't completely shut in. Also, unlike an MRI test, there was no noise.
This is not me—but it shows what I mean by "swaddled."
To make it even more surreal, my head was inside for only the first 10 minutes or so. Then the slab slowly emerged just enough so my face was in the light. The rest of me was still swaddled for about another 10 minutes, when the tech unwrapped my arms and had me fold my hands across my chest, where they had to remain for the rest of the half-hour test.
The experience taught me a couple of theological lessons, the first a reminder that—to borrow a phrase from Ray Pritchard's First Law of the Spiritual Life—she's the Mother of God and I'm not.
Meaning, for example, I should stop complaining already. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen observed (after spending his Feast of the Assumption getting a pacemaker implant), "If the Lord called her, who 'deserved' no pain, to stand at the foot of the Cross, why should He not call me?"
A 30-minute radiology scan is nothing compared to what the Blessed Virgin went through. She had Seven Sorrows. I have $7 salads.
The other lesson was that, while I realize some Catholic theologians assert that the Blessed Virgin did not die but only "fell asleep," there is really something reassuring in the thought that she imitated her Son to the point of experiencing death. After just 10 minutes with my head inside a whitewashed "tomb," I don't want to think about Our Lady's having been lowered into a real one if she were in fact "not dead yet."
TRACKBACK: I am honored to have inspired a fellow blogger's recollection of a radiology test that was a little too close to a certain classic "Twilight Zone" episode.
On this glorious Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, here is more gorgeous Gombert from NYC's Church of Notre Dame choir, via choire member Fallen Sparrow, who also took the photos.
To those who insist upon considering the election a toss-up between two "pro-choice" candidates because of McCain's support of embryonic stem-cell research, read Obama's lips:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying and blogging it until people are ready to run in the opposite direction, screaming with their ears covered. I just don’t see how someone who claims to follow Christ can believe women have the right to choose to kill their unborn babies. I just don’t get it. Listen to this guy, this Christ-professing man [in the video above:]
To fan-girl applause, Barack Obama, who voted for the Freedom of Choice Act last year, says the first thing he’ll do when he takes office is sign the bill into law.
“On this issue, I will not yield.”
In contrast, John McCain, a man I’ll reluctantly, with a strenuous effort, vote for in November, said this about partial birth abortion:
“I will do everything in my power to ban that horrible procedure.”
Now, it doesn’t matter to me whether McCain is a Christian or not. At the very least, he’s against so-called partial birth abortion, and that’s good enough for me. When it comes to unborn life, I will not yield. Any Obama supporter who claims to be a Christian ought to be ashamed. I hate it, man. But I’m not your judge, so what I say or think about you won’t really matter, will it?
RELATED: As La Shawn adds, oh, brother. Do tell McCain what you think of his "trial balloon" hinting at a pro-abortion veep.
With a lot of help from your prayers, despite the sluggishness that comes from having to temporarily go without thyroid hormone (which is only 'til my treatment's over), I was able to put in a joyful hour helping Sister Anne Elizabeth in the Georgetown Visitation Monastery garden on Wednesday afternoon.
Sister Anne Elizabeth actually picked the veggies shown, but I pulled up weeds and unwanted vines, as you can see in her poetic account of the afternoon on the Visitation Sisters' Live + Jesus blog.
Eight hours from now, I will visit the hospital for a 45-minute body scan that will show the doctors how much tissue left over from my thyroidectomy needs to be nuked when I go in for my radioactive-iodine treatment next Tuesday. Then I will be free to go home until my Tuesday hospitalization, and can take it easy as I prep for my talk at St. Charles Borromeo Sunday night.
Actually, I'm really working this hospitalization thing, which is not as serious as it sounds. The "nuking" will consist of a single radioactive-iodine pill that I will take upon being admitted to the hospital next Tuesday, where I will be isolated until the radiation lessens enough for them to let me go Thursday afternoon.
I truly have a lot to be thankful for on this Feast of the Assumption for all the blessings I have received this past year, particularly that my cancer was diagnosed before it could be spread, I am getting the very best post-op care, and I have wonderful family, friends, and readers like yourselves who are praying for me.
The following account of an incident when St. Maximilian was imprisoned by the Nazis (prior to his being sent to Auschwitz) is from Patricia Treece's biography of St. Maximilian Kolbe, A Man for Others (Marytown Press, 1982):
Edward Gniadek was arrested by the Gestapo on January 12, 1941. In March, after being kept only in solitary confinement, he was put in a cell [at Warsaw's Pawiak prison] with a Jewish Pole he recalls only as Singer. He says:
After a few days, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe was added to our cell. He was wearing a Franciscan habit and was clean-shaven. The presence of Father Kolbe, who differed so greatly from us by his calm, the things he told us, and conversation with him, calmed me and had the best possible effect on my nerves, which were very bad since each day I lived under the anxiety of being interrogated again—I had not only been beaten but had witnessed the torture of others—or being sent to a concentration camp.
About the second or third day after Father Kolbe joined us, one of the Gestapo men looked into our cell. He rushed in, somehow infuriated by the sight of Kolbe in his habit, from which hung the usual Franciscan rosary with its crucifix. I saw everything, but it was Singer afterwards who gave me the exact words, for I know no German.
The Scharfuhrer [platoon leader]—that was his rank—grabbed the rosary and, jerking on it, began haranguing Father Kolbe, who made no reply. Then the man pointed scornfully to the crucifix and snarled, "Do you believe in that?"
"Yes, I believe," Father Kolbe answered him serenely.
Aroused to a fever pitch,the assailant slapped the priest hard in the face. He grabbed the crucifix, again demanding, "You really believe, eh?"
"Yes, I believe," Father Kolbe answered calmly.
With each affirmation, the SS man became angrier and more violent (I don't know—maybe it was the priest's calm and determination). Anyway, after each reply he struck Father Kolbe in the face again and again.
But finally, seeing that Father Kolbe could not be shaken, he gave up and stomped angrily from the cell, slamming the door.
I must say again that, during everything, Father Kolbe showed not the slightest agitation. After the Scharfuhrer left, he simply began walking to and fro in the cell, praying silently. On his face were the red marks of the blows. My nerves were very shaken by what had happened and I said something—I can't remember what. He turned to me and said, "Please, I beg you, don't be upset; you have a lot of worries and troubles of your own. What happened just now is really nothing because it's all for my little mother" (he meant the Mother of God). The way he said this you would actually have thought nothing at all had happened.
That same day, one of the lower-ranking guards who was Polish came in with a prisoner's uniform, recommending that Father Kolbe put it on. He said that if Father Maximilian had been wearing the uniform, he would never have been beaten. Lots of prisoners wore their own clothes, but the religious habit drove the Nazis into a frenzy and provoked such incidents.
"... is sign the Freedom of Choice Act"—re-legalizing partial-birth abortions, as he told a Planned Parenthood Action Fund crowd in July 2007 (a statement captured in the second video below).
He also supports infanticide, having vehemently opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and then lied about the nature of his votes against it.
In this video, registered nurse Jill Stanek tells why the act is needed. She worked in a hospital where infants who survived abortion were left in a soiled-linen closet to die. (Parents, you may not want your young children to hear this video, as Stanek's story is deeply disturbing.)
More on the Freedom of Choice Act, from National Right to Life:
The bill flatly invalidates any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."
If you would prefer to read NOW's take on FOCA, it comprises largely the same points, only it attempts to mainstream FOCA's appeal by playing down the ways it goes beyond Roe vs. Wade. As National Right to Life notes:
The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to "codify Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe.
"The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe' is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents," explained [NRLC's Douglas] Johnson. "The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase – but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion."
National Right to Life offers brief videos showing candidates' statements representing their views on abortion.
Another YouTube clip showcases McCain's opposition to partial-birth abortion:
Since the doctor took me off my thyroid hormone in preparation for next week's radioactive-iodine treatment (a precaution to ensure the cancer doesn't return), I have been waking up more frequently during the night, resulting in more remembered dreams. Some of them are pretty funny.
Last night (a couple of days after the delivery of my new cell phone), I dreamed my new life-size Terminator doll was delivered—the latest model.
I thought it would be smart to have my previous model calibrate this new one, to make sure its settings were correct so it wouldn't start gunning things down as soon as it was unwrapped. So, without removing it from its giant shrink-wrapped display box, I stood the new model up in my coat closet until the previous model came home from work.
The previous model arrived immediately thereafter, walking with an even more comically robotic gait than usual—bowlegged, in fact, because its summer-casual dress included flip-flops made for the life-size Malibu Ken. I guess even in dreams, life-size Terminators like West Coast style, though they look pretty goofy in it.
Then my real-life phone rang—or maybe, in my light sleep, I confused its ring with my neighbor's, as no one was on the other end when I picked up.
New information unearthed by Jill Stanek shows that news outlets have played a cover-up by the Obama campaign over the candidate's opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
Obama claimed his opposition to an Illinois version of the bill was only because it lacked a "neutrality clause" later inserted into the federal bill that protected Roe vs. Wade.
Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts.
In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with abortion.
She links to the Illinois Senate Action Committee Report and other documents and news reports which, she writes, "prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the 'neutrality clause' (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state [Born Alive Infants Protection Act], with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4."
Bloggers need to pick up on this story, since mainstream media outlets and liberal blogs that published the Obama campaign's version are unlikely to publish the true facts.
"I feel that Christianity has several aspects. It's not only a religion but a faith. I now see God through Jesus and can tell about him for days on end, whereas the Muslims won't be able to say anything about God. I consider Islam a big lie. The people who supposedly represent the religion admired Mohammed more than God, killed innocent people in the name of Islam, beat their wives and don't have any idea what God is. I have no doubt that they'll go to Hell. I have a message for them: There is only one way to Paradise - the way of Jesus who sacrificed himself on the cross for all of us."
— Masab Yousef, son of West Bank Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, in an interview with Haareretz on his conversion to Christianity.
I am especially looking forward to this appearance, as the parish's young-adult group has been meeting to discuss The Thrill. The one previous time I spoke to a group that had been discussing my book, last year at the beautiful Our Lady of Hope in Potomac Falls, it was a special joy for me. Addressing an audience that already has some understanding of my perspective opens the door to a deeper discussion during the Q&A, as well as a greater sense of fellowship.
On St. Dominic's feast day yesterday, I had a remarkable answer to an unspoken prayer when Patrick Campbell-Lyons, singer and lyricist of the U.K. group Nirvana, e-mailed me out of the blue.
You can see him on piano and vocals in this lip-synched clip of Nirvana's gorgeous "Pentecost Hotel" (which sounds slightly sped up) from a German TV show. In England, Nirvana are known primarily as one-hit wonders ("Rainbow Chaser," 1967), but collectors of "popsike" revere their baroque-inspired artistry.
Back in 1994, I interviewed Patrick and the other half of Nirvana, composer Alex Spyropoulos (not in the above video) for articles that appeared in New York Press and Goldmine. Unlike Kurt Cobain's group (whom Patrick and Alex sued over infringement of their name, resulting in a settlement), they were and remain one of my favorite bands.
Nirvana's music helped me at a time when I was suffering from cyclical depression (which included my entire 20s), a fact I shared with Patrick and Alex. They were joyful people, not burned out like many of the 1960s hitmakers I had interviewed, and they gave me encouragement at a time when I sorely needed it.
One fact I noticed about Patrick seemed incongruous to me at the time: He was Irish Catholic and retained a noticeable fondness for the faith of his fathers. Although he did not seem particularly devout, there was no mistaking that he had internalized his faith. He spoke of it with genuine love, not just within the context of, say, recalling a schoolboy fear of ruler-wielding nuns. As with another Irishman whose music I admired at the time whose faith was similarly integrated into his person— Pierce Turner—I couldn't quite understand how anything more than the most superficial, cultural Catholicism could coexist with creativity, let alone what I considered hipness.
That is why, once I received faith in Jesus—and healing from my depression—in 1999, and even more so after entering into full communion with the Church in 2006, I wanted to tell Patrick the wonderful news that I had joined him at the heart of the Communion of Saints. But by then, I had long since lost his e-mail address.
Over the years, I searched for Patrick's e-mail address online many times—at least since writing an August 2001 article where I mention wishing I could track him down. My most recent, fruitless attempt was only last week, when his song "The Hero I Might Have Been" was one of the first records I put on my newly unpacked turntable. So it was a real joy when the songwriter, who is now living in Spain, wrote me yesterday to say he rediscovered my Web site after many years of being out of touch—especially when he wrote that he was happy that I seemed I was in "a good place."
I do believe very strongly that this unexpected grace came as a result of the prayers being made for me as I prepare for my August 19-21 hospital stay. Many thanks again to you for remembering me.
I thought I was sleepy tonight, but I can't stop watching the third disc of the Turner Classic Movies "Jazz Singer" box I picked up from the MetroCenter B. Dalton's. It is a collection of Vitaphone shorts of vaudevillians from the mid-1920s through the mid-1930s, including this awesome one of Baby Rose Marie that some kind soul put on YouTube.
Something seemed familiar about this tyke with a remarkable set of pipes. Could it be?
A little Googling and ,,, yes! It is that Rose Marie—not only still with us, but about to celebrate her 85th birthday next Friday. Amazing!
Just had a wonderful, totally unexpected answer to prayer! I know it is a result of my being very prayed-for at this time—thanks so much to those of you who answered the call. Running off (the fact I have the energy to do so at this time is another answer to prayer), so will write about it later.
12:18 a.m. Got caught up watching Vitaphone shorts (see above). Will reveal answered prayer after sleep. Promise!
Also note that the art contest was in Australia. Having just witnessed the level of devout secularism in that country during World Youth Day, and its elevating of "diversity" to a received faith all its own, this does not surprise me. Pray for the land of the Southern Cross.
A judge of Australia's most prestigious religious art prize has resigned over the "deliberate ugliness" of a painting depicting Jesus on the cross.
Christopher Allen stood down from the judging panel of the Blake Prize because of his objection to the work by Adam Cullen.
The painting entitled "Corpus Christi" shows a bedraggled Christ at the crucifixion and incorporates the Alice Cooper song lyric "Only Women Bleed."
It is the second year running the competition has been thrown into turmoil. Last year organisers faced controversy over a statue of the Virgin Mary wearing a burkha and a hologram of Jesus morphing into Osama bin Laden. The images angered the Catholic Church and led Prime Minister John Howard to label the worked [sic] "gratuitously offensive."
Dr. Allen said: "This isn't a personal preference, it's a judgement. I've never even met him. I just don't like his work."
The organisers of the Blake Prize said they were committed to including a variety of styles.
Chairman Rod Pattenden said: "The Blake Prize however embraces diversity in its entries and it is important to us that we remain open to the many styles through which artists engage with the subject area." ...
Award winning artist Cullen, said: "How can he be so offended? It's just a Jew on the cross."
My friend Fallen Sparrow of NYC's Church of Notre Dame choir created this video using his photographs and the choir's gorgeous rendition of Gombert's Media vita in morte sumus.
... is by First Things' Ryan T. Anderson, who uses an election-related issue as a handle for what is really a cogent piece advising social conservatives on how to make arguments in the public square.
I have had steadily growing doubts about some contemporary Catholic natural-law theorists' claims that culture-of-life issues can be successfully defended without making any reference to divine law.
My problem with bending over backwards to create "atheist-proof" arguments is that they are less likely to make converts among antireligionists and more likely to risk a compromised (or at least convoluted) stance. A more sensible goal in seeking to change hearts is to make reasoned arguments directed toward the far wider segment of the populace who, while they may not be strongly religious, are at least willing to concede some benefits in a worldview that includes faith. There are more people on the fringes of faith than there are staunch nonbelievers.
What I like about Anderson's approach is his use of Martin Luther King Jr. for a model. Such theorists sometimes seem to forget that even though King based his arguments on the force of reason, his reasoning received extra recognition in the public square because of the respect the public accorded his faith, not in spite of it.
Granted, unlike many other church leaders, King received additional respect for his willingness to endure hardship and sacrifice for people who went far beyond his own flock. But that too shows the power of making a public witness to faith, in that the public recognizes when a person of faith goes the extra mile. The public impression made by such sacrifice enhances the power of the public witness, and, I believe, vice versa.
What is really at stake today is, as Pope Benedict said at World Youth Day Mass, a clash of worldviews:
The task of witness is not easy. There are many today who claim that God should be left on the sidelines, and that religion and faith, while fine for individuals, should either be excluded from the public forum altogether or included only in the pursuit of limited pragmatic goals. This secularist vision seeks to explain human life and shape society with little or no reference to the Creator. It presents itself as neutral, impartial and inclusive of everyone. But in reality, like every ideology, secularism imposes a world-view. If God is irrelevant to public life, then society will be shaped in a godless image, and debate and policy concerning the public good will be driven more by consequences than by principles grounded in truth.
It is, I would say, disingenuous for a Catholic natural-law theorist to imply that his view of the human person is not based on a worldview. What he or she should do, and what I believe Anderson does in his essay (though not in so many words), is to point out that those in opposition, too, have worldviews. The ultimate question for reasonable minds in the public square is, assuming individuals and private institutions have the right to their personal religious belief or nonbelief, which worldview produces a society most protective of both individual liberty and human dignity—or, as the U.S. Constitution soundly prioritizes, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The Pope has it right. I would like to see more Catholic natural-law theorists do as did Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, making reasoned arguments boldly while acknowledging that one does not have to believe in God to acknowledge the inherent dignity of the human person—but it sure helps.
[Amended 8/7/08, 2:14 p.m.: Added third paragraph.]
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
As mentioned earlier—most recently at the bottom of my latest WYD post—blogging is light this week for health reasons. My health is normally great when I can take my thyroid hormone, but I currently have to be off the hormone until after my August 19-21 hospital stay. (Thanks to your and others' prayers, I am in considerably brighter spirits than when I wrote in detail about what's happening. Short version: Doctors think they got all my cancer when they removed my thyroid, but I need to receive radioactive-iodine treatment as a precaution.) Thanks again for your prayers, which are enabling me to get through this time of lessened energy far better than I had thought I would.
A guest blogger at Feministe is propounding the familiar argument that the Hebrew Bible's prophesy of the virgin birth is based on a mistranslation. Go there if you would like to add your 2 cents.
There do not seem to be many concise refutations of the mistranslation claim on the Web, but This Rock makes some solid points (see fifth question down the page).
The August issue of Columbia, the magazine of the Knights of Columbus, features an excellent article by Susan Brinkmann with observations from "leading Catholic women" on the 20th anniversary of Mulieris Dignitatem, Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter on the dignity and vocation of women. I admit to some bias, as I am among the interviewees, but the article is well worth in its entirety.
Cutting to the chas(t)e:
For women in the West, the message of Mulieris Dignitatem boldly defies the prevailing militant feminism leftover from the last century. The difference between the sexes is meant to bring men and women into deeper communion, not continual warfare, John Paul II explained.
"From the very beginning, for feminists it was all about taking [the woman] out of the network of social and family relationships and isolating her as an independent person," said Dawn Eden, 39, author of The Thrill of the Chaste and a former music industry journalist. "Belonging to a husband, a father, a brother," she said, were mistakenly believed to be about "submitting to another’s power."
To the contrary, Eden said, "The pope is all about celebrating our dependence upon others as being a representation of our dependence upon God. It's in showing the world how we receive the love of God that we become truly feminine."
It is a message that applies to every woman, single or married, young or old.
"As a young single woman in the Church, one is given these various messages as to how to be feminine," explained Eden. “What the pope showed me in Mulieris Dignitatem is how to be authentically myself in social situations and that I don’t need to try to fit anyone's ideal. I just need to live out the graces that God has given me in a unique way as a woman. And that by living virtuously I will become feminine without effort."
"Contraception is another issue where pro-life goals of protecting the unborn and fostering a culture of life seem to contradict one another. If sexually active individuals used birth control more often, there would likely be fewer unwanted pregnancies. However, easier access to contraceptives might encourage even more sexual activity among unmarried people. This is especially the case if contraceptives are made available to populations which include a high percentage of sexually inactive people, such as young teens. It would send powerful messages about the sort of sexual behavior that is both expected and acceptable.
"The increase in sexual activity among teens during the 1960s provides good evidence of this. The birth-control pill was first approved by the FDA in early 1961 and put on the market later that same year. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (hardly a pro-life outfit) found that women who turned 15 between the mid-1960s and early 1970s were more likely to engage in sexual activity at a younger age than their counterparts who turned 15 between the mid-1950s and early 1960s. Furthermore, the Guttmacher study partly attributes this increased sexual activity to the availability of the birth-control pill. The widespread use of birth control in the 1960s seems to have shifted the culture in such a way as to hasten rather than delay the liberalization of America’s abortion laws.
"So when the pro-life movement faces a situation where protecting the unborn and building a culture of life are at odds with one another, most pro-lifers resolve the tradeoff in favor of a culture of life. This seems prudent for a couple reasons. First, a high percentage of abortions are performed on unmarried women. As such, the best strategy for reducing abortion is to reduce the incidence of premarital sex. More importantly, it will be difficult for the pro-life movement to make substantial legislative progress in a sexually promiscuous culture. As such, the pro-life movement must succeed in building and strengthening a culture of life before it will be successful in restoring legal protection to the unborn."
My friend D------, a Catholic freelance journalist, writes that he has hit "rock bottom" after suffering a breakup, health woes, and now the loss of his day job. Please read on his blog about what he is going through and pray for his healing and deliverance. Thank you.
The morning of Wednesday, July 16, the day I was to speak at the Sisters of Life's Love and Life Site, I decided to wear a piece of jewelry I had bought a couple of months earlier while on tour in Alaska: a silver-tone cross containing stones of a beautiful, very Marian cobalt-blue shade (my favorite color), meant to resemble the state flower, the forget-me-not.
Putting on the cross, so to speak, was a big deal for me personally, as it signified my decision to finally go back to wearing a chain necklace daily. For years, I had worn a chain with a Miraculous Medal and a cross all the time, but had stopped doing so in late January after the first of my two thyroid operations. Part of the spiritual experience for me of being in Sydney was the realization of how blessed I was to be able to travel so soon after surviving thyroid cancer. Although the scar on my neck stung (and still does) from time to time, it had healed to the point where I could finally wear a chain over it without feeling discomfort; wearing a cross on that chain as I had in the past was for me a visible sign of thanks to God.
One problem: I didn't have a Miraculous Medal. I used to get them in bulk so I could give them away like my patron St. Maximilian Kolbe (sometimes ordering them from the U.S. branch of his Marytown), but had given away my last one. Being medal-less was a bit embarrassing to me, as a reporter for eBenedict, an official WYD Web site who really did his homework, had noted in a preview of my Sydney talks that I recommended the Miraculous Medal prayer as a weapon against temptation.
That afternoon, I asked my Sydney "minder" John Lamont if he could help me find Miraculous Medals so I could give them away at my Love and Life Site talk. He got right on the case, and after one or two phone calls we were at the Servants of Mary booth at the WYD's Vocation Expo.
The older gentleman who ran the booth was very kind, giving me a bag containing some 100 medals attached to cards explaining the devotion's history, for which I gave him a donation. I made the mistake of asking whether they were blessed, thereby earning the aghast, albeit perfectly logical response: "Do you think we would we have allowed people to handle them and attach them to the cards if they weren't?"
John then saw me safely over to St. Augustine's for the Juventutem-sponsored Solemn Pontifical Vespers with Cardinal Pell, which was wonderful. In my haste traveling to church from the fair, I forgot to add a Miraculous Medal alongside my cross pendant.
Afterward, while waiting for my ride to the Love and Life Site, I got a call on my cell phone from Father Sharbel, Mission Superior of the Perth house of the Franciscan of the Immaculate and Dawn Patrol reader (his lovely poetry has appeared here). He and I had been trying to meet, and he was now outside the Love and Life Site room where I was to speak at 6:15 p.m.
Unfortunately for me, Father Sharbel said he had an engagement that would prevent him from staying for my talk. He said he would wait for me until about 6 p.m.; I got there just on the hour and was disappointed to find I had missed him.
But he hadn't missed me, as I discovered with joy a few minutes later when I was approached by a Sister of Life.
"Father Sharbel asked me to give you this," she said, and placed in my hand a medal—but not just any medal. That's right—it was a Miraculous Medal.
To my delight, it was a large one—the kind worn by religious. I had been feeling in my heart a desire to upgrade to a bigger medal than the garden-variety one I had worn before, but had not revealed the longing to anyone, let alone voiced that I no longer had a Miraculous Medal to wear myself.
It touched me deeply to begin my talk at the Love and Life Site—for which I had planned, in part, to share how the intercession of St. Maximilian had led me into the Church—with such a beautiful reminder of how God reveals his love through the Communion of Saints.
* * *
More on WYD soon. Blogging will be light this week because of my being off thyroid hormone in advance of my hospital stay, as I wrote earlier. Feeling in better spirits than when I wrote that earlier entry—much thanks for your prayers.
In which my friend Kevin Walsh of Forgotten NY takes the No. 2 train in search of the "Lourdes of America"—and finds it in the Bronx, complete with a tap-water "spring." Amazing!
AND ANOTHER THING:Catholic Manhattan blogger Andrew the Sinner offers hauntingly gorgeous photos of the grotto behind the altar of the Church of Notre Dame, parish church of Columbia University, where I was confirmed in 2006.
I don't know Andrew personally (as far as I know), but in reading his Notre Dame entry (which mentions he is or was preparing for confirmation) and his latest, methinks a Memorare or other prayer for his intentions would be in order.
On Australia's Channel 7 "Morning Show," July 17, 2008
After appearing on the hostile "Current Affair," I was nervous about doing more Australian press.
In the wake of Caroline Overington's profile of me in The Australian that had caught the "Current Affair" producers' attention, I was also invited onto "Mornings with Kerri-Anne," whose producer likened it to an Australian "Oprah."
My friend Tim Blair, who along with his wife was hosting me in Sydney, told me that despite the comparison to America's New Age-loving superstar, I was likely to be treated well by Kerri-Anne, as she was the only Australian TV interviewer to give Mark Steyn a favorable hearing. But when the Kerri-Anne producer then called back to cancel, citing an unexpected avalanche of papal coverage (as Tim told me, hardly anyone in the Aussie press expected WYD to be so huge), I accepted an offer from its rival "Morning Show," a national program on the order of NBC's "Today." The show is on immediately following "Sunrise," the weekend version of which coincidentally I had done via satellite in May.**
Having appeared on "Today," I knew I could at least survive "Morning Show," but I did not expect it to be a walk in the park. The "Morning Show" producer told me she was bringing a doctor on with me to discuss whether chastity was advisable. That kind of setup is not favorable for a TV guest who is not a medical professional; a doctor has built-in credibility that weighs heavily against an author who is neither credentialed nor bestselling. The "Today" show had made a true attempt at balance, letting me have my say versus a similarly uncredentialed, non-bestselling author, and then bringing in a good-natured therapist to say, "They're both right!"
The awkward setup aside (which I think stemmed, as often happens in the mainstream media, from a misunderstanding of balance rather than an active anti-chastity agenda), I was professionally treated by the staff and am very grateful to them for having me on the show.
Be that as it may, the night before the broadcast, when I looked up the Web site of the doctor that "Morning Show" had chosen, what I saw—including her characterization of "anti-abortionists" as "extremist[s]" and "religious zealot[s]"—confirmed my fear she would take an adversarial role. So, I requested prayer from Dawn Patrol readers.
I arrived at the "Morning Show" green room the morning of Thursday, July 17, with my "minder," John Lamont—the reader who had graciously offered to squire me around town. There was a man seated at one end of the couch—a telegenic gent in his late 30s whose white long-sleeved shirt had what looked to me to be a fashionable Nehru collar—and some sheets of paper scattered at the other. "Someone left these here," the man said, courteously moving the papers onto the coffee table so I could sit down.
Picking up the papers out of curiosity, I saw they were "Sesame Street" character Elmo's "Talking Points" for that morning's show: "THIS WEEK ON SESAME STREET: Sarah Jessica Parker and Ellen DeGeneres teach Elmo the meaning of of 'sigh' and 'ballet.'"
I read it that line loud to John and groaned. "'Sesame Street' sure has changed from when I was a kid."
That got a smile from the white-shirted man, who volunteered that the show had changed since his childhood too. His favorite memory of it, he said, was Ernie's classic exchange with Bert, which he remembered perfectly:
Bert: "Hey, you've got a banana in your ear!" Ernie: "I know, I'm keeping the alligator away." Bert: "But there aren't any alligators on Sesame Street!" Ernie: "I know, it's working!"
Then his call came up and he left to enter the studio. Watching the monitor, I realized with some embarrassment that what I had thought was a Nehru collar was actually a clerical. He was Father Ryan, a Catholic priest on the show to provide live commentary as the Pope's arrived at Sydney's Government House.
When Father Ryan was done, I managed to catch him on his way out. Explaining why I was on the show, I asked for a blessing, which he gave along with a word of support.
What a surprise that was, to have the opportunity to be blessed just before going onto the show. It had special meaning for me because, whenever possible, I like to receive a blessing before doing a speaking appearance, but the last place I would have expected to find a priest was the "Morning Show" studio, even during World Youth Day week. Father Ryan's presence there made me think about how God was giving me so many unexpected graces during my Sydney trip. It also made me even more thankful for Dawn Patrol readers' prayers, as I felt that their petitions, along with those of people I had met in Sydney, were covering me and making such graces possible.
Speaking before any kind of audience is a lonely feeling—all the more so when taking up a controversial topic before people who are not disposed to be supportive. I did not realize how necessary prayer support was for such appearances until, over the course of touring, I was able to contrast the experiences of speaking without the benefit of much (or any) intercessory prayer beforehand versus doing so under the covering of intercessory prayer. There is a difference.
That difference, I believe, is why I ended up putting in a better appearance on "The Morning Show" than I had on "Current Affair" just two days prior—indeed, better than I had on any of the TV shows I had done to promote my book The Thrill of the Chaste, apart from the friendly waters of EWTN. I was able to make all the points I wanted to make and counter those of the doctor, who, as I had suspected, was quite critical of chastity. So, ad majorem Dei gloriam, and thank you!
*This post is chronologically out of order; my next WYD post will cover my talk at the Love and Life Site the day before doing "The Morning Show."
** Only now do I notice that the male "Morning Show" co-host is the same one from "Weekend Sunrise."
What truly is the point of departure of the enemies of religion for the sowing of the great and serious errors by which the faith of so many is shaken? They begin by denying that man has fallen by sin and been cast down from his former position. Hence they regard as mere fables original sin and the evils that were its consequence. Humanity vitiated in its source vitiated in its turn the whole race of man; and thus was evil introduced amongst men and the necessity for a Redeemer involved. All this rejected it is easy to understand that no place is left for Christ, for the Church, for grace or for anything that is above and beyond nature; in one word the whole edifice of faith is shaken from top to bottom. But let people believe and confess that the Virgin Mary has been from the first moment of her conception preserved from all stain; and it is straightway necessary that they should admit both original sin and the rehabilitation of the human race by Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and the Church and the law of suffering. By virtue of this Rationalism and Materialism is torn up by the roots and destroyed, and there remains to Christian wisdom the glory of having to guard and protect the truth. It is moreover a vice common to the enemies of the faith of our time especially that they repudiate and proclaim the necessity of repudiating all respect and obedience for the authority of the Church, and even of any human power, in the idea that it will thus be more easy to make an end of faith. Here we have the origin of Anarchism, than which nothing is more pernicious and pestilent to the order of things whether natural or supernatural. Now this plague, which is equally fatal to society at large and to Christianity, finds its ruin in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by the obligation which it imposes of recognizing in the Church a power before which not only has the will to bow, but the intelligence to subject itself. It is from a subjection of the reason of this sort that Christian people sing thus the praise of the Mother of God: "Thou art all fair, O Mary, and the stain of original sin is not in thee." (Mass of Immac. Concep.) And thus once again is justified what the Church attributes to this august Virgin that she has exterminated all heresies in the world.
With regard to the part I have bolded, is there a word missing from the English translation of this document? Perhaps the word "reason" should come between "which" and "not," so that it reads, "obligation which it imposes of recognizing in the Church a power before which reason not only has the will to bow," etc.? That would go with the reference to "subjection of the reason" in the sentence that follows. Or is a different word missing? I just can't make sense of last part of the sentence beginning "Now this plague ..." as it stands.
In any case, what does St. Pius X mean when he says that anarchism "finds its ruin in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception"? I would guess it has something to do with original sin, and perhaps with the way she presages our being cleansed of it in the Sacrament of Baptism. But he seems to be saying something more in the part I have bolded, only I can't discern his point. Please help!
(And yes, I do believe there is a connection between the sainted pontiff's encyclical and The Man Who Was Thursday, which came out three years later and also had to do with anarchism—though I am not yet sure what that connection is.)
, is the "Freedom from Adam's Sin" chapter of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Daughter Zion
