27 June 2009
25 June 2009
Le Fleur de Lys too: The Prophecies of Marie Julie Jehanny
Le Fleur de Lys too: The Prophecies of Marie Julie Jehanny
Must read for these times!!!! Thank you Fleurs de Lys Too!!!
Must read for these times!!!! Thank you Fleurs de Lys Too!!!
500
Just back from Ohio, to clear out the apartment and finalize our move to that great state. Just checked and 500 people have viewed my complete profile since I started this blog last year!!!! I am honored that so many have taken the time to read my blog and my profile!!!
Geoff gets in sometime tomorrow morning, and then the fun starts- boxing up the kitchen and the rest of the apartment, and Geoff gets to break down and pack up his train layout.
Our future home is perfect- 1600 st, but the "Great Train Room", and extension off of the rear of the original house, is what sold the house to me. Geoff has waited patiently since we were married to have a room dedicated to his train use, and this is it. It will also double as his office, and it will be where the family computer will be located. It has three pass through windows, known as "meatloaf windows" to our family. We close on the 21st of July, and we are very excited. It will be our very first home!!!! (Geoff moved into my townhouse after our marriage, and even though he was placed on the title and mortgage, he had not had any input- now he does.) His "honey do" list is growing as I blog!!!
Geoff gets in sometime tomorrow morning, and then the fun starts- boxing up the kitchen and the rest of the apartment, and Geoff gets to break down and pack up his train layout.
Our future home is perfect- 1600 st, but the "Great Train Room", and extension off of the rear of the original house, is what sold the house to me. Geoff has waited patiently since we were married to have a room dedicated to his train use, and this is it. It will also double as his office, and it will be where the family computer will be located. It has three pass through windows, known as "meatloaf windows" to our family. We close on the 21st of July, and we are very excited. It will be our very first home!!!! (Geoff moved into my townhouse after our marriage, and even though he was placed on the title and mortgage, he had not had any input- now he does.) His "honey do" list is growing as I blog!!!
11 June 2009
Stop Leveling the Playing Field
Geoff's Take:
In the Movie Star Trek IV, the crew of the Enterprise travels back in time to the twentieth Century, in an attempt to save a species of whale from extinction, and to thwart nuclear war. In the process, one of the officers is injured, and Dr. McCoy travels back to try to help him, because he doesn't want to "leave him in the hands of 20th century medicine".
While they're racing through the 20th century hospital to find and save their collegue, Dr. McCoy remarks that the brutality of some of the surgical equipment reminds him of the "God-d***ed Spanish Inquisition."
I wish I could say that this was the only time I've heard an act of brutality compared to the Spanish Inquisition, but this is not the case. This comparison is not as common as it once was, but it's still out there, and it begs the question, why the Spanish Inquisition?
Why not the Nazi Holocaust? After all, that really was a deliberate exercise in brutality, aimed at exterminating all who opposed the Third Reich.
But the Spanish Inquisition forced conversions under pain of death, right? Wrong.
The Spanish Inquisition is one of History's most maligned and least understood events, partially because much of what people think they know about it was written during the reformation, by Protestants who were attempting to use it to discredit the Holy See. These writers described so-called acts of brutality out of context and without all the facts.
In the Mel Brooks comedy History of World, Part I, we see the Inquisition portrayed, through musical comedy, as a mass prostelyting of Spain's Jewish population, often through torture and humiliation. About the only thing this routine has in common with the actual event, however, is that it does identify the grand Inquisitor Torquemada by name.
The Inquisition never used brutality to force conversions, because it actaully had no authority over anyone who wasn't already Catholic. It also must be clarified, that the term "Inquisition" actually refers to a Holy Office of the Church, not a particular historical era. It still exists today, under the title Congregation for Defense of the Faith. The current Holy Father actually presided over it as his final assignment as a Cardinal.
So what, then, was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition, and what did it really do? Many things, actually.
In the late 15th century, what we now call Spain was actually two kingdoms, namely Castile and Aragon, and they were at war with the Moors, who were Moslems from North Africa (sound familiar?) Ferdinand and Isabella were fighting to prevent a Moslem takeover of Spain (still sounds familiar?).
There were Jewish and Islamic Spaniards who had converted to Catholicism purely to further their own political ambitions, with no intention of spiritually adhering to the Holy See. This was sacreligious, and, like it or not, in a Catholic Monarchy it was also an act of treason.
The Inquisition was out to save souls, and Catholics of the time understood that in addition to confession, suffering on Earth helped atone for one's sins, and could even lessen one's time in Purgatory. Today, Purgatory and Confession tend to be treated as novelty items, but God still does and will always recognize them as the roads to salvation that they are.
Any punishment handed down by the inquisition was done with spiritual preservation in mind. What gave the Inquisition the right to do this?
Actually, it wasn't a right. It was a duty. Jesus Himself told the Apostles, "If you forgive mens' sins they are forgiven them. If you hold them bound, they are held bound." And we dare not forget that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Thus, regardless of how brutal some people today may find the tactics of the Inquisition, the motivation of the office was to preserve the will of God.
On the other hand, Adolf Hitler was acting purely on his own volition, solely to pursue his twisted dream of ruling the world. He was motivated by paranoia, and a deep hatred for Jews, Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, and anyone else who wasn't a perfect Aryan in step with the teachings of the Reich. Contrary to poular belief, the Nazis were seeking to eradicate all religions, including Catholicism. Hitler didn't want to preserve the will of God, he wanted to be God.
But according to Rosie O'Donnel, radical Christians can be just as dangerous as radical Moslems. Really? When was this? During the Inquisition? During the Crusades?
But wait a minute, these things happened centuries ago. Besides that, what the Crusaders did were acts of war, dsesigned to recapture the Holy Land. Daniel Pearl was beheaded on video right here in the 21st century. What modern Christian group has done something similar to that?
In the Movie Star Trek IV, the crew of the Enterprise travels back in time to the twentieth Century, in an attempt to save a species of whale from extinction, and to thwart nuclear war. In the process, one of the officers is injured, and Dr. McCoy travels back to try to help him, because he doesn't want to "leave him in the hands of 20th century medicine".
While they're racing through the 20th century hospital to find and save their collegue, Dr. McCoy remarks that the brutality of some of the surgical equipment reminds him of the "God-d***ed Spanish Inquisition."
I wish I could say that this was the only time I've heard an act of brutality compared to the Spanish Inquisition, but this is not the case. This comparison is not as common as it once was, but it's still out there, and it begs the question, why the Spanish Inquisition?
Why not the Nazi Holocaust? After all, that really was a deliberate exercise in brutality, aimed at exterminating all who opposed the Third Reich.
But the Spanish Inquisition forced conversions under pain of death, right? Wrong.
The Spanish Inquisition is one of History's most maligned and least understood events, partially because much of what people think they know about it was written during the reformation, by Protestants who were attempting to use it to discredit the Holy See. These writers described so-called acts of brutality out of context and without all the facts.
In the Mel Brooks comedy History of World, Part I, we see the Inquisition portrayed, through musical comedy, as a mass prostelyting of Spain's Jewish population, often through torture and humiliation. About the only thing this routine has in common with the actual event, however, is that it does identify the grand Inquisitor Torquemada by name.
The Inquisition never used brutality to force conversions, because it actaully had no authority over anyone who wasn't already Catholic. It also must be clarified, that the term "Inquisition" actually refers to a Holy Office of the Church, not a particular historical era. It still exists today, under the title Congregation for Defense of the Faith. The current Holy Father actually presided over it as his final assignment as a Cardinal.
So what, then, was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition, and what did it really do? Many things, actually.
In the late 15th century, what we now call Spain was actually two kingdoms, namely Castile and Aragon, and they were at war with the Moors, who were Moslems from North Africa (sound familiar?) Ferdinand and Isabella were fighting to prevent a Moslem takeover of Spain (still sounds familiar?).
There were Jewish and Islamic Spaniards who had converted to Catholicism purely to further their own political ambitions, with no intention of spiritually adhering to the Holy See. This was sacreligious, and, like it or not, in a Catholic Monarchy it was also an act of treason.
The Inquisition was out to save souls, and Catholics of the time understood that in addition to confession, suffering on Earth helped atone for one's sins, and could even lessen one's time in Purgatory. Today, Purgatory and Confession tend to be treated as novelty items, but God still does and will always recognize them as the roads to salvation that they are.
Any punishment handed down by the inquisition was done with spiritual preservation in mind. What gave the Inquisition the right to do this?
Actually, it wasn't a right. It was a duty. Jesus Himself told the Apostles, "If you forgive mens' sins they are forgiven them. If you hold them bound, they are held bound." And we dare not forget that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Thus, regardless of how brutal some people today may find the tactics of the Inquisition, the motivation of the office was to preserve the will of God.
On the other hand, Adolf Hitler was acting purely on his own volition, solely to pursue his twisted dream of ruling the world. He was motivated by paranoia, and a deep hatred for Jews, Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, and anyone else who wasn't a perfect Aryan in step with the teachings of the Reich. Contrary to poular belief, the Nazis were seeking to eradicate all religions, including Catholicism. Hitler didn't want to preserve the will of God, he wanted to be God.
But according to Rosie O'Donnel, radical Christians can be just as dangerous as radical Moslems. Really? When was this? During the Inquisition? During the Crusades?
But wait a minute, these things happened centuries ago. Besides that, what the Crusaders did were acts of war, dsesigned to recapture the Holy Land. Daniel Pearl was beheaded on video right here in the 21st century. What modern Christian group has done something similar to that?
08 June 2009
07 June 2009
Good vs. Evil
Geoff's take:
The release of the new Star Trek movie will undoubtably bring back some fond memories among some dyed-in-the-wool Trekies out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start talking about their favorite episodes of the original series, which ran from 1967 to 1969, and aquired a cult following through years of re-runs.
In the original series, one episode comes to mind that is eerily appropriate for our time. In this episode, Captain Kirk is split into two distinctly different people. One embodies all that is good about the Captain, and the other embodies all that is bad. The consequences are catastrophic for him and his crew.
The bad Captain Kirk is so bad he can't act responsibly as Captain, and the good Captain Kirk can't make a single command decision, because he keeps getting bogged down in the moral complications of every action.
Obviously we don't want to emulate the bad Captain Kirk, but how many of us have gotten like the good Captain Kirk and don't even realize it?
Soildiers and law enforcement personnel are frequently in situations where being like the good Captain Kirk could cost them their lives. But what about the rest of us?
In 1976, when I was six years old, virtually everyone was caught up in the celebration of America's Bicentennial. Patriotism was high, and in school we spent the two years leading up to the celebration discussing the exploits of George Washington and the others who worked tirelessly to create our country.
But by thew time I reached college, it seemed as though we were devoting more time to discussing the British take on the American Revolution than on our own. It seems that now we're not sure if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were heroes or traitors.
If you're an American, the answer should be clear. The United States was founded for the reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The American Colonies were a great asset that was very badly mismanaged. The founders believed, as President Kennedy said in his Innaugural Address, that "The Rights of Man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the Hand of God". No other nation had ever based itself on this principle.
Britain is entialed to its own take on the American Revolution, but Americans only need to concern themselves with why America was founded, and not bog ourselves down by worrying about wheteher or not the British people agree.
During the first World War, America didn't have any great stake with either the Allies or the Central Powers. Since the Central Powers included the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was the last Catholic Empire left in Europe, the best thing morally would seem to have been entering the war on that side.
In real life, things weren't that simple. Britain was fighting on the side of the Allies, and there was a substantial British presence in Canada, especially in Halifax, where the Royal Navy assembled convoys. Strategically, America was stuck.
In the second World War, things were much clearer. Germany invaded Poland, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany slaughtered millions in the camps, and Japan conducted the Bataan Death March. Germany perpetrated the London Blitz. Japan conducted hideous medical experiments on prisonjers of war.
Yet, we second-guess the tactics we and our Allies used to bring down Germany and Japan. I've already covered Dresden in another blog. Now for a little background on the Manhattan Project, and the Atomic Bomb.
The Manhattan Project, which led to the development of the atomic bomb, was undertaken early in the war, based on fears that Germany might be developing a nuclear weapons program. Hitler did, in fact, have such a program, but his scientists didn't come up with a prototype before the war ended in Europe.
When the bomb was finally developed, it was decided to use it against Japan for a number of strategic reasons, including the fact that Japan hadn't surrendered to an enemy in over 2000 years.
People have arguied ever since about the moral complications of the atomic bomb, but Colonel Paul Tibbets, who piloted the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima summed it up well. He said, "Let's get something straight here. We were at war. The idea was to win."
People have said that the moral thing would have been to use means other than the atomic bomb. Actually, the moral thing would have been for Germany to have stayed out of Poland, and Japan to have not bombed Pearl Harbor. America wasn't given those options.
The release of the new Star Trek movie will undoubtably bring back some fond memories among some dyed-in-the-wool Trekies out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start talking about their favorite episodes of the original series, which ran from 1967 to 1969, and aquired a cult following through years of re-runs.
In the original series, one episode comes to mind that is eerily appropriate for our time. In this episode, Captain Kirk is split into two distinctly different people. One embodies all that is good about the Captain, and the other embodies all that is bad. The consequences are catastrophic for him and his crew.
The bad Captain Kirk is so bad he can't act responsibly as Captain, and the good Captain Kirk can't make a single command decision, because he keeps getting bogged down in the moral complications of every action.
Obviously we don't want to emulate the bad Captain Kirk, but how many of us have gotten like the good Captain Kirk and don't even realize it?
Soildiers and law enforcement personnel are frequently in situations where being like the good Captain Kirk could cost them their lives. But what about the rest of us?
In 1976, when I was six years old, virtually everyone was caught up in the celebration of America's Bicentennial. Patriotism was high, and in school we spent the two years leading up to the celebration discussing the exploits of George Washington and the others who worked tirelessly to create our country.
But by thew time I reached college, it seemed as though we were devoting more time to discussing the British take on the American Revolution than on our own. It seems that now we're not sure if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were heroes or traitors.
If you're an American, the answer should be clear. The United States was founded for the reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The American Colonies were a great asset that was very badly mismanaged. The founders believed, as President Kennedy said in his Innaugural Address, that "The Rights of Man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the Hand of God". No other nation had ever based itself on this principle.
Britain is entialed to its own take on the American Revolution, but Americans only need to concern themselves with why America was founded, and not bog ourselves down by worrying about wheteher or not the British people agree.
During the first World War, America didn't have any great stake with either the Allies or the Central Powers. Since the Central Powers included the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was the last Catholic Empire left in Europe, the best thing morally would seem to have been entering the war on that side.
In real life, things weren't that simple. Britain was fighting on the side of the Allies, and there was a substantial British presence in Canada, especially in Halifax, where the Royal Navy assembled convoys. Strategically, America was stuck.
In the second World War, things were much clearer. Germany invaded Poland, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany slaughtered millions in the camps, and Japan conducted the Bataan Death March. Germany perpetrated the London Blitz. Japan conducted hideous medical experiments on prisonjers of war.
Yet, we second-guess the tactics we and our Allies used to bring down Germany and Japan. I've already covered Dresden in another blog. Now for a little background on the Manhattan Project, and the Atomic Bomb.
The Manhattan Project, which led to the development of the atomic bomb, was undertaken early in the war, based on fears that Germany might be developing a nuclear weapons program. Hitler did, in fact, have such a program, but his scientists didn't come up with a prototype before the war ended in Europe.
When the bomb was finally developed, it was decided to use it against Japan for a number of strategic reasons, including the fact that Japan hadn't surrendered to an enemy in over 2000 years.
People have arguied ever since about the moral complications of the atomic bomb, but Colonel Paul Tibbets, who piloted the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima summed it up well. He said, "Let's get something straight here. We were at war. The idea was to win."
People have said that the moral thing would have been to use means other than the atomic bomb. Actually, the moral thing would have been for Germany to have stayed out of Poland, and Japan to have not bombed Pearl Harbor. America wasn't given those options.
02 June 2009
We found a house!!!!
With the uproar this weekend with the Tiller murder ( did anyone remember that a Muslim terrorist killed an Army recruiter Monday?. but Governor Palin, bless her heart, did- didn't think so), I forgot to post that we found a house!!!! Geoff and I have become weary of hotel living, after six months of it to date, and since we know that we are here for the the next few years, we went ahead and started house hunting. (The company still hasn't made the official offer, and we are now in month four of that wait), but Geoff wanted to get a head start ,since this is prime moving season. We looked at several houses on Saturday and Sunday, but we knew at the second one we saw Sunday. We went back after seeing the remainder of the houses, and that was it- contract written up, negotiated and offer accepted today. Geoff had foudn another listing, which we had viewed SAturday, and the agent willingly worked with us on Sunday. He is fantastic!!! His name is John Stevens, with Howard Hanna, and he knows Medina County inside and out. What a joy- he never made us feel incompetent or inadequate and had a feel for exactly what we neede. So, the kitchen does not have a built in dishwasher right now- but, it will by Christmas!!! Geoff has the perfect room that will doulbe as his office/Great Train Room. I think, when I first saw that particular room, I knew it was home for us. We should be moved out of our NY apartment by the end of the month (YEAH!!!!!!- I hate paying rent and utilites for a place not lived in) and, with God's grace, will close on 15 July!!!!
01 June 2009
Get Over It!
Geoff's take:
The recent shooting of Dr. Tiller has left many pro-lifers worried that this will set back their cause. On television, we have Bill O'Riely echoing this refrain.
As for shooting Dr. Tiller, obviously I wouldn't do it, but we have to see this for what it is: Evil killing evil.
In the Nazi era there was a man named Reinhardt Heydrich, also known as Heydrich the Hangman. He was a brutal, vile man, who was head of the Nazi Intellignce command, and leader of the Prussian branch of the Gestapo. Under his leadership, millions went to the camps.
In 1942, Heydrich was murdered in occupied Prague. Given his vile nature, it might be tempting to regard the two men who killed him as heroes. This was not the case.
Jan Kubis and Joesph Gabcik did rid the world of a man who thought nothing of murdering people who posed a threat to the Third Reich, but their motives were not pure. They were Czech communists, and the only reason the communists hated Nazis was because they too wanted to rule the world, and the world wasn't big enpugh for both of them.
Dr. Goebbels immidiately siezed the opportunity to blame the murder not on the communists, but on "Jewish Terrorists". As a result, the SS and Gestapo swept through Czechoslovakia, executing every Jew they could find, and in some cases they executed entire villages. By the way, this is the same Dr. Goebbels who grossly inflated the number of fatilities in the bombing of Dresdedn. Starting to see a pattern here?
In a similar vein, Dr. Tiller slaughtered 60,000 unborn babies during his career, putting him on a par, at least in terms of sheer numbers, with Herr Heydrich. The man who killed him was an anarchist, and a madman, not some pro-lifer who had simply had enough.
Regretably, also in a similar vein, Attorney General Holder is now giving abortionists escorts from the U. S. Marshall's Office, to make sure this doesn't happen again. People are very worried that now the government will start treating pro-lifers as domestic terrorists.
I say, get over it, people. We knew who and what Obama was when he was campaigning. We knew he was in favor of abortion on demand. We knew his Preacher was a racist, who hated America, and everything it stood for. We knew that he felt that America owed the world an appology for practically everything its ever achieved. And yet, 54%of Roman Catholics still voted for this man.
54% of you wanted him, and you got what you wanted. So get over it!
The recent shooting of Dr. Tiller has left many pro-lifers worried that this will set back their cause. On television, we have Bill O'Riely echoing this refrain.
As for shooting Dr. Tiller, obviously I wouldn't do it, but we have to see this for what it is: Evil killing evil.
In the Nazi era there was a man named Reinhardt Heydrich, also known as Heydrich the Hangman. He was a brutal, vile man, who was head of the Nazi Intellignce command, and leader of the Prussian branch of the Gestapo. Under his leadership, millions went to the camps.
In 1942, Heydrich was murdered in occupied Prague. Given his vile nature, it might be tempting to regard the two men who killed him as heroes. This was not the case.
Jan Kubis and Joesph Gabcik did rid the world of a man who thought nothing of murdering people who posed a threat to the Third Reich, but their motives were not pure. They were Czech communists, and the only reason the communists hated Nazis was because they too wanted to rule the world, and the world wasn't big enpugh for both of them.
Dr. Goebbels immidiately siezed the opportunity to blame the murder not on the communists, but on "Jewish Terrorists". As a result, the SS and Gestapo swept through Czechoslovakia, executing every Jew they could find, and in some cases they executed entire villages. By the way, this is the same Dr. Goebbels who grossly inflated the number of fatilities in the bombing of Dresdedn. Starting to see a pattern here?
In a similar vein, Dr. Tiller slaughtered 60,000 unborn babies during his career, putting him on a par, at least in terms of sheer numbers, with Herr Heydrich. The man who killed him was an anarchist, and a madman, not some pro-lifer who had simply had enough.
Regretably, also in a similar vein, Attorney General Holder is now giving abortionists escorts from the U. S. Marshall's Office, to make sure this doesn't happen again. People are very worried that now the government will start treating pro-lifers as domestic terrorists.
I say, get over it, people. We knew who and what Obama was when he was campaigning. We knew he was in favor of abortion on demand. We knew his Preacher was a racist, who hated America, and everything it stood for. We knew that he felt that America owed the world an appology for practically everything its ever achieved. And yet, 54%of Roman Catholics still voted for this man.
54% of you wanted him, and you got what you wanted. So get over it!
30 May 2009
To be Catholic in America
This month has certainly taught us what it takes to be Catholic in America. Starting with the Notre Shame scandal, the Supreme Court nomination, and the nomination to the ambassadorship to the4 Holy See- one who was not a practising Catholic would think that the True Faith was simply a do as you want proposition. The damage of Vatican II and its dissenting adherents certainly bore fruit this month, the month of Our Lady. The premier Catholic institution prostituted itself and sold its soul, Church teaching is publicly downgraded by Doug Kmiec and his new allies at the NCR and the MSM, and abortion continues to undermine our identity.
Our bishops, and not all of them, to their shame and our embarrassment, are slowly awakening to what they have wrought through sins of commission and omission, as we the laity have by ours. Theirs is the greater scandal, as they are princes of the Church, and allowed this to happen. They abdicated so much of their authority, and defied the Holy Father on matters both large and small, and we now are re3aping what this has sown for us.
His Holiness was correct when he was elevated to the throne of Peter, when he mused that he saw a smaller church. Hopefully this does not mean aschism in America, but we appear to be heading in that direction. May God have mercy on us all.
Our bishops, and not all of them, to their shame and our embarrassment, are slowly awakening to what they have wrought through sins of commission and omission, as we the laity have by ours. Theirs is the greater scandal, as they are princes of the Church, and allowed this to happen. They abdicated so much of their authority, and defied the Holy Father on matters both large and small, and we now are re3aping what this has sown for us.
His Holiness was correct when he was elevated to the throne of Peter, when he mused that he saw a smaller church. Hopefully this does not mean aschism in America, but we appear to be heading in that direction. May God have mercy on us all.
29 May 2009
Night at the Museum (Smithsonian )
Geoff, aka HOH (Head of the House) and I sat through this horrid movie on Memorial Day. The first one was cute, filled with historical licences and inaccuracies, but his one was much worse. The father, who was a deadbeat failed inventor in the first movie, is now a successful entrepreneur on the verge of a major contract with
Walmart. His friends at the Natural History Museum are being shipped off to the "Federal Archives" for permanent storage, and both the exhibits, his old boss and his son berate him for not having the time for the exhibits in his life. In one scene, he is having Chinese takeout with his son, who notices that there is more food than needed for two, and is upset that his dad has to work through dinner with an associate- basically telling him that his job as nightwatchman was the cool one. Then once the action moves to the Smithsonian, which was NOT used to advantage, the introduction of the Amelia Earhart character made my skin crawl. She was unlikeable enough in real life, and was not as good a pilot as the press, in collusion with Miss Earhart and her father, portrayed her. The actress who played this part overacted to such a' degree that I wanted to walk out. What a horrid rewriting of history. The depicting of the Tuskegee Airmen was simply disgraceful- it had them saluting Amelia, for making it possible for them to be pilots. What a crock of PC nonsense, and insulting to some of our greatest and bravest men in uniform. Then there is the depiction of George Custer- he is more focused on his hair and then claims he is a coward. Sacajawea gets to put him in his place. A brave man is now merely a girly man. The list goes on. In the end, the lead sells his company so that he can be a nightwatchman again, and make his son happy.
Personal responsibility is a total wash, as is honor and courage. What a horrid movie to take the rug rats, especially boys, to see.
Geoff's take:
Radical Feminism at its worst!
General Custer portrayed as a girlie man, who even said he didn't deserve his stars, because he was a coward? Sacajawea jumping in to save the day? The Wright Brothers saying that the idea of a woman flying a plane was preposterous?
"Butchering History" might be a more appropriate subtitle.
The real General Custer was wreckless, often foolhardy, but he was also a West Point Graduate, he was respected by his troops and fellow officers, and in his own day he was certainly not regarded as a coward. No man who rises to the rank of Major General could ever be a coward.
The Wright family practically invented Women's Liberation. Susan Wright was a mathematical genius, and she was the one who inspired her sons to become inventors in the first place. It's likely that niether Susan Wright, nor her daughter Catherine would have suffered Miss Earhart lightly.
As for the Tuskegee Airmen, who were more properly known in their own time as the Lone Eagles, these men were among the best pilots of their day, and it was their own skills as pilots that earned them their place in history, not the pioneering exploits of Amelia Earhart.
Walmart. His friends at the Natural History Museum are being shipped off to the "Federal Archives" for permanent storage, and both the exhibits, his old boss and his son berate him for not having the time for the exhibits in his life. In one scene, he is having Chinese takeout with his son, who notices that there is more food than needed for two, and is upset that his dad has to work through dinner with an associate- basically telling him that his job as nightwatchman was the cool one. Then once the action moves to the Smithsonian, which was NOT used to advantage, the introduction of the Amelia Earhart character made my skin crawl. She was unlikeable enough in real life, and was not as good a pilot as the press, in collusion with Miss Earhart and her father, portrayed her. The actress who played this part overacted to such a' degree that I wanted to walk out. What a horrid rewriting of history. The depicting of the Tuskegee Airmen was simply disgraceful- it had them saluting Amelia, for making it possible for them to be pilots. What a crock of PC nonsense, and insulting to some of our greatest and bravest men in uniform. Then there is the depiction of George Custer- he is more focused on his hair and then claims he is a coward. Sacajawea gets to put him in his place. A brave man is now merely a girly man. The list goes on. In the end, the lead sells his company so that he can be a nightwatchman again, and make his son happy.
Personal responsibility is a total wash, as is honor and courage. What a horrid movie to take the rug rats, especially boys, to see.
Geoff's take:
Radical Feminism at its worst!
General Custer portrayed as a girlie man, who even said he didn't deserve his stars, because he was a coward? Sacajawea jumping in to save the day? The Wright Brothers saying that the idea of a woman flying a plane was preposterous?
"Butchering History" might be a more appropriate subtitle.
The real General Custer was wreckless, often foolhardy, but he was also a West Point Graduate, he was respected by his troops and fellow officers, and in his own day he was certainly not regarded as a coward. No man who rises to the rank of Major General could ever be a coward.
The Wright family practically invented Women's Liberation. Susan Wright was a mathematical genius, and she was the one who inspired her sons to become inventors in the first place. It's likely that niether Susan Wright, nor her daughter Catherine would have suffered Miss Earhart lightly.
As for the Tuskegee Airmen, who were more properly known in their own time as the Lone Eagles, these men were among the best pilots of their day, and it was their own skills as pilots that earned them their place in history, not the pioneering exploits of Amelia Earhart.
28 May 2009
American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Obama names theologian Miguel Diaz as ambassador to Holy See
American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Obama names theologian Miguel Diaz as ambassador to Holy See
And, lest we forget, he is a graduate of Notre Shame.- Check out what Father Z has to say, taking apart John Allen's latest at the NCR
And, lest we forget, he is a graduate of Notre Shame.- Check out what Father Z has to say, taking apart John Allen's latest at the NCR
27 May 2009
New Blog Alert!!!!
As many of you know, I have a soft spot for Marie Antoinette, martyred Queen of France and her husband, Louis XVI. I always have had this, and it was only reinforced whne I read a book on the Carmelites of Compiegne,. whose martyrdom has always brought me to tears, so much so that I actually felt that I was being called to become a Carmelite, and had contacted several Carmels to pursue this. Obviously God had other plans for me. While bloggin, I have made the wonderful acquantaince of a fantastic author, who also is a Third Order Discalced Carmelite. Elena Maria Vidal, of the blog teaattrianon.blogspot.com. This wonderful woman, author of "Trianon" and "Madame Royale", both of which I have recently read and have promised to review here soon, once we are FINALLY settled, has a new blog that is also a must read- http://fountainofelias.blogspot.com- Drop by, follow her on her journey, and read her books!!!!
26 May 2009
24 May 2009
Don't do it, Mr. President!
Geoff's take:
On February 13, 1945, during the waning days of the second World War, the German city of Dresden was carpet-bombed to the ground by Allied Air Forces. In the sixty-four years that have followed, this single event has been cloaked in controversy. Many people, including some Catholic writers and clergy, have argued that this event was tragically unneccesary, because by that late date, the defeat of Germany was all but inevitable.
Playing on these sentiments, President Obama has expressed interest in formally appologizing to Germany for this action. I say, "Don't do it, Mr. President".
The bombing of Dresden was not an American undertaking. It was a British mission, in which the American Air Forces participated. It was concieved by the RAF, and approved by Sir Winstron Churchill. Thus, presuming an appology is owed (which I do not), that appology should come from the Right Honourable Gordon Brown, not the President of the United States.
Much of the controversy over the bombing centers on the idea that Dresden contained no vital military targets. This is a fallacy. The Zeiss optical factory was there, and this factory produced bomb sights for the Luftwaffe. The Zeiss factory was one of the buildings that was destroyed. According to Joseph Angell of the USAF historical commission, there were 110 factories, and 50,000 workers suipporting the Nazi war effort. These included aircraft parts, a poison gas plant, a gear factory, and an electric gauge factory. The German High Command weapons office also said that Dresden contrained 127 defense plants.
Dresden was also the hub of Nazi Germany's railway operations. Most major German rail lines converged at Dresden. Disrupting this rail system was crucial in enabling the Russian Advance, and in keeping Geman troops from blocking it.
Many people in Britain were dismayed by the bombing, mainly because Dresden had been a cultural center before the war, and they refused to see that Hitler had transformed it into a gear in the Nazi war machine.
Controversy really began to develop when the Associated Press was interviewing Air Commodore Colin Grierson two days after the raid. He said that the primary role in bombing Dresden was to disrupt supply and communications lines, but he then added an off-the-cuff remark that thje raid would help destroy "what's left of German morale".
AP reported this remark as an indication that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. This story reached the House of Commons, and MP Richard Stokes raised his concerns on the House floor.
Under pressure from Stokes and other members of Parliament, Churchill began second guessing his decision, and eventually ordered an end to carpet bombing.
However, American General George Marshall, U. S. Army Chief of Staff, conducted an investigation into the bombings, and he concluded that they were, in fact, legitimate raids. His findings were classified, and since they weren't made public for another thirty-three years, many historians still might not be aware this investigation even took place.
Further, it was discovered that in spite of the claims of the German Ministry of Propaganda, the loss of life, while high, was not disprportionately higher than in the raids on other German cities.
The bombing itself was in proportion to the raids on Hamburg and Berlin. No evidence existed to indicate that Dresden had been singled-out for heavier bombing.
It's also a fallacy to assume the war was already won. The Allied victory was as much a product of Hitler's refusal to listen to his Generals as it was a product of superior Allied strategy. As late as November of 1944, Hitler was convinced that if he made a last-ditch offensive, he could still win the war. By this time, Normandy had already fallen to the Allies, and Hitler was effectively blocked in the west by the British and American forces. In the east, the Russian Army was steadily making its way to the German border.
Despite these odds, in December of 1944, Hitler launched an offensive in the Ardennes Forest, (known to the Allies as the Battle of the Bulge), in which he unleashed the Tiger Tank. This tank was larger, had heavier armor, and more powerful guns than the American Sherman tank, and if Hitler had used these tanks more effectively, he could have won the war, or at least prolonged it.
Nearly a month after Dresden, while allied forces were storming the Ludendorff bridge at Remagen, the Luftwaffe conducted a fly-by with one of its experimental jet fighters. Again, too little too late for the Nazis, but they were still fighting the Allies tooth and nail.
The bombings did create a firestorm that killed many civilians, but the exact number was greatly exaggerated by German newspapers, which were controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda. Josef Goebbels took the initial estimates of 10,000 dead, and inflated them to 100,000. Goebbels was a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi, so this is hardly surprising.
It's been argued that the raid didn't accomplish anything strategically, because Hitler didn't surrender as a result of the bombing of Dresden. But bear in mind that Germany didn't surrender until Hitler took his own life in the Berlin Bunker.
By that time, the Allies were already on German soil, and even that didn't make Hitler surrender. He finally commited suicide because the Russian forces were closing in on Berlin.
In a war, individual raids are like the gears in a watch. What they do individually is not as important as how they work together to accomplish the task.
On February 13, 1945, during the waning days of the second World War, the German city of Dresden was carpet-bombed to the ground by Allied Air Forces. In the sixty-four years that have followed, this single event has been cloaked in controversy. Many people, including some Catholic writers and clergy, have argued that this event was tragically unneccesary, because by that late date, the defeat of Germany was all but inevitable.
Playing on these sentiments, President Obama has expressed interest in formally appologizing to Germany for this action. I say, "Don't do it, Mr. President".
The bombing of Dresden was not an American undertaking. It was a British mission, in which the American Air Forces participated. It was concieved by the RAF, and approved by Sir Winstron Churchill. Thus, presuming an appology is owed (which I do not), that appology should come from the Right Honourable Gordon Brown, not the President of the United States.
Much of the controversy over the bombing centers on the idea that Dresden contained no vital military targets. This is a fallacy. The Zeiss optical factory was there, and this factory produced bomb sights for the Luftwaffe. The Zeiss factory was one of the buildings that was destroyed. According to Joseph Angell of the USAF historical commission, there were 110 factories, and 50,000 workers suipporting the Nazi war effort. These included aircraft parts, a poison gas plant, a gear factory, and an electric gauge factory. The German High Command weapons office also said that Dresden contrained 127 defense plants.
Dresden was also the hub of Nazi Germany's railway operations. Most major German rail lines converged at Dresden. Disrupting this rail system was crucial in enabling the Russian Advance, and in keeping Geman troops from blocking it.
Many people in Britain were dismayed by the bombing, mainly because Dresden had been a cultural center before the war, and they refused to see that Hitler had transformed it into a gear in the Nazi war machine.
Controversy really began to develop when the Associated Press was interviewing Air Commodore Colin Grierson two days after the raid. He said that the primary role in bombing Dresden was to disrupt supply and communications lines, but he then added an off-the-cuff remark that thje raid would help destroy "what's left of German morale".
AP reported this remark as an indication that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. This story reached the House of Commons, and MP Richard Stokes raised his concerns on the House floor.
Under pressure from Stokes and other members of Parliament, Churchill began second guessing his decision, and eventually ordered an end to carpet bombing.
However, American General George Marshall, U. S. Army Chief of Staff, conducted an investigation into the bombings, and he concluded that they were, in fact, legitimate raids. His findings were classified, and since they weren't made public for another thirty-three years, many historians still might not be aware this investigation even took place.
Further, it was discovered that in spite of the claims of the German Ministry of Propaganda, the loss of life, while high, was not disprportionately higher than in the raids on other German cities.
The bombing itself was in proportion to the raids on Hamburg and Berlin. No evidence existed to indicate that Dresden had been singled-out for heavier bombing.
It's also a fallacy to assume the war was already won. The Allied victory was as much a product of Hitler's refusal to listen to his Generals as it was a product of superior Allied strategy. As late as November of 1944, Hitler was convinced that if he made a last-ditch offensive, he could still win the war. By this time, Normandy had already fallen to the Allies, and Hitler was effectively blocked in the west by the British and American forces. In the east, the Russian Army was steadily making its way to the German border.
Despite these odds, in December of 1944, Hitler launched an offensive in the Ardennes Forest, (known to the Allies as the Battle of the Bulge), in which he unleashed the Tiger Tank. This tank was larger, had heavier armor, and more powerful guns than the American Sherman tank, and if Hitler had used these tanks more effectively, he could have won the war, or at least prolonged it.
Nearly a month after Dresden, while allied forces were storming the Ludendorff bridge at Remagen, the Luftwaffe conducted a fly-by with one of its experimental jet fighters. Again, too little too late for the Nazis, but they were still fighting the Allies tooth and nail.
The bombings did create a firestorm that killed many civilians, but the exact number was greatly exaggerated by German newspapers, which were controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda. Josef Goebbels took the initial estimates of 10,000 dead, and inflated them to 100,000. Goebbels was a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi, so this is hardly surprising.
It's been argued that the raid didn't accomplish anything strategically, because Hitler didn't surrender as a result of the bombing of Dresden. But bear in mind that Germany didn't surrender until Hitler took his own life in the Berlin Bunker.
By that time, the Allies were already on German soil, and even that didn't make Hitler surrender. He finally commited suicide because the Russian forces were closing in on Berlin.
In a war, individual raids are like the gears in a watch. What they do individually is not as important as how they work together to accomplish the task.
Terminator Salvation
LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!! Geoff and I just returned from the local theater in Macedonia, Ohio and I firmly encourage those of you who like/love action flicks to see this one. I loved the Terminator movies (well, the first two, anyway- the third was just passe), and I love the TV show, so when I learned of this upcoming potential trilogy, I was intrigued to say the least. I think Christian Bale was awesome, but Sam Worthington stole the show. I have another favorite actor (Sean Bean, Timothy Dalton, Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale and now Sam- anyone see a pattern here?)!!!!!
The commercials seen on TV are misleading, in that Mr. Bale is NOT the prime mover in the story line, Mr. Worthington is. Both men are well cast in this movie, and both have the screen magic that is not camouflaged by reliance on special effects, as tends to be the case with action movies.
Mr. Bale is John Connor, the nemesis of Skynet and its machine minions. He is as one would expect him to be- tough and resilient, having been introduced to him first, in utero in T1, then as a bratty teenager in T2, and a far mellower and girlie man figure in T3 (The least of the movies in the original franchise, one that probably should not have been made) The Fox tv show, which has probably been cancelled, gives us a believable teenage John Connor facing his fears for his future, and his ability to live up to what his life will be, while trying to outrun the machines in modern day America, while in high school. I found the series to be well done and a good use of the original storyline for a tv show. The actor is certainly an improvement on the one who played him in the seond movie.
In this current outing, in the first of a new Terminator franchise, Mr. Bale does credit to what has preceded this particluar story, and if what he has done in reviving the Batman franchise is any indication, then this new Terminator is in very good hands indeed.
Mr. Worthington's character is a man, once on death row, who finds himself 15 years in the future, after his execution, which precipitated his donating his body to science (Cyberdine, a partner of Skynet) While on death row, he shows remorse for what he has done, and accepts his execution as the appropriate penalty for the deaths of his brother and two police officers. He does not play the victim. When he reappears, he has no idea what has trnaspired, and is unaware that he is now a cybernetic organism, half human and half machine. When his new "reality" is made known to him. he does not accept the "dark/machine side of his new self, and never rejects the sanctity of human life. He chooses, freely, human over machine, good over evil, and is key to the destruction of Skynet's labs in SF, and the saving of John Connor's life.
Good vs evil, man vs machine are the key elements in this movie, and everyone recognizes that the machines must be destroyed so that mankind may live. NO half measures are proposed or considered. It is a true depiction of good vs evil, amd the sacrifices that are made to ensure that evil does not triumph.
What a great movie for Memorial Day!!!!
Geoff's take is pretty much the same. The normally elegant Helena Bonham Carter gives a very different performance, as a character that simply personifies evil. Her American accent was well done, but probaly not needed, as it adds very little to the character.
The commercials seen on TV are misleading, in that Mr. Bale is NOT the prime mover in the story line, Mr. Worthington is. Both men are well cast in this movie, and both have the screen magic that is not camouflaged by reliance on special effects, as tends to be the case with action movies.
Mr. Bale is John Connor, the nemesis of Skynet and its machine minions. He is as one would expect him to be- tough and resilient, having been introduced to him first, in utero in T1, then as a bratty teenager in T2, and a far mellower and girlie man figure in T3 (The least of the movies in the original franchise, one that probably should not have been made) The Fox tv show, which has probably been cancelled, gives us a believable teenage John Connor facing his fears for his future, and his ability to live up to what his life will be, while trying to outrun the machines in modern day America, while in high school. I found the series to be well done and a good use of the original storyline for a tv show. The actor is certainly an improvement on the one who played him in the seond movie.
In this current outing, in the first of a new Terminator franchise, Mr. Bale does credit to what has preceded this particluar story, and if what he has done in reviving the Batman franchise is any indication, then this new Terminator is in very good hands indeed.
Mr. Worthington's character is a man, once on death row, who finds himself 15 years in the future, after his execution, which precipitated his donating his body to science (Cyberdine, a partner of Skynet) While on death row, he shows remorse for what he has done, and accepts his execution as the appropriate penalty for the deaths of his brother and two police officers. He does not play the victim. When he reappears, he has no idea what has trnaspired, and is unaware that he is now a cybernetic organism, half human and half machine. When his new "reality" is made known to him. he does not accept the "dark/machine side of his new self, and never rejects the sanctity of human life. He chooses, freely, human over machine, good over evil, and is key to the destruction of Skynet's labs in SF, and the saving of John Connor's life.
Good vs evil, man vs machine are the key elements in this movie, and everyone recognizes that the machines must be destroyed so that mankind may live. NO half measures are proposed or considered. It is a true depiction of good vs evil, amd the sacrifices that are made to ensure that evil does not triumph.
What a great movie for Memorial Day!!!!
Geoff's take is pretty much the same. The normally elegant Helena Bonham Carter gives a very different performance, as a character that simply personifies evil. Her American accent was well done, but probaly not needed, as it adds very little to the character.
14 May 2009
The Cleveland Clinic
Best cardiac care in the US!!!!
Tomorrow I have the first of three epidural shots for extensive lower back pain. Twelve years ago I was assaulted, with my right arm being hyperextended and the nerves in my lower right back being permanently damaged. Love living with permanent nerve damage on the right side of my body- makes being a righty even more fun than usual!!! Three weeks ago, while getting out of bed (for me a 10 to 20 minute task on a good day)I threw out my lower spine!!!! Geoff took me to Twinsburg, to the Urgent Care facility which is affiliated with the Cleveland Clininc, and I had my follow up Tuesday with Dr. Allen, whom I absolutely adore. (While we were in NJ, I went to Dr. Samuel Schenker in Toms River when my right shoulder decided that my lower back pain, for which I am on disability, had been getting too much attention. I underwent a series of shots and an epidural, in my neck, but it only worked for a short while, as I had been fully advised would most probably be the best result with the nerve damage that I have. I would have taken him with me to NY and then Ohio, he is that good a neuroligist and pain management specialist. Dr. Allen is just like him!!!) Can hardly wait to FINALLY move here. Best healthcare system in the state, according to Pater.
Nows, to keep TOTUS from screwing up our healthcare system..........
Tomorrow I have the first of three epidural shots for extensive lower back pain. Twelve years ago I was assaulted, with my right arm being hyperextended and the nerves in my lower right back being permanently damaged. Love living with permanent nerve damage on the right side of my body- makes being a righty even more fun than usual!!! Three weeks ago, while getting out of bed (for me a 10 to 20 minute task on a good day)I threw out my lower spine!!!! Geoff took me to Twinsburg, to the Urgent Care facility which is affiliated with the Cleveland Clininc, and I had my follow up Tuesday with Dr. Allen, whom I absolutely adore. (While we were in NJ, I went to Dr. Samuel Schenker in Toms River when my right shoulder decided that my lower back pain, for which I am on disability, had been getting too much attention. I underwent a series of shots and an epidural, in my neck, but it only worked for a short while, as I had been fully advised would most probably be the best result with the nerve damage that I have. I would have taken him with me to NY and then Ohio, he is that good a neuroligist and pain management specialist. Dr. Allen is just like him!!!) Can hardly wait to FINALLY move here. Best healthcare system in the state, according to Pater.
Nows, to keep TOTUS from screwing up our healthcare system..........
13 May 2009
03 May 2009
Crises
Ever since the Notre Shame scandal first broke, I have been of the opinion that we as Catholics, have been there before, and today, while in the hotel's indoor pool, trying to exorcise the spasms in my back (still there, by the way), it hit me. The Land o Lake charter, so proudly promulgated and shamelessly promoted by Notre Shame and other like minded fellow travellers in the hierarchy of Catholic higher education- These so called Catholic clerics and academicians were so proud of themselves for their open defiance of the Holy Father and the teachings of Holy Mother Church- their exploits and the subsequent disasters facing the Church in America for the last forty years, so easily fit the crisis template being exploited by the current administration today- "Let no crisis be wasted" is their battle cry in 2009, as they attempt to finish off the remnants of Western Civilization that the so called "Enlightenment" did not, and replace it with a totally unwanted and secular financial system and society. Both used the press- did you hear how the administration is threatening to unleash its lapdog media onto the Chrysler bond and share holders for having the audacity to stand up for their rights under the rule of law? Both are applauded by the press as saviors of "the people". Holy Mother Chruch survived the onslaught and is slowly but surely growing again, man made scandals aside. But will America survive? Where are her Cardinal O'Connor's? Where are her battle weary regiments of citizens? The tea parties are a great start, so there is still time to stop the madness. But do we, as individuals and as a society as a whole, have the moral certitude with which to do so? France has never recovered from the Enlightenment.
Sunday reflections
Ever since we have been in Ohio, Sundays are the one day when everything goes wrong when we are getting ready for Mass. We don't know why but it the "events" keep us from arriving at church in time for Confession- Geoff is convinced that something satanic is atr work.
01 May 2009
This week of TOTUS
Apparently, TOTUS simply cannot catch a break- His press conference wednesday was cringingly self delusional- when is the vaunted Washington press corps going to do its job? How about that awful touch feely question posed by the NYT journalist poseur? (enchanted?) Then his VIP with hoof and mouth disease scares the bejesus out of Americans with his comments on the current flu pandemic- Remember the hysteria in the press about how ready Sarah Palin would be to step up as a VP? Now TOTUS wants to take back our "tax break" of 7.50 a week. And the piece de resistance- the nationalization of Chrysler through the US Bankruptcy Courts!!! Can anyone now saw soialism?
28 April 2009
Notre Dame and abortion
Since we are back in Ohio, and I am dependent on using my husband's laptop after a long day of running a railroad, my bloggin has been very sporadic. Here then, are my comments on the fiasco of Notre Shame-
Ever since the late 1960s and the Land O Lakes charter nonsense, ND has undermined the Catholic identity in the public square in pursuit of secular glory. The beswt example is the continued presence of Father O'Brien as head of the Theology department. This year's commencment fiasco should be seen as the culmination of the efforts of those who openly seek to undermine Catholic identity in the UNited States. That being said, what a refreshing image we now have before us, of a formner US Ambassador to the Holy See declining to be awarded for her truly heroic efforts in the prolife arena, for recognizing how her award would truly look in the eyes of the non-Catholic public, and for standing up to be counted, and for failing to cause an even greater public scandal than the one already. God Bless Mary Ann Glendon!!!! Her letter, seen at First Things, is a wonder to behold, and a shining example of how to live your public life as a Catholic. BRAVO!!!!!
Ever since the late 1960s and the Land O Lakes charter nonsense, ND has undermined the Catholic identity in the public square in pursuit of secular glory. The beswt example is the continued presence of Father O'Brien as head of the Theology department. This year's commencment fiasco should be seen as the culmination of the efforts of those who openly seek to undermine Catholic identity in the UNited States. That being said, what a refreshing image we now have before us, of a formner US Ambassador to the Holy See declining to be awarded for her truly heroic efforts in the prolife arena, for recognizing how her award would truly look in the eyes of the non-Catholic public, and for standing up to be counted, and for failing to cause an even greater public scandal than the one already. God Bless Mary Ann Glendon!!!! Her letter, seen at First Things, is a wonder to behold, and a shining example of how to live your public life as a Catholic. BRAVO!!!!!
Musings on our overly secularized world
Like many of my fellow bloggers, I was amazed at Susn Boyle, that lovely SCottish woman of great talent adn, even more importantly, great moral character. While most publications and media have focused on the earthly riches that must surely come to her, I have only seen one article that discussed her actual humility and the strength of her character in its fullest light- Since I still have not figured out how to link (Yes a major blonde moment), here is the url which you can cut and paste inot your browser- the article first appeard on 14 April 209:
www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinion/display.var.2501746.0.The_beauty_that_matters_is_always_on_the_inside.php
The writer hits a home run
www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinion/display.var.2501746.0.The_beauty_that_matters_is_always_on_the_inside.php
The writer hits a home run
Reflections on familial and human frailty
Our niece, Jennifer Amber Black, was buried yesterday. The grief is still tearing at her family, especially her parents as well as her paternal grandparents (who are my parents, for full disclosure) My mother, my Aunt Regina and I break down every time we speak to one another. Geoff is shell shocked at her death. My dad, whom I have never seen cry, also breaks down in his pain and grief over a loved grandchild, one whom he will never meet on earth. I wish that John and Jackie, her parents, had been spared this loss- I wish that there had been something that we could have done. We tend to forget that modern medicine cannot fix everything, and in this case could not. Our consolation is that she was baptised and is now in heaven with God and all his angels and saints.
23 April 2009
Reflections on my family
Jennifer's death on 21 April 2009, after an hour of life, has shattered not only her parents, but the rest of her family. Her father John is the second of my three brothers, all of whom are younger than I am. I also have four sisters, all of whom are, again, younger than I am. (John is the fifth child in birth order, and is a fraternal twin.) Of these women, my four sisters and I, two are married, and three are divorced. (I fall into both categories, as I am currently married to my beloved Geoffrey, but have been previously married and divorced twice, both times before my thirtieth birthday) We have over twenty first cousins on our maternal side, and second and third cousins on our paternal. Of our immediate family, I am the only one who is barren. Fertility issues abound amongst the women in our family. One first cousin underwent a hysterectomy at the age of 28, several years after giving birth to her only child out of wedlock. She is now a grandmother. Another endured either the stillbirth or miscarriage of twins, and she now is the mother of two. The two eldest of my younger sisters each miscarried their second child. The two younger sisters endured endometriosis, one even after having her only child. In 2008, two of my sisters in law, including Jennifer's mother, miscarried. Each of these women again conceived, with one live birth in November, and Jennifer's brief life on the 21st.
I am permanently estranged from all of my siblings, gong back to childhood, for reasons known and which I choose not to disclose, and for even more that are unknown to me. I have an irascible, unlikeable temperament, and have always known this to be the case. It is one of the bigger crosses with which God blessed me. I have always been on the outside looking in with my siblings, and it continues to this day. I suffer from severe PTSD for traumas going back over thirty years, yet when I seek the appropriate help, it is embarrassing to my family and I am told to suck it up. Another family trait is to hold onto perceived and real sins of others, hoarding them like acorns, and never forgiving. I refused to continue this "tradition" when only ten or so, and I pay for it to this very day, as does Geoffrey by extension.
When he and I became engaged in September 2001, right before the attacks on this country, the shock in my family was palpable. Even more so that I attended Jackie's bridal shower on 9 September 2001. (Jackie is John's beloved wife) I was ignored as if I had the plague, after a few well chosen snide remarks by one of my younger sisters, who was acting as the surrogate for the sibling sho has hated me for existing since we were children. She calls the shots in the family, and all willingly follow her lead. I was too stupid to acknowledge this until 1997, when a nightmare began for me that ended up costing me my career and financial security. The shock of it has never receeded either. But, I digress. Geoffrey and I attended John and Jackie's rehearsal dinner, which was the first time that Geoffrey would be meeting my parents and would be introduced to my siblings. For me, it was even worse than expected; Geoffrey wasn't even phased by it, but later said that my siblings acted as he had expected, poorly. While introducing him to my parents, my youngest brother and his wife refused to even acknowldege our presence, and the sister who rules the roost swept down in order to protect them from my presence. The wedding was even worse for me- I refused to sit with my family because of how Geoff was treated at the rehearsal (I expected to be maligned and was, even worse than I had forseen) Only John and Jackie were gracious to us and acknowledged us. This did not last long either, suffice it to say, I was again banished from sight and sound.
Turning the other cheek is a willful act, one at which I do not excel, but I worked at it for Geoffrey's sake. I would endure whatever the siblings would dish out, in an attempt to remain part of this family. Gifts were sent to the children born into the family after 2001, for both birthdays and Christmas. Cards were sent to all families at Christmas. Few if any cards were sent to me. No sibling attended our wedding, none of my sisters attended my shower. We were never invited to any family function- First Communion, Confirmation, high school graduation- nada.
Fast forward to 2008- the first miscarraige knocked me on my heels and our grief was unbearable. Messages were left, none were returned. My brother and his wife were shocked that we would feel grief for their loss, since they never met Geoff (this was the couple that walked away at the rehearsal dinner) and had never met their first child, nor been invited into their home. Gifts were sent to the elder child- no acknowlegment. When the second baby arrived, same thing. When we learned that Geoff would be working in Ohio, near where this particular branch of the family lived, I excitedly wrote, informing them of his schedule, and received no response. I had had enough. After receiving a snotty email about a Christmas gift from another sibling for her child, I was furious. Geoff and I weren't good enough to be part of this "family" but we were good enough to spend time and money on gifts. I was so furious that I wrote a letter to my brother in Ohio, who is the baby of the family, calling him on his behaviour. I even sent a copy to my parents, because our family always brings them into the tempests in teacups that we inflict upon each other. I even gave a copy to my psychiatrist, who Geoff found for me at CatholicTherapists.com. I had intended to mail it in March, after we returned from Ohio (we were due to be there for the months of January and February of 2009). At his behest, I mailed it before we left. I did finally receive a call on my cell from James, who told me that he never wanted anything to do with either Geoff or myself while we were in Ohio or after. I even told my mother to never mention anyone of my siblings to me again- If not for her, we would never have known of Jennifer's death.
Anyway, this is not intended to belittle Jennifer's death. We feel her loss as if it she were our own, and because of these circumstances must grieve alone. We know that we would never have met her, or had anything to do with her, as we don't with her elder sister.
I am permanently estranged from all of my siblings, gong back to childhood, for reasons known and which I choose not to disclose, and for even more that are unknown to me. I have an irascible, unlikeable temperament, and have always known this to be the case. It is one of the bigger crosses with which God blessed me. I have always been on the outside looking in with my siblings, and it continues to this day. I suffer from severe PTSD for traumas going back over thirty years, yet when I seek the appropriate help, it is embarrassing to my family and I am told to suck it up. Another family trait is to hold onto perceived and real sins of others, hoarding them like acorns, and never forgiving. I refused to continue this "tradition" when only ten or so, and I pay for it to this very day, as does Geoffrey by extension.
When he and I became engaged in September 2001, right before the attacks on this country, the shock in my family was palpable. Even more so that I attended Jackie's bridal shower on 9 September 2001. (Jackie is John's beloved wife) I was ignored as if I had the plague, after a few well chosen snide remarks by one of my younger sisters, who was acting as the surrogate for the sibling sho has hated me for existing since we were children. She calls the shots in the family, and all willingly follow her lead. I was too stupid to acknowledge this until 1997, when a nightmare began for me that ended up costing me my career and financial security. The shock of it has never receeded either. But, I digress. Geoffrey and I attended John and Jackie's rehearsal dinner, which was the first time that Geoffrey would be meeting my parents and would be introduced to my siblings. For me, it was even worse than expected; Geoffrey wasn't even phased by it, but later said that my siblings acted as he had expected, poorly. While introducing him to my parents, my youngest brother and his wife refused to even acknowldege our presence, and the sister who rules the roost swept down in order to protect them from my presence. The wedding was even worse for me- I refused to sit with my family because of how Geoff was treated at the rehearsal (I expected to be maligned and was, even worse than I had forseen) Only John and Jackie were gracious to us and acknowledged us. This did not last long either, suffice it to say, I was again banished from sight and sound.
Turning the other cheek is a willful act, one at which I do not excel, but I worked at it for Geoffrey's sake. I would endure whatever the siblings would dish out, in an attempt to remain part of this family. Gifts were sent to the children born into the family after 2001, for both birthdays and Christmas. Cards were sent to all families at Christmas. Few if any cards were sent to me. No sibling attended our wedding, none of my sisters attended my shower. We were never invited to any family function- First Communion, Confirmation, high school graduation- nada.
Fast forward to 2008- the first miscarraige knocked me on my heels and our grief was unbearable. Messages were left, none were returned. My brother and his wife were shocked that we would feel grief for their loss, since they never met Geoff (this was the couple that walked away at the rehearsal dinner) and had never met their first child, nor been invited into their home. Gifts were sent to the elder child- no acknowlegment. When the second baby arrived, same thing. When we learned that Geoff would be working in Ohio, near where this particular branch of the family lived, I excitedly wrote, informing them of his schedule, and received no response. I had had enough. After receiving a snotty email about a Christmas gift from another sibling for her child, I was furious. Geoff and I weren't good enough to be part of this "family" but we were good enough to spend time and money on gifts. I was so furious that I wrote a letter to my brother in Ohio, who is the baby of the family, calling him on his behaviour. I even sent a copy to my parents, because our family always brings them into the tempests in teacups that we inflict upon each other. I even gave a copy to my psychiatrist, who Geoff found for me at CatholicTherapists.com. I had intended to mail it in March, after we returned from Ohio (we were due to be there for the months of January and February of 2009). At his behest, I mailed it before we left. I did finally receive a call on my cell from James, who told me that he never wanted anything to do with either Geoff or myself while we were in Ohio or after. I even told my mother to never mention anyone of my siblings to me again- If not for her, we would never have known of Jennifer's death.
Anyway, this is not intended to belittle Jennifer's death. We feel her loss as if it she were our own, and because of these circumstances must grieve alone. We know that we would never have met her, or had anything to do with her, as we don't with her elder sister.
22 April 2009
Jennifer Amber Black, RIP
On 21 April 2009, my niece Jennifer Amber Black, was born prematurely at 24 weeks, naturally. Her mother, Jackie, beloved wife of my middle brother John, had been brought to the hospital due to contractions. This beautiful child, younger sister of Jessica Rose Black, died an hour after birth, having been first held and bathed by her adoring father, who also baptised her. She moved and made noises/sounds, which I believe in my heart were her way of telling her Dad that she knew him and loved him. The pain that Geoff and I have is excruciating, and I cannot even fathom that of Jennifer's parents. Our entire family has been devastated by this blow. John, Jackie and Jessica had been visitng my parents in SC only two weeks ago, immediately before Easter, and there were no problems- both Jackie and baby were in perfect health and Jennifer was due in early August. (Until her birth, her sex was unknown). Please pray for this beautiful child, taken from us way too soon. I simply cannot stop crying and grieving, the shock still too raw to process. I know that this is God's will, but to lose a loved and wanted child is simply unspeakable.
14 April 2009
10 April 2009
09 April 2009
07 April 2009
06 April 2009
05 April 2009
04 April 2009
03 April 2009
"ABORTION IS A BLESSING"
Geoff and I are back in Ohio, awaiting his company move package, which should appear in May. While using his laptop in our hotel room, as he sleeps, I read the below on The Anchoress' blog- www.theanchoressonline.com. I am speechless with shock and anger that anyone whould consider abortion a blessing, but this monstrous woman, a minister no less, does just that. The Anchoress has brilliantly dissected the abomination which was delivered in Birmingham, Alabama, at a conference, in 2007. May God have mercy on this person's soul. May the Anchoress forgive me for copying her post in its entirety:
"April 2, 2009
“Abortion is a blessing!”
You know, it’s so sick, I really didn’t want to write about it. I linked to Amy Welborn and figured I’d let you folks find this monstrosity on your own, but I want to make sure you read it.
These remarks were made before a NARAL audience, in 2007, but are only just getting some reaction, perhaps because of the current movement to suppress the conscience clause that protects doctors, nurses and pharmacists from losing their jobs, and Catholic hospitals from closing their doors.
Or, perhaps her words are becoming more widely distributed because The Rev Katherine Hancock Ragsdale has just been named Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massacusetts.
If you do not mind, in the interests of space, I am going to put Ragsdale’s sermon in bold, and I’ll respond here and there, in italics
Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let’s be very clear about this: When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
If you actually talk to women who have kept the babies conceived ‘due to violence,’ as I have in my life, you would more likely find that their allowing their child to live has delivered them from their trauma, and brought love, healing and light into a very dark reality. When “violence” has been done to someone, it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that further violence - via both penetration and a ripping, violent murder done deeply WITHIN her body - can be a blessing…unless you subscribe to the odd two-wrongs-make-right equation.
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
These two young mothers and their babies belie the idea that doctors are always correct in their predictions about sustainable life. With extremely rare medical exception, a woman never “requires” an abortion, and even the AMA has testified that late-term abortions are unnecessary, given the availability of safe Cesarean sections, to protect “life” or “health” or “fertility.” It is certainly a crushing and painful thing for any pregnant woman to learn that child she is carrying and nurturing in her womb has a problem and may not live, or may live “differently” than most of us. But healing is a funny thing. It only comes when you walk through the fire rather than by attempting a detour around it. I wonder if Rev. Ragsdale has ever talked to women who have delivered children destined to die, who have managed only to swaddle them, name them and kiss them before burying them. She might learn something about what a powerful, and unending - Eternal - love comes with those experiences. It is the difference between being able to say “I know you and you know me”, and not knowing, at all. Blessings, indeed.
When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
Certainly there are women who struggle with these issues, but there are pretty extensive government programs in place to assist them, and I have never heard of a church that has refused help when a need has been made known. And I reject out of hand the notion that if someone is poor, they should simply kill their children. Barack Obama’s mother surely had few social “justice” mechanisms in place when she chose to give birth to him!
But if Ragsdale is really worried about women being forced to abort because of insufficient government or community help, and if she is sincere about the notion of “informed choice” - including the “choice” not to abort, then perhaps she will head into the monied enclaves of the pro-choice, on the Upper West Side, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Hollywood and elsewhere to urge the establishment of a “Pro-Choice Mother’s Help Foundation,” so that more women have even more resources to help them. It seems to me the pro-abortion side raises enormous amounts of money to support their facilities and their lobbying efforts. Why not spend some of it putting some money on the “life” side of the “choice” they’re so very, very “pro” about? I’d donate to it - a show of good faith.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
Actually, in this scenario, there are several tragedies “in sight.” There is - lest we forget - the ripping and shredding up of a human life (come on, Rev. Ragsdale - it’s a baby - a living being, species human, not vegetable, not wolvine), and more tragically a weird societal validation of the supremacy (and stagnation) of the beloved self, which compromises for no one and nothing, and puts nothing else before it. This is the ultimate, intimate idolatry, whereby one has made oneself a godling, a facsimile I AM. It is very tragic, indeed. It is also a lie and an illusion.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Oh…boomers….they do love their group chants.
I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes — in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work.
As you see, Rev. Ragsdale and I have very different ideas as to what constitutes a saint, and holy work.
Anyway, that was Ragsdale’s big finale. Earlier in the piece, she had another message to deliver, and you need to read that, too, is because we’re going to see doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others being told to go against their consciences or lose their livelihoods. Indeed, talk in that direction has already begun, and Ragsdale delivers the moralistic (and quite specious, condescending and adolescent) “talking points” for her crew:
Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.
But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.
This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them.”
As Rev. Ragsdale likes to say: Let’s be clear: this is genuine disorientation, species diabolical. The only consciences that will be respected are the ones that are aligned with the agenda. This is what “tolerance” has devolved to. “Tolerate me; but I need not tolerate thee.”
Or, to put it another way: Obey;your conscience means nothing to me.
And now, good people, if you would - I have received an email from a young woman who is 7 months pregnant with her first child and who also has been told by doctors that her daughter will not live past her birth. This mother and her husband are prepared to hold and love and kiss this child, and then let her go. But they also believe that - as the angel told Mary - with God nothing is impossible. I have written back to ask her if I may give you more details but in the meantime, please pray for them. As she wrote in her email, “I believe God uses others to keep His children going…”
How funny…in ten words, she articulates the whole mystery of life and love, better than Rev. Ragsdale or I ever could.
Women are screwed up if they think they do not have power:
By the world’s measure, the power of a woman lies in what she “does.” By Christ’s measure - by God’s - woman is intrinsically powerful, simply in her being. She is afforded the power, freedom and respect to “make” or “break” mankind’s connection to the Creator"
"April 2, 2009
“Abortion is a blessing!”
You know, it’s so sick, I really didn’t want to write about it. I linked to Amy Welborn and figured I’d let you folks find this monstrosity on your own, but I want to make sure you read it.
These remarks were made before a NARAL audience, in 2007, but are only just getting some reaction, perhaps because of the current movement to suppress the conscience clause that protects doctors, nurses and pharmacists from losing their jobs, and Catholic hospitals from closing their doors.
Or, perhaps her words are becoming more widely distributed because The Rev Katherine Hancock Ragsdale has just been named Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massacusetts.
If you do not mind, in the interests of space, I am going to put Ragsdale’s sermon in bold, and I’ll respond here and there, in italics
Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let’s be very clear about this: When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
If you actually talk to women who have kept the babies conceived ‘due to violence,’ as I have in my life, you would more likely find that their allowing their child to live has delivered them from their trauma, and brought love, healing and light into a very dark reality. When “violence” has been done to someone, it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that further violence - via both penetration and a ripping, violent murder done deeply WITHIN her body - can be a blessing…unless you subscribe to the odd two-wrongs-make-right equation.
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
These two young mothers and their babies belie the idea that doctors are always correct in their predictions about sustainable life. With extremely rare medical exception, a woman never “requires” an abortion, and even the AMA has testified that late-term abortions are unnecessary, given the availability of safe Cesarean sections, to protect “life” or “health” or “fertility.” It is certainly a crushing and painful thing for any pregnant woman to learn that child she is carrying and nurturing in her womb has a problem and may not live, or may live “differently” than most of us. But healing is a funny thing. It only comes when you walk through the fire rather than by attempting a detour around it. I wonder if Rev. Ragsdale has ever talked to women who have delivered children destined to die, who have managed only to swaddle them, name them and kiss them before burying them. She might learn something about what a powerful, and unending - Eternal - love comes with those experiences. It is the difference between being able to say “I know you and you know me”, and not knowing, at all. Blessings, indeed.
When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
Certainly there are women who struggle with these issues, but there are pretty extensive government programs in place to assist them, and I have never heard of a church that has refused help when a need has been made known. And I reject out of hand the notion that if someone is poor, they should simply kill their children. Barack Obama’s mother surely had few social “justice” mechanisms in place when she chose to give birth to him!
But if Ragsdale is really worried about women being forced to abort because of insufficient government or community help, and if she is sincere about the notion of “informed choice” - including the “choice” not to abort, then perhaps she will head into the monied enclaves of the pro-choice, on the Upper West Side, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Hollywood and elsewhere to urge the establishment of a “Pro-Choice Mother’s Help Foundation,” so that more women have even more resources to help them. It seems to me the pro-abortion side raises enormous amounts of money to support their facilities and their lobbying efforts. Why not spend some of it putting some money on the “life” side of the “choice” they’re so very, very “pro” about? I’d donate to it - a show of good faith.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
Actually, in this scenario, there are several tragedies “in sight.” There is - lest we forget - the ripping and shredding up of a human life (come on, Rev. Ragsdale - it’s a baby - a living being, species human, not vegetable, not wolvine), and more tragically a weird societal validation of the supremacy (and stagnation) of the beloved self, which compromises for no one and nothing, and puts nothing else before it. This is the ultimate, intimate idolatry, whereby one has made oneself a godling, a facsimile I AM. It is very tragic, indeed. It is also a lie and an illusion.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Oh…boomers….they do love their group chants.
I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes — in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work.
As you see, Rev. Ragsdale and I have very different ideas as to what constitutes a saint, and holy work.
Anyway, that was Ragsdale’s big finale. Earlier in the piece, she had another message to deliver, and you need to read that, too, is because we’re going to see doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others being told to go against their consciences or lose their livelihoods. Indeed, talk in that direction has already begun, and Ragsdale delivers the moralistic (and quite specious, condescending and adolescent) “talking points” for her crew:
Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.
But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.
This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them.”
As Rev. Ragsdale likes to say: Let’s be clear: this is genuine disorientation, species diabolical. The only consciences that will be respected are the ones that are aligned with the agenda. This is what “tolerance” has devolved to. “Tolerate me; but I need not tolerate thee.”
Or, to put it another way: Obey;your conscience means nothing to me.
And now, good people, if you would - I have received an email from a young woman who is 7 months pregnant with her first child and who also has been told by doctors that her daughter will not live past her birth. This mother and her husband are prepared to hold and love and kiss this child, and then let her go. But they also believe that - as the angel told Mary - with God nothing is impossible. I have written back to ask her if I may give you more details but in the meantime, please pray for them. As she wrote in her email, “I believe God uses others to keep His children going…”
How funny…in ten words, she articulates the whole mystery of life and love, better than Rev. Ragsdale or I ever could.
Women are screwed up if they think they do not have power:
By the world’s measure, the power of a woman lies in what she “does.” By Christ’s measure - by God’s - woman is intrinsically powerful, simply in her being. She is afforded the power, freedom and respect to “make” or “break” mankind’s connection to the Creator"
01 April 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)